Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 197 posts

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#131

Post by postingawayonhn »

dependenttypes wrote: post #112
i_cannot_hack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [School] should be left up to the parents to pay for So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor enter adulthood illiterate and completely uneducated, without the basic life skills necessary in a modern society. I think our worldviews are simply too different for us to come to an understanding here. All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person.

> So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. > enter adulthood illiterate You do not need schools to educate someone (an extremely limited amount of the stuff that I learned came from school, it was certainly not worth what I had to endure there). Nowadays we have the internet, in the past we had libraries…

> If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any.

And if they have them anyway you suggest we punish the children?

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#132

Post by mam2 »

uuilly wrote: post #11
nostromo wrote: post #8

Heart attacks are similarly down 40-60%. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/well/live/coronavirus-doc... And cancer diagnoses are down by half. https://youtu.be/TWF8KLKy-I0 Of course, no, they aren’t down, it’s just that people that absolutely should be going to the hospital aren’t and they’re endangering their lives trying to avoid COVID-19. Could something similar be at play here? I laughed out loud when they sugge…

Difference is you can't "hold in" a pre-term birth b/c you're afraid of covid.

I think the surprising truth is that women may, inconsciously or to some extent, influence the time of birth.

If you look at the distribution of birth per calendar days there are unusual spikes and distributions on special days such as valentines day and i'm not sure this could explain by people deciding to have specifically more sex 9 month before considering the "supposed" randomness of the day of birth aound the 9 month mark..

http://thedailyviz.com/2016/09/17/how-common-is-your-birthda...

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#133

Post by irrational »

ketzo wrote: post #71
irrational wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the plot by patriarchy was trying to keep women at home instead of in the workforce?

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT…

So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#134

Post by dependenttypes »

postingawayonhn wrote: post #131
dependenttypes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. > enter adulthood illiterate You do not need schools to educate someone (an extremely limited amount of the stuff that I learned came from school, it was certainly not worth what I had to endure there). Nowadays we have the internet, in the past we had libraries…

> If you do not have enough money to pay for your children then you should not have any. And if they have them anyway you suggest we punish the children?

No, why would we?

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#135

Post by watwut »

irrational wrote: post #133
ketzo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT…

So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.

There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement.

And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues".

Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#136

Post by nosewings »

irrational wrote: post #133
ketzo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT…

So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.

Is it really impossible to imagine that things change?

Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#137

Post by watwut »

stanfordkid wrote: post #53
motakraxxer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.

I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby. I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine…

Funny thing is, wifes in mining areas did earn own money, for themselves and kids, because males were dying much sooner then women.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#138

Post by mattlondon »

ancientworldnow wrote: post #69
GekkePrutser wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was thinking the same.. This is not a low stress time. I've not been so stressed (and depressed) for a long time.

There's lots of evidence from fitness tracker companies that most people (who use fitness trackers at least) are indeed less stressed.

Not many heavily pregnant people will be out doing strenuous exercise!

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#139

Post by feralimal »

Nevermind the 3 causes they are looking at.

I think that this is very likely due to removal/lessening of the impact of doctors on what is a natural process. If doctors are less involved, things take their natural course without problems.

Let's not forget, that the third largest cause of death (higher than covid) is iatrogenic death: https://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-induced-iatrogenic-disord...

There is, in fact, a strong case to be made for closing doctors, hospitals, etc down, in order to increase the populations health!

EDIT - I don't know why my comment is being downvoted. I think I'm making a rational, reasonable argument! If you disagree, no problem! But perhaps state why you think what I'm suggesting is wrong.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#140

Post by gridlockd »

ketzo wrote: post #71
irrational wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the plot by patriarchy was trying to keep women at home instead of in the workforce?

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT…

It's not ignorance, it's common business sense. Suppose you couldn't work full-time because of reason X. It doesn't matter what reason X is, I can not use your work in the same way, if for no other reason than Brooks's law applying.

Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business.

Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.

Post reply on HN