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

141–150 of 197 posts

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#141

Post by mattlondon »

spenczar5 wrote: post #3

> "By staying home, a pregnant woman may have less stress from commuting and from work, and that might have helped them," Alshaikh said. Ah yes, I'm sure my 7-months-pregnant wife would agree that this has been a lovely, low-stress time. Wouldn't have it any other way.

My wife gave birth just before the lockdown here in the UK.

The stress continues after the baby is born too - regular check-ups, midwife visits, getting vaccinations, emergencies etc all now come with a brand new stress factor of "Am I or my baby going to contract COVID by and end up in intendive care? Or maybe will I contract COVID and give it to my spouse/family?" Even having relatives visit their new grandchild/niece/nephew/cousin/etc feels like a risk, but there is a lot of pressure from friends and family to get hands-on baby time.

Babies cannot wear PPE either.

I've certainly got some more grey hairs now!

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#143

Post by mensetmanusman »

nostromo wrote: post #13
uuilly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Half of premature babies are delivered via c-section and many more are induced, usually because there is some risk to the mother or baby at holding the baby to term.

c-sections are money makers, we left our hospital in Boston when we found they had a 50% c-section rate, ha

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#144

Post by mensetmanusman »

colordrops wrote: post #27
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…

So you're saying people are just pushing through heart attacks then going about their business?

That would explain some of the excess mortality from the covid situation. Besides the induced poverty, this is one mechanism whereby the lock down could have longer lasting damage than the virus.

We can’t judge this yet though, as we don’t have a 10 year lens to look back on what is going on. If there is no vaccine developed, then it is more likely true (since the lockdown just delays the inevitable).

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#145

Post by purple-again »

mam2 wrote: post #132
uuilly wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I could be wrong but I thought that was explained by c section scheduling. Doctors love nothing more than a tight schedule and birth is anything but that.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#146

Post by mensetmanusman »

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…

Sorry to hear about these experiences. It reminds me of the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Business leaders may (wrongly, or not) think that putting women on projects that will get delayed by pregnancy will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#147

Post by mensetmanusman »

akiselev wrote: post #109
dungdang wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not a plot. that's a refusal to let you externalize your baby costs to innocent people. do you want your company, which hired you to write code, to pay for your diapers too? what do they have to do with you having a baby? why are they paying you money when you are not working? why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? baby -awesome. you were hired for…

> why are they expected to spend more total money on you, than your equal who chose not to have a baby? Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dol…

I’m a father with a handful of children, and I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable that in a fair society non-parents would make more than parents due to the extra time they would put towards their job.

Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#148

Post by mensetmanusman »

ben_w wrote: post #129
nearbuy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree. I'm not following how this relates to the comment you're replying to. Are you saying that women are the original victims of capitalism? Or that capitalism was created by men? Or something el…

I’m denying the claim “were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?” Lots of men had their humanity disregarded, but women were treated worse, and that legacy continued for a very long time. These issues still exist in some places, based on what I’ve seen reported by trans people who transition so successfully that people who knew them before the transitio…

As an aside, playing the ‘who is the greater victim game’ is a meaningless exercise that doesn’t focus on the simple facts of life: there is suffering, be a friend to those in need.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#149

Post by mensetmanusman »

ratsoman2 wrote: post #51
Fiveplus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a baby is such a crucial and important event in any woman's life that a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave seems like a viable mandated right I would whole-heartedly support.

As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?

This question is exactly why the federal govt has to level the playing field. It should be a tax incentive for companies to have workers on leave for reasons that support the health of society.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#150

Post by Viliam1234 »

prerok wrote: post #102
ratsoman2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?

The pay during maternity leave is covered by the state. I am guessing this holds for all countries but I can only say for sure for my country. It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.

Exactly, when the state pays the maternity leave, it doesn't create a disincentive for the employers.

Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc.

Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels.

For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.

Post reply on HN