Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown • Hacker News Board

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#171

Post by HelloMcFly » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #160

bananaface wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's straight-up cyberpunk horror territory. What the actual fuck

Could many of those C-sections be at the request of the mother? I know quite a few professional women who have scheduled C-sections (or just induced births) so they can "manage" the delivery better. Seems crazy to me, but not my body, child, or career.

Unless there's a medical need it's not ethical to give a c-section as it creates greater risk of complication (including and especially death), more long-term effects, worse effects on the child, and just so happens to make the hospital more money. Of course if there is a medical need then they should be done, but it's not like tonsilectomy.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#172

Post by ballenf » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #143

nostromo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The pressure to schedule an induction up to a week or so early is also very strong. The sales pitch is "we can schedule at a convenient time for you and ensure that you'll have a bed". Implying that you're being super irresponsible by letting nature decide when the baby's ready. It all just feels like the OB/GYN is worried about their schedule more than the baby's or mother's well-being.

And c-sections are definitely subtly encouraged even if there's not a real need.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#173

Post by newen » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:12 PM UTC

bananaface wrote: post #161

alistairSH wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could many of those C-sections be at the request of the mother? I know quite a few professional women who have scheduled C-sections (or just induced births) so they can "manage" the delivery better. Seems crazy to me, but not my body, child, or career.

That also seems horrifying & cyperpunk to me but I doubt a significant chunk of women choose it, let alone independently.

In India, it's something of a fashion and women choose it because its convenient, etc.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#174

Post by ballenf » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

purple-again wrote: post #145

mam2 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Had a child due around Christmas in our family, and I think both you and parent are both correct. The mother really didn't want to miss Christmas and the doctor offered to schedule an early induction. They didn't offer to induce on Christmas Day, eve or the day after. The baby came a couple days after Christmas.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#175

Post by ballenf » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #158

tasogare wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Late stage pregnancy mothers legitimately need less physical strain and more opportunity to take care of their bodies or the baby comes early. Keeping the same active pace of work for a few weeks in the third trimester can cost years of additional effort and suffering as a premature baby may accrue permanent damage. You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. This is…

> You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. Which "traditional" societies? Because you sure as hell didn't stop working in any pre-agrarian, post-agrarian, industrial or ... you know any society on Earth prior to the invention of the white-collar job.

If you lived in a multi-generational household, your share of the household labor absolutely decreased. And neighbors also picked up some of the slack.

I'm talking about early 1900s, based on stories from my grandparents about what life was like.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#176

Post by bananaface » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 3:59 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #173

bananaface wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That also seems horrifying & cyperpunk to me but I doubt a significant chunk of women choose it, let alone independently.

In India, it's something of a fashion and women choose it because its convenient, etc.

India is cheating

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#177

Post by OJFord » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

williamdclt wrote: post #122

OJFord wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can 'hold in' cancer?

It's not about cancer deaths, it's cancer diagnoses. Don't go to the hospital/doctor => no diagnosis

Oh if that's what the commentor I replied to meant, I misunderstood completely. :thumbs-up:

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#178

Post by dungdang » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

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…

you have to be kidding. you do know our species did just fine for 200,000 years, before maternity leave, which is a recent thing. you think humanity will die out if a policy that's maybe 50 years old is cancelled? please tell me you're not serious.

a vast majority of voters are of course going to vote for what benefit them, not the company that employs them -that is not proof of what is right or ethical.

the company doesn't magically pick up the bill. they simply pay all people a little less, while spending more on just the ones with babies. this means people without babies pay for the babies. in no way is that fair. biology is unfair. that doesn't mean you can just pass on the cost to innocent bystanders.

being short is unfair. should i pay for short people?

our species behaves just fine. parents have an extra burden and need to be financially secure to handle a baby. without forcing random others to help with that. because it's unethical, and the term for that is tyranny of the majority. two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

but cool. let's go with your voter idea. let's let the whites vote on whether blacks should be slaves.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#179

Post by dungdang » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 5:01 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #147

akiselev wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

tax rebates -aka a tax deduction for each child already exists. this passes the tax burden to people without kids, and is also unfair. rebates would also be unfair. a child is not a rebate. what i don't get is why a child is treated as a child for taxes.

a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids.

this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#180

Post by dependenttypes » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 5:30 PM UTC

jlg23 wrote: post #168

dependenttypes wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> women are just too stupid to have abortions or to sell their babies for a good price directly after giving birth? ...what? Not sure what this has to do with stupidity. > but what you said sounds like women actually had a choice They do. They can use protection, abort, or simply stay without a wage during the time of pregnancy. Or... they could accept the maternity leave as a gift if their employer decides to provid…

* birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects (edit: and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb) * Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal * Staying without wage is not an option when you need to feed yourself and t…

> birth control women can apply comes with sometimes severe side effects

Condoms exist.

> and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb

Time to fix it.

> Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal

Time to fix that as well.

> I still fail to see where the actual choices are.

How about not having sex in addition with birth control and abortion? Anyway, I am pretty sure that most women who take maternity leave actually wanted to have a child.