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

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#191

Post by pizza_boy »

spenczar5 wrote: post #37
ninjanomnom wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely personal perspective I have genuinely been less stressed recently and like the current situation. Obviously I know this pandemic is an awful event for many people and you were (I think?) being sarcastic. But I would be surprised if there wasn't at least some portion of mothers feeling similarly. Is it enough to account for the changes we're seeing? I suspect it's more than one factor.

Believe me, I get it. I kind of have preferred this myself. But for pregnancy, which is already a terrifying ordeal, consider: - Can't go to the hospital for ultrasound or other routine procedures; the hospital is too dangerous. Gotta fly pretty much blind. - Haven't met any other first-time parents, haven't been able to do PEP classes. We feel pretty alone. - Going to need to take parental leave... indefinitely? Ear…

I hope this comes across as helpful and not one-upmanship: it is natural to think that having a child is like many of the other things you're used to in life where you can control the outcome.

That can lead to you worrying about and optimising for lots of things that won't matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

I can tell you from first hand experience that you are not in control. You will know you are in a truly stressful situation when you've forgetten about all of the items you've listed above because you're standing there watching, not sure what is going on, just hoping that everything is going to be ok.

I hope you never get to that point and in the meantime try enjoy the ride. I wish you and your family all the best!

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#192

Post by dungdang »

akiselev wrote: post #184
dungdang wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. You mean when we were in tribal, nomadic societies? When all people did was hunt, gather, and take care of their young? Yeah, of course we didn't have maternity leave fr…

so you are delusional. no, 50 years ago, before maternity leave, we were not a 'tribal society.' you also literally think no maternity leave would wipe humans off the planet. this is not sane.

and as far as teenage angst... i'm 40 years old and married. and when i see resumes of women who i think might have kids within 5 years, i throw them in the trash. nit because of maternity leave, but because i don't want entitled people working with me. enjoy your grip.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#193

Post by nearbuy »

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…

Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women.

I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have suffered more from sexism.

Incidentally, and unrelated to that point, you chose oddly mild examples of bad treatment of women. I'd much rather live in a society where I couldn't vote or charge my spouse with rape than be a coal miner and suffer from black lung and be in significant danger of dying in a workplace accident. You could have gone with the awful treatment of women under the Taliban, to name one example.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#194

Post by ben_w »

nearbuy wrote: post #193
ben_w wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women. I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have…

Noted, and thanks for keeping it polite. :)

I find your preferences shocking, considering when childbirth anaesthetic was invented, when abortions and woman-centric contraceptives became commonplace, and when the idea of doctors washing their hands between autopsies and the maternity ward became common sense rather than being treated as an insult.

I really couldn’t use the Taliban. They’re (1) modern day and (2) primarily a theocracy.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#195

Post by nearbuy »

ben_w wrote: post #194
nearbuy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women. I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have…

Noted, and thanks for keeping it polite. :) I find your preferences shocking, considering when childbirth anaesthetic was invented, when abortions and woman-centric contraceptives became commonplace, and when the idea of doctors washing their hands between autopsies and the maternity ward became common sense rather than being treated as an insult. I really couldn’t use the Taliban. They’re (1) modern day and (2) prim…

I think we're just interpreting how the hypothetical choice works differently. You're right, I wouldn't want to live in the 18th or 19th century at all. But I'd prefer to not be able to vote (in isolation of other factors) to being a coal miner (in isolation of other factors).

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#196

Post by stanfordkid »

nearbuy wrote: post #193
ben_w wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women. I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have…

Thank you. I'm all for the Simone de Beauvoir flavor of feminism. I understand that women want more power, even if it is in a corrupt system -- but the problem I have with "Lean In" feminism is that it serves as cover for exploitation... it is, in our cultural zeitgeist, somehow "okay" for a black woman like Condoleeza Rice to bomb Iraqis -- does blackness and femininty now serve as the perfect mask and disguise for capital and oppression?... should we not elevate our consciousness towards an overarching view of the system?

Yes, the industrial system was not built for women... it was built to make cheap knick-knacks... which has no relation to having babies. It is indifferent to women, not beneficial by design to men... the scape-goating is counter-productive, and behind the male mask -- falls to deaf ears. That is my point.

Re: Fewer premature babies born since Covid-19 lockdown

#197

Post by mam2 »

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.

That would be kinda sad though
Post reply on HN