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

How common was it for parents to lose a child?

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 84 posts

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#41

Post by mikeash »

amasad wrote: post #9
massysett wrote: post #6

The decline in child mortality explains why anti-vaxxers are getting footing. They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#42

Post by amasad »

mikeash wrote: post #41
amasad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

No.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#43

Post by eej71 »

mikeash wrote: post #41
amasad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

I think its misleading to equate what was available then - both in quality and quantity - with what has been available in the modern world for the last 70 years.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#44

Post by fromthestart »

jbattle wrote: post #34
marktangotango wrote: post #2

This is something that struck me when reading Dickens; people died, a lot. One thing it highlights to me is the importance of modern medicine and antibiotics. Another thing is how different the human experience is now for most of the world; children and death are much less common (for most) than previous centuries. Sure this is common knowledge, but taken for granted I believe.

I remember being struck by the fact that most people had teeth go bad and basically rot in place. If you lived near someone with skills they'd grab it with tongs and rip it out, no anesthesia. And this was probably an almost universal experience (for those that lived long enough)

I don't know that I can find any sources to cite but I once wrote some code for an anthropologist analyzing prehistoric tooth scans, and he mentioned that modern dental carries are substantially more common now than they were in the past because acid producing bacteria thrive on refined sugars that weren't used in modern quantities until fairly recent history.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#45

Post by mikeash »

eej71 wrote: post #43
mikeash wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that vaccines were introduced in the late 1700s, not the mid 1960s.

I think its misleading to equate what was available then - both in quality and quantity - with what has been available in the modern world for the last 70 years.

I think it’s misleading to act like vaccines weren’t saving kids’ lives until my parents’ generation.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#47

Post by peter303 »

Another aspect of frequent death more than century ago was blended families. A widow or widower usually remarried soon after the mourning period because it was hard for single parents. If both parents passed together, then children were quickly adopted into other families needing labor. Shiffs book on the Salem Witch Trials has a long section on blended families. She attributed that causing some of tensions leading to witch accusations.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#48

Post by moosey »

For those desiring an affirmative defence of the Enlightenment; reason, science, and humanism (which I think falls short ethically, but is a subset of what I try to practice), then I would strongly suggest reading "Enlightenment Now", by Steven Pinker. He makes a few broad generalizations of political groups, but I wouldn't try to argue against the specific policy recommendations that he has. Similar data is covered in so many different disciplines that it left me with incredible optimism that I continue to carry.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#50

Post by eej71 »

mikeash wrote: post #45
eej71 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its misleading to equate what was available then - both in quality and quantity - with what has been available in the modern world for the last 70 years.

I think it’s misleading to act like vaccines weren’t saving kids’ lives until my parents’ generation.

I think it's fair to say that the uptick in lives that were saved made a huge leap forward with the arrival of industrialized medicine which is to say mass produced vaccines made available to the many and of course the arrival of vaccines for even more diseases that were not previously covered.

I hope we can agree that the recent down tick in the rate of vaccinations is a step backwards.

Post reply on HN