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

51–60 of 84 posts

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

#51

Post by teunispeters »

Judging by families I've known - even if you ignore the still common stillbirths (something that's heartbreaking for those it happens to) - it's still pretty high. My own family lost one, another family I know lost some, know others who lost some too. It's still too common.

I've known too many people who probably wouldn't have survived childbirth either, if it weren't for modern medicine. (particularly including my own mother)

This is all changes within "recent history" - my great grandparents were born before any of this were available.

I came close to dying too, of a disease that now has widespread vaccination. That vaccination wasn't available when I was little, and that disease still kills many where such isn't available - and most particularly children. And one will live the rest of one's life with the complications in a bad case.

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

#52

Post by gilbetron »

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…

The statement about "modest" effect was, by my reading, about the 1990s, and the link to the study "[9]" seems to verify this.

"Although improvements in medical care were the main force for declines in infant mortality during the second half of the century, public health actions played a role. During the 1990s, a greater than 50% decline in SIDS rates (attributed to the recommendation that infants be placed to sleep on their backs) has helped to reduce the overall infant mortality rate (8). The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality (9)."

9 = https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm4629.pdf

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

#53

Post by amasad »

mikeash wrote: post #46
amasad wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_vaccines

This is like saying we've been 'programming' since Ada Lovelace wrote the first program in the 1840, which is silly to say the least. The CDC starts measure after a vaccine has passed the 'licensure' process: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm

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

#54

Post by jd75 »

Did I miss something, or does this article say that, for example, if one parent lost 5 children, that means that on average 5 parents lost 1 child each?

It's an interesting topic and the recent bumps on the graph have me wondering what caused young child deaths to rise in the '80s and '00s.

But unless I missed different numbers than averaging all child deaths across all parents, it doesn't answer the question in the title at all.

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

#55

Post by jd75 »

eej71 wrote: post #33
riffraff wrote: post #8

One thing that shocked me was finding out J.S. Bach had 20 children, out of two marriages. Of these, 4 died during birth, and 6 died within the first five years. I can't even imagine what losing ten kids would be like, even if you have ten more.

Not to make light of his loss, but even with ten kids, I marvel at his ability to crank out as much music as he did! I can't imagine any peace and quiet at home for concentration.

Women's domestic enslavement was a wonderful thing.

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

#56

Post by bena »

eej71 wrote: post #33
riffraff wrote: post #8

One thing that shocked me was finding out J.S. Bach had 20 children, out of two marriages. Of these, 4 died during birth, and 6 died within the first five years. I can't even imagine what losing ten kids would be like, even if you have ten more.

Not to make light of his loss, but even with ten kids, I marvel at his ability to crank out as much music as he did! I can't imagine any peace and quiet at home for concentration.

He apparently only did two things: Compose and have sex.

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

#57

Post by late2part »

kps wrote: post #32
muro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people died, a lot As always, as many people die, as are born :). We got better at hiding the fact - by letting people die in hospitals, in homes for elderly (western world) just so it's out of sight and we are less reminded of death. On average, people live longer, yet it's not that they die "less".

A hundred years ago, 98% of all people were dead. Today it's only 93%. With some effort, we should be able to reduce that further.

How low can it go?

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

#58

Post by late2part »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #4

I have said for a long time that having a child die is one of the most human experiences (more flagrantly "welcome to being human"). We are fortunate to live in a time where it has become a rarity. Nice to see someone try to put numbers on it.

miscarriage is still sadly common, and some of us believe that is a child dying, and it is sad.

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

#59

Post by lovehashbrowns »

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…

I'm confused by your post. Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend? The comment even states that "They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine," which doesn't only include vaccines. In either case, vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960, https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/us-polio..., so I don't understand your comment.

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

#60

Post by woodandsteel »

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…

So is it your position that things would go just fine if we followed the anti-vaxxers advice?
Post reply on HN