How common was it for parents to lose a child? • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by Gibbon1 » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #26

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.

Pardon the seemingly naive idea. How much life is worse when you're shielded from harsh. I wonder if people weren't more mentally stronger due to the fact that they knew how fragile and dangerous things were. You have to overcome fear and sublimate your existence. Nowadays I (maybe many others) feel like always wondering if I should dive in the pool. And the recent VR era is not helping, someone on IRC was complainin…

Friend of mine is a nurse who at one time worked in a pediatric cardiac ward. She said babies dying was horrible of course. But watching a teenage former patient die was worse.

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

#62

Post by mikeash » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:00 PM UTC

amasad wrote: post #53

mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Programming wasn’t saving thousands of lives in the 1840s. Vaccines were is fairly wide use long before the 1960s. Deaths from smallpox dropped sharply though the 1800s and it was eliminated entirely in many countries.

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

#63

Post by mikeash » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

eej71 wrote: post #50

mikeash wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure about that. The death rate from smallpox was unbelievably high before the vaccine, and it was eliminated or nearly so in many countries well before this supposed 1960s date.

Certainly more recent advancements have been wonderful, and the anti-vaux movement is callously throwing away lives and the hard-fought victories of our ancestors.

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

#64

Post by paggle » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

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.

It was not really commonplace for someone like Bach to have any involvement in raising his children until they were preteens, and then only as an advisor or counselor, not dealing with anything like meals, bathtime, etc.

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

#65

Post by amasad » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #62

amasad wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Programming wasn’t saving thousands of lives in the 1840s. Vaccines were is fairly wide use long before the 1960s. Deaths from smallpox dropped sharply though the 1800s and it was eliminated entirely in many countries.

I think you're missing a basic understanding of what an "analogy" is. Hard to keep this conversation going.

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

#66

Post by amasad » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:17 PM UTC

woodandsteel wrote: post #60

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…

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

I didn't even say anything against vaccines. Simply, it's not the primary driver of decrease in childhood mortality. You're blinded by ideology if you can't have a conversation with resorting to name-calling and reductios.

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

#67

Post by amasad » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #59

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…

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/ind…

> Did the original comment suggest that vaccines were the only cause of this trend?

Did I say they said that? They brought it up and I simply said it's largely irrelevant.

> vaccines for certain things like polio were being used before 1960

From the CDC:

> Before 1962, no formal nationwide immunization program existed.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6004a9.htm

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

#68

Post by watwut » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #26

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.

Pardon the seemingly naive idea. How much life is worse when you're shielded from harsh. I wonder if people weren't more mentally stronger due to the fact that they knew how fragile and dangerous things were. You have to overcome fear and sublimate your existence. Nowadays I (maybe many others) feel like always wondering if I should dive in the pool. And the recent VR era is not helping, someone on IRC was complainin…

Groups countries going through hard times tend to have higher suicide rates, substance abuse, crime rates, violence rates and what not including mental health problems.

So likely not.

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

#69

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by woodandsteel » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

amasad wrote: post #66

woodandsteel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I didn't even say anything against vaccines. Simply, it's not the primary driver of decrease in childhood mortality. You're blinded by ideology if you can't have a conversation with resorting to name-calling and reductios.

No, I didn't say that's your position, I asked.

The reason I asked is your position that vaccines are of minimal importance for childhood mortality is one the anti-vaxxers take, but I am aware that doesn't prove you are one, so I asked. And I am happy to learn you are not an anti-vaxxer.