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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by mikeash »

amasad wrote: post #65
mikeash wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Programming had essentially zero real-world impact before the 1950s. The analogy you’re trying to make is that vaccines existed but had virtually no real world impact before the 1960s. Did I get that right? Because that’s what I understood, and it’s severely wrong.

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

#72

Post by amasad »

woodandsteel wrote: post #70
amasad wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think where your mind is going is a form of Mccarthyism or "guilt by association." In a public conversation, connecting someone to a label like "anti-vaxxer" or "truther," even if you don't make the actual accusation is a form of slander. Then holding someone intellectually hostage and saying "I'm glad you're not X," as if I'm beholden to what you think of me, is sleazy to say the least.

You might not be doing this consciously, but you are doing it nonetheless.

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

#73

Post by lovehashbrowns »

amasad wrote: post #67
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not largely irrelevant because this discussion isn't about how much of an effect vaccinations had on child mortality rates.

You either cherry picked that quote or you missed the sentence right after that which talks about private practices and local health department programs. Look at the source I linked, please.

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

#75

Post by yellowapple »

bena wrote: post #56
eej71 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is unfortunately not exactly how my own music career went.

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

#76

Post by yellowapple »

bt848 wrote: post #28

We don’t really understand the human condition of the past, even when it is within living memory. A related aspect of life that has been practically eradicated is teenage motherhood. 18-19 years at birth of first child was the most common age for Americans in the middle of the 20th century. 40-year-old grandparents were common. That was just 60 years past, but we view everything differently today.

I wouldn't call teenage motherhood "practically eradicated", at least here in the US. Two of my sisters had kids before they were 18; one is (like me) a millennial, and the other is (I'd reckon) Gen Z. They ain't exactly outliers, either; teen pregnancy is still pretty commonplace, especially in impoverished areas.

Thankfully, my sisters were part of a big family that was happy to share the burden of raising these kids and hopefully allowing them to live happy and healthy lives (and the numerous nieces and nephews I got out of it have been absolute blessings). Not every teenage mother has that resource, unfortunately.

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

#77

Post by yellowapple »

soperj wrote: post #18

Reminds me that the Inca didn't use to name their children until either 2 or 3 years of age, because of how likely the were to die.

Pretty common to see things like "Child Jones" or "Son Adams" or "Daughter Johnson" or similar placeholders even in Western family trees. Lots of kids wouldn't get names until they were at least a couple years old.

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

#78

Post by equalunique »

fromthestart wrote: post #44
jbattle wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>acid producing bacteria thrive on refined sugars

The way my dentist put it, and it's stuck with me, is: Tooth decay is caused by the bacteria in your mouth eating sugar and peeing acid.

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

#79

Post by agumonkey »

watwut wrote: post #68
agumonkey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for your answer.

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

#80

Post by AstralStorm »

bena wrote: post #56
eej71 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He also played organ in cathedral. That was his day job.
Post reply on HN