From: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/934056 edit: Non-paywalled: https://outline.com/MZUPk3
> The incidence of stillbirth was significantly higher during the pandemic period (16 of 1,718 births; 9.31 per 1,000 births) than the prepandemic period (four of 1,681 births; 2.38 per 1,000), a difference of 6.93 stillbirths per 1,000 births.
A hypothesis put forth by the authors on why this is:
> they say the uptick in stillbirths may be due to indirect effects such as a reluctance to go to the hospital when needed (such as in the case of reduced fetal movements), fear of contracting COVID-19, or not wanting to further burden the National Health Service. Changes in obstetric services may also have played a role.
If you look at their stillbirth rate in the whole of 2017 (rather than an arbitrarily short period immediately before covid), you find their stillbirth rate was 4.21 per 1,000.
They went from 4.21 in 2017, to 2.38 in a few months in 2019, then 9.31 in 2020?
The UK hasn't really been improving in stillbirth rates, so it would be very impressive if they'd halved theirs.
Source, the UK's national perinatal death surveillance report (pdf, page 88): https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/mbrrace-uk/report...
Would 4.21 -> 9.32 still have been significant on that small a sample size?
And cancer diagnoses are down by half.
Of course, no, they aren’t down, it’s just that people that absolutely should be going to the hospital aren’t and they’re endangering their lives trying to avoid COVID-19.
Could something similar be at play here?
I laughed out loud when they suggested that this is a “low stress” time to be pregnant. All indicators show the opposite.
Like with coronary and cardiovascular diseases, I imagine long-term impacts won't be known for several years.
And c-sections are definitely subtly encouraged even if there's not a real need.
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 month mark..
Basically when I've been working out it always thinks I'm stressed because my heartrate is still high, and when I'm all stressed in work it shows the lowest possible :S
I think it's just not possible to measure something as complex as stress using so few metrics. Same with sleep tracking. When I had a sleep study done I was wired up like a borg :D Checked the sleep tracking on my watch later with the graphs I received and it didn't match at all.
They're good at showing raw stats like footsteps, location and heartrate (and tracking them over time for laps/pace etc) but that's about it. But I don't trust their derived measurements at all. If the other trackers work like my watch, they'll think you're super relaxed if you haven't been working out.
No data from me, only a personal anecdote.
I avoided the ER during a severe illness comprising intense bloating, severe pain, and constant vomiting for about five days roughly a month ago.
I ended up in the hospital for about eight days and was discharged just over a week ago. Turns out I'd suffered a severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis attack and just "battled through" with gatorade, water (when I could keep fluids down) and sleep. I even worked from home in between falling over on the couch!
I just really didn't want to visit the hospital. Figured it was a bad stomach bug or bad take out.
No—it turns out I was lucky to avoid the ICU and am going to be dealing with it for the next 6-12 months, if not permanently. I lost about 30 lbs in a couple of weeks because I couldn't really eat.
Even now I'm doing what I can to prevent a premature return to the hospital outside of appointments. The intake procedure is slower and requires more attention than normal from people suffering and in pain.
It's quite stressful. And this is in Canada where I didn't have to worry about a single hospital bill after multiple CT scans, ultrasounds, XRays, medications, regular blood work and blood cultures, and a semi-private hospital bed.
Outside of the stress of health issues, the worst thing I've had to endure is my employer asking me to have an insurance form filled out by my attending doctor in case I have to be re-admitted. It's difficult organizing having forms filled out when most appointments are held over the phone presently.
I can't imagine the burden of trying to navigate grants and massive bills on top of it all.
So what's the advertising campaign going to look like to get people to start going again? "Get that hernia repaired" just doesn't sound that catchy.
People are absolutely putting off going to the doctor or hospital for symptoms and problems that they can at least convince themselves are "nothing" or which will get better on their own.
I did it myself in May for a probable pinched nerve. (I did talk to a doctor friend of mine admittedly and she didn't think it was something that needed urgent medical attention and it has largely subsided on its own for now.) But it was definitely at the point where I would normally have gone to see my doctor.
“The most concerning possible explanation is that people stay home and suffer rather than risk coming to the hospital and getting infected with coronavirus. This theory suggests that Covid-19 has instilled fear of face-to-face medical care. As a result, many people with urgent health problems may be opting to remain at home rather than call for help. And when they do finally seek medical attention, it is often only after their condition has worsened. Doctors from Hong Kong reported an increase in patients coming to the hospital late in the course of their heart attack, when treatment is less likely to be lifesaving.”
This is, of course, a very bad thing for the health outcome of a patient, and it is far preferable that they get early treatment. But it is certainly quite possible to live after a heart attack.
It’s in fact a common enough phenomenon that Harvard writes articles about it: https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-attack/when-heart-attac...
We can’t judge this yet though, as we don’t have a 10 year lens to look back on what is going on. If there is no vaccine developed, then it is more likely true (since the lockdown just delays the inevitable).
Do we have any clear data for this link of causality? Isn't it just one guess among many as to why?
It is unlikely single factor explains the entirety of the changes in these metrics and I actually doubt healthcare usage reluctance will turn out to be the primary factor.
If I try to book an appointment with my GP it tells me I can't, they only do over the phone consultancies unless it's an emergency.
So at least here it's not even reluctance but rather the lack of possibility to see a doctor.
Here in Germany it was easy for my partner to get an appointment at her GP. She also asked and that particular GP didn’t see a single COVID case. Not every German city is like that, certainly, but that shows what a difference in the lived experience different reaction times, measures and luck played.
For most people it isn't, but for some people it is. If you are financially secure, then staying at home with no obligations could very well be relaxing.
I thoroughly enjoyed the lockdown until about a month ago, when I started getting tired of it. I spent every day out in the woods reading.
Regarding that (and since we are hackers here), I bought myself one of these last year:
Pretty affordable and it works really well, readings match another device I have which was much more costly.
Since then I turn it on from time to time, I live in an apartment near a highway, I am impressed by:
How much air quality changes between days, during the day and depending on whether there's traffic or not,
how much it changes due to household activities (cooking, cleaning).
and how it changes when someone is smoking, even outside of my unit.
Thanks to this I have developed a routine of opening/closing windows at certain times that allows me to improve the average air quality inside my place. If I had the time (and some actuators) I could probably automate that, that would be cool yeah :D.
I highly recommend getting one of these or a similar sensor. Also, I'm looking to find something similar but capable of measuring CO and CO2, if anyone knows let me know.
I use this to measure the outside PM2.5 and PM10 which did indeed drop a lot during the lockdown. Inside I have a Xiaomi air purifier which also measures PM2.5. Everything's wired up to home assistant.
I don't see many issues indoor, it never really exceeds 10, even when I'm cooking or vacuuming (though the kitchen is on the other side of the house). I thought it wasn't working right, in fact, but then one time there was a small fire outside in a bin. I just smelled it a bit in the house, there was no visible smoke, but the purifier went right up to 200 (and beyond) in seconds :)
But I can recommend getting a purifier, it does really help. I have bad hayfever and when I have the thing off for a day I really feel it (during the hayfever season of course).
I have some suggestions for bare boards/chips that you can program yourself and run your own self-hosted IoT cloud over WiFi.
CO: $8  +  and very very easy. Great place to start, but these sensors have a reputation for being somewhat garbage (see downthread discussion for more detail). I wouldn't use it as an emergency carbon monoxide alarm but it'll do sensitive measurements (10 to 500ppm), even if it's not accurate and I'd guess not particularly repeatable over time. There are more expensive ones available which may be more reputable. Just need an arduino or any other micro controller. I personally like  because it has built-in WiFi but still very cheap. I run a basic web server on them that exposes the data to Prometheus/Grafana. See .
CO2: $60 here and you'll want a $10-20 ESP32 or ESP8266 to go with it. Arduino libraries are already written for it and the Arduion IDE has good support for ESP32 so I doubt it would be much work at all to test on / port to ESP32 and fix any porting bugs when they pop up. Alternatively if you feel like writing the interface from scratch you can go down the $40 for equivalent parts from Arrow, DigiKey, or Mouser. Honestly - interfacing with these things is generally not complicated at all as long as there aren't hardware bugs or undocumented behavior.
tVOC: $20 here It looks like your PM 2.5 sensor does not also measure total VOC, so this could be handy. For a very scientific breakdown of how a metal-oxide detecting chip can be used to calculate VOC's, see the following. Thankfully, there is free firmware supplied by sparkfun which does all the heavy lifting, but whenever you're using a chip cross-purposes its good to double-check the math and science.
I personally combine these kinds of sensors with the WiFi-enabled ESP8266 or ESP32 microcontrollers, which make for ~$20+ USB-flash drive sized sensors I can litter around the apartment/outside. I like controlling my own cloud, because I can't stand how Nest only provided 7 days of historical data, or reliance on cloud servers for things like itead.cc / EWeLink apps. It's stupidly simple to set up Prometheus and Grafana to self-host your own cloud. See mine here
If anyone decides to go this route and gets stuck anywhere, feel free to ping me. Email in profile.
0: (CO sensor) https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9403
1: (Board for easy soldering/mounting) https://www.sparkfun.com/products/8891
2: (Cheap ESP32) https://www.microcenter.com/product/613822/inland-esp32-wroo...
3: (HTTP server running on $10 microcontroller) http://esp32.rosskoepke.com/
4: (CO2 sensor) https://www.sparkfun.com/products/15112
5: (MOx sensor which is programmed to output tVOC -- I would not trust the CO2 though) https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14193
I'd love to see that Danish fellow's research to get a sense for how terrible the non-flammable gas sensors are as well.
I might have suggested a more expensive/reputable sensor but as I remarked in another reply -- it's my opinion that any solid-state gas sensor should probably be verified and calibrated against reference gas compositions. Let me know if I'm mistaken though! I just find it difficult to trust any manufacturer's datasheet claims.
I also tried to state in my original post that the CO sensor shouldn't be used in a safety-critical application. But I'll make another note to make sure people read these down-thread discussions so they're not mislead.
Considering the effects of even small CO2 level increases on mental abilities, I'm looking forward to an indoor CO2 scrubber to get back below 300 and ideally below 200 ppm in the office/living room.
If you want a "cheaper" sensor that does measure all the way to 0ppm, I could suggest this one  for $70 at digikey.
Realistically I think any solid-state gas sensor is generally going to require calibration with reference gases --- and that totally sucks. For CO2 there are some affordable options but some other gases I've looked at are pretty unreasonable for hobbyists. I've decided that I'm personally okay with inaccuracy as long as it has good repeatability. Your needs may be different, but for me it's not so much that I need to know the exact number, but rather that I need to be able to chart trends/cycles over weekly/monthly timelines. I also accept that my sensors will drift up/down over long timelines and I try to account for that possibility in any analysis I do.
It's less than optimal, but as a hobbyist the sacrifices don't completely kill the endeavor.
You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. This is not a plot by the so-called patriarchy but something that have been intuitively understood by humanity for millennia: woman need lot of rest before and after the baby is born.
Even asking about pregnancy/child plans in a interview is illegal.
It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.
Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc.
Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels.
For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.
Employers factor in that risk in their employee payment budget, build up reserves for it in accounting (same as they do with people falling sick or having regular PTO), in some cases governments step in and subsidize wages and that's it.
Employers as a class in general will not ever hand away such things voluntarily, they had to be fought for violently over a hundred years ago in collective action.
This way as someone who interviews people it doesn't matter if they are men or women, you know that some will have children, some won't, but we will cope when they are away. And they will be back again. Far far more of our men and women return to work and stay with the company after having children than the UK average. I haven't personally benefitted from this (I had my kids when at another company with just 2 week paternity leave) but it makes me happy to see colleagues able to use this time to grow close to their child and also return to work rested and happy.
We also have great flexibility in working patterns that has only increased since the pandemic. Happy humans deliver great work.
Caveat: I’m still learning German, and this is a second-hand description from a coworker who is a father but isn’t an employment lawyer
Which "traditional" societies? Because you sure as hell didn't stop working in any pre-agrarian, post-agrarian, industrial or ... you know any society on Earth prior to the invention of the white-collar job.
I'm talking about early 1900s, based on stories from my grandparents about what life was like.
Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business.
Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.
Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?
And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues".
Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.
The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).
I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?
I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.
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 , I disagree.
Separately, I would argue that while capitalism will exploit such prejudices, I don’t think it is the origin of them.
 obvious trigger warning applies: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html
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 else?
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 transition mistook them for their own opposite gendered siblings and treated them differently in accordance with gender stereotypes rather than by merit.
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.
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.
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.
"Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias").
This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England.
"Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women.
> capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force
Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system.
Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".
Certainly. Would you say that I am being punished if I did not have such a highway though?
Or neither should.
> In most countries they do
> but European countries
I am living in one.
> y'all boys
Not a boy
> telling women creating you has no economic value
I did not say that.
> this entitled nonsense
So I am entitled for saying that you are not entitled to money that you did not earn? What?
> while you scoop up those six figure salaries
More like barely 5 figure salaries.
You do not know me, do not act like you do.
> In addition to maternity leave, there is the option for the mother or father to take extended parental leave for up to a total of 24 months, with a parental allowance of 300 to 1200 Euros (depending on salary), paid by the government for the initial 14 months.
My brother used this for his first child, so I’m quite certain it exists.
> depending on salary
I never understood why they make it scale. Apparently Australia has parental leave too but at the minimum wage.
You care enough to call me one.
> Your views are sexist
Because I think that the taxpayers nor the employers should be forced to pay neither men nor women maternity leave?
> If I knew how little you made I wouldn't even considered you a developer who has opinions on this.
Sorry for chosing to be born in a poor country I guess. (besides, it is not as if unpaid people who are developers of open source software do not exist)
> If you don't work in the United States then this conversation isn't for you
Do you not realize that you are the first person who mentioned the US in this thread?
> However hard you think you have it at the expense of women getting paid while they give birth to humans isn't as hard as you think
> because higher quality of life
Yeah no. The quality of life is much better in the US or in the capitals of richer EU countries (but not in their smaller cities).
* Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal
* Staying without wage is not an option when you need to feed yourself and the unborn
I still fail to see where the actual choices are.
> and even for that my wife needs my consent here in the Maghreb
Time to fix it.
> Having an abortion just got a lot harder in parts of the US, is even more limited in most parts of south america, requires consent of a male guardian in lots of islamic countries or is just illegal
Time to fix that as well.
> I still fail to see where the actual choices are.
How about not having sex in addition with birth control and abortion? Anyway, I am pretty sure that most women who take maternity leave actually wanted to have a child.
Because if that's the way human beings behaved, our ancestors would have died out as a species hundred of thousands of years ago and you wouldn't exist. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but you must recognize why the vast majority of voters are not okay with jeopardizing our species to save a few tax dollars?
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 doesn't magically pick up the bill. they simply pay all people a little less, while spending more on just the ones with babies. this means people without babies pay for the babies. in no way is that fair. biology is unfair. that doesn't mean you can just pass on the cost to innocent bystanders.
being short is unfair. should i pay for short people?
our species behaves just fine. parents have an extra burden and need to be financially secure to handle a baby. without forcing random others to help with that. because it's unethical, and the term for that is tyranny of the majority. two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
but cool. let's go with your voter idea. let's let the whites vote on whether blacks should be slaves.
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 from maternity because the entire tribe participated in raising their young or they died out.
I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because it's teenage angst levels of faux-libertarian nonsense. You're comparing the propagation of our species to slavery. Get a grip.
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.
Tax rebates for children could help both parties think they are getting ahead to balance society’s needs.
a tax return should be for the family -a joint return. you take wife+husband+kids. you add up all the salary. and you divide by number of tax payers. exactly how a joint return is now, but count kids.
this puts you in a much, much lower tax bracket, and saves you more than a rebate or dependent. it is actually unfair in my opinion to do it another way, and has nothing to do with babies. your family household just pays taxes on its income. and without various programs designed to steal from people without kids. and that's what maternity leave is -stealing.
"One is social distancing, which may have cut down on the amount of general infection from contact with others.
Another is less air pollution, from fewer cars being on the roads."
I'd love to see increased incentive for cities to act hastily on reducing <pm2.5 air pollution. Talk about a covert inequality exacerbator.
From Evangeliou et al. (2020), Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions, page 3:
"Surface concentrations of tire wear particles (TWPs) range between a few ng.m−3 and 20 ng.m−3 for PM2.5 and up to 50 ng.m−3 for PM10 (Supplementary Movie 1). Brake wear particle (BWP) surface concentrations reach 50 ng.m−3 at maximum (Supplementary Movie 1). The highest concentrations were calculated for eastern USA, Europe and South-eastern Asia. All concentrations (TWPs 0.4 μg.m−3 for PM2.5, 1.8 μg.m−3 for PM10; BWPs 0.8 μg.m−3 for PM2.5, 1.4 μg.m−3 for PM10) were far below air quality limits for PM (annual mean 10 μg.m−3 for PM2.5, double for PM10) and lower than typical black carbon (BC) concentrations in remote regions."
1) More sleep, and easier to respect their circadian rhythm
2) Reduced un-conscious stress levels related to: the comfort of being at home in a safe place...the comfort of knowing they won't go into labor early while far from home and around non-family members...the comfort of knowing they're eliminating unforeseen risks that come with venturing out into the world
3) Significant reduction of non-natural movements/processes such as: getting in/out of car, sitting in stiff desk chair all day, work-schedule dependent restroom use, commuting related stress
4.) Reduced air pollution
Ah yes, I'm sure my 7-months-pregnant wife would agree that this has been a lovely, low-stress time. Wouldn't have it any other way.
The past few months have been some of the most emotionally stressful in recent memory. Even work-wise -- less of a commute, sure, but unless you already had a job that was compatible with working from home, the transition by itself has been anything but easy and relaxing. Not to mention the incredibly sharp rise in unemployment, the lack of physical social interaction, the fear (or reality) that your parents/grandparents contact the virus, etc etc.
And as for physical stress, exercise is generally good, not bad for one's health, including during pregnancy. Unless your job involves doing physically taxing work, which you continue to do even while pregnant, it's a little hard to imagine how being forced to stay indoors would be particularly good for your overall physical health.
- 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? Early childcare doesn't look like an option. But can we risk our jobs by taking a lot of leave? Maybe we have to.
- We can't see her parents since they work in the healthcare industry. She has a great relationship with her mom, so this is really tough while pregnant.
- Nobody really knows how bad CoVID is for a newborn, or what its effect on gestation is. It's easy to get sucked into spirals of terror about this. While we'd (probably) be fine if we caught it, the effects on the baby, even from asymptomatic infection, are unknown, and there are hints of brain damage which are _really_ scary.
So, it's pretty damn stressful, at least for us.
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!
There's a need for a lot of sensitivity in this conversation. It's easy for us to armchair-expert this to death... that isn't necessarily a good thing.
The stress continues after the baby is born too - regular check-ups, midwife visits, getting vaccinations, emergencies etc all now come with a brand new stress factor of "Am I or my baby going to contract COVID by <doing something that was totally normal in the past> and end up in intendive care? Or maybe will I contract COVID and give it to my spouse/family?" Even having relatives visit their new grandchild/niece/nephew/cousin/etc feels like a risk, but there is a lot of pressure from friends and family to get hands-on baby time.
Babies cannot wear PPE either.
I've certainly got some more grey hairs now!
Our baby was born 10 weeks premature on the 4 June, although her being premature seemed to be entirely unrelated to COVID-19. I'm happy to say they've been doing super well and we expect them to come home this week.
Although not related to prematureness, of interest in regards to pregnancy and COVID-19 was that the gynaecologist mentioned during pregnancy that they had anecdotally noticed that during our lockdown here babies in utero were on average noticeably bigger than usual. They supposed that it might be related to moms on average being more relaxed due to not needing to do things like stressful work commutes.
Our baby was quite a bit bigger than average for their maturity which was quite fortunate given how early they arrived.
Classically in Psychology the stress of planning a holiday is more than the stress of the death of a loved one.
This might now be considered wrong (?), but you are taught this because stress is not what the average person thinks it is.
That said, shopping and going out is now really stressful, it's an ongoing changing conditions we are not used to, so surely they mean physical stress, but not sure why they did not say that?
Is it because you can't politically say if women rest at home when pregnant it's better for the baby?
"This might actually help because studies in the past showed that air pollution actually increases the risk for preterm birth," Alshaikh said.
One takeaway that doesn't involve arguing about the so-called Patriarchy and what not: Let's just try to lower pollution rates generally. It's good for everyone, including but not limited to pregnant women.
A simple explanation could simply be that by people having stayed at home they are less likely to be physically active and stressed.
I'll bet you that's the primary reason.
I think that this is very likely due to removal/lessening of the impact of doctors on what is a natural process. If doctors are less involved, things take their natural course without problems.
Let's not forget, that the third largest cause of death (higher than covid) is iatrogenic death:
There is, in fact, a strong case to be made for closing doctors, hospitals, etc down, in order to increase the populations health!
EDIT - I don't know why my comment is being downvoted. I think I'm making a rational, reasonable argument! If you disagree, no problem! But perhaps state why you think what I'm suggesting is wrong.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23973025.
I will also note that all of my comments in this thread were under https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23972872, I avoided posting comments outside of this subthread intentionally as to avoid polluting the rest of the discussion. I continued responding as I felt that it would be rude not to address the concerns of everyone who relied to me.
It's my firm belief that you are short-sighted in this regard, and that your way of prioritizing will lead to worse outcomes for everyone involved, including yourself. Not to mention you seem a bit indifferent to the suffering of children, but that is beside the point.
Giving our children a good start in life is an investment for the future, just like spending money to educate children in school is an investment for the future.
So you would enjoy living in a society were the children of the poor enter adulthood illiterate and completely uneducated, without the basic life skills necessary in a modern society. I think our worldviews are simply too different for us to come to an understanding here. All I can say is that you present yourself as a very unsympathetic person.
If you do not have money for birth control then for sure you do not have enough money for a child. I suggest abstaining from sex in that case.
> Throughout human history, much of our systems of morality, like shotgun weddings, were rooted in "Babies happen. What now?"
Not sure how this is relevant, we are living in the present.
2. Last I checked, abortions are shockingly hard to come by in many parts of the US.
3. Women can be virtuously celibate and chaste and wind up pregnant due to being forcibly raped.
Sexual morality is and always has been a complicated matter. This won't be changing anytime soon.
Certainly but this is an extreme case that should be handled differently. How much % of the people getting paid a maternity leave do so due to rape?
If they keep the child, how they talk to that child about their paternity should be a private matter. It will be difficult no matter what they do.
> They shouldn't have to tell anyone that if they do not wish to disclose it.
As long as they are fine with not getting the maternity leave, sure.
> how they talk to that child about their paternity should be a private matter. It will be difficult no matter what they do.
Certainly, I will not disagree.
The Scientologists have some very aggressive rules about 'quiet' around baby and birth, rather extremist, but I think there is something to it.
Even in the womb, we are picking up information - imagine all the noise, hormones, moving around etc. we get from pre-birth to age 1.
I wonder if we should head out to the countryside 3 months before and after.
It would be powerful to see more research into this, because the results could be revelatory not just in relation to birth, but in other life activities.
Edit: I'm not suggesting there's any 'Science' in 'Scientology', rather, it's an expansive and odd cult with just a ton on out-of-the-box thinking, a lot of it initiated way back when treatment of mental illness was actually draconian (ie lobotomies, arbitrary detention, brutal treatment) and there are often 'kernels of truth' in some of these things. The 'quiet during and around birthing' always struck me as something actually rational in a way. Not scientific either but Glenn Gould attributed his musical genius to the fact his mother would play softly while he was still the womb (thus he's literally been playing 'before he was born') and I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think 'maybe there is something to it'. Early childhood events have incredible impact on our lives. I think of it like 'the time when the kernel code is established' and things gone wayward at that level cause idiosyncrasies for the rest of one's life.
The "something is to it" part is probably that you shouldn't play loud metal music in the hospital. Which probably no one does anyway. But being afraid to say a word... that's just superstition.
You're missing the context here. Babies don't understand speech, so it's not like words are going to matter.
And this has nothing to do with 'memories'.
Loud noises, unnatural humming sounds like vehicles, the constancy of it all - is highly unnatural.
The possibility that hormones can alter our development is implied in the article, it's not entirely unreasonable that other stressors can affect us as well.
We were 'designed' to come into a very quiet world (granted, it was a rugged place) but it was audibly very quiet.
Since all of us - adults, children, react in a variety of ways to sound (stressing, soothing etc.) I suggest that audio, in the very earliest phases of one's life can possibly be a stressor.