4 ms·
The point as I see it being got at here is that changes in the approach to raising a child has resulted in fewer SIDS over the past 30 years [1]. Introducing n
by martin-adams 11y ago
The point as I see it being got at here is that changes in the approach to raising a child has resulted in fewer SIDS over the past 30 years [1].
Introducing new technology, or techniques, regardless of how absurd it appears, needs the data to identify whether it really does have an improvement in child safety.
Simply saying my generation (born in the 80's) turned out just fine so why change is actually incorrect. The rate of deaths was higher in the 80's compared to now and changes were made in advice that has reduced death rates.
Technology could be used to reduce this further, but we don't know until we have the data. Do I think it's likely that an IoT onesie will make a difference? Not really, purely because the cost and adoption rate would probably make it impossible to detect its impact as safety concious parents who would buy it would probably have mitigated most risks anyway. The chance of getting a significant number of would-be SIDS outcomes to be using such a device would, in my opinion, be extremely small.
[1] http://www.babywill.org/sids-information/what-is-sids/sids-statistics http://www.babywill.org/sids-information/what-is-sids/sids-s...
- tptacek 11y agoAgain: the dominant factor in reducing infant mortality in the US has been prenatal care. Infant mortality in the sense described upthread is not about SIDS. The latter half of your comment is a bit hand-wavy. "Purely" because of adoption numbers? What does a "smart onesie" actually have to do with SIDS? Companies have been selling ever-more-complicated baby monitors to parents for years using fear of SIDS, but SIDS is not a problem of monitoring.