MSE Pregnancy Club IX

dieselhead

Krystaltips wrote: »

Cheapskate, you really need to get it sent off and upgraded for a photo one... I'm sure I've heard you can get fined for not doing it...

Sorry to but in, but this is not the case Krystaltips, an old style paper licence is fine so long as all the details are correct. If you move or change you address you will have to get a photocard licence, as part of the changing address process, or you turn 70 and have to re-apply for your licence. Until you have to change the details it is fine. There are multiple threads on this very subject on motoring websites such as pepipoo or pistonheads if you want further reassurance.

Personally if I had a non photocard licence I would keep it as long as possible as you don't have to pay to renew every 10 years much more MSE

chopsticks

Krystaltips wrote: »

Chopsticks, I think feellie might know of one... She likes her facts and figures... I've only just come across the odd statistic whilst reading up...

Thanks Krystal. I know it might sound a bit of a strange request but I just want to know that if my baby was born at X weeks, then s/he or would have X chance of survival. I'm 27+5 now, so I know the chance of survival is going up quite quickly and I don't have any reason to think that anything will go wrong but I just like the reassurance.

Feelie, if you're out there....

money_maker_3

Would it be really bad if I were to take one of the bars of chocolate from Jasmines egg??????????

chopsticks

feelinggood wrote: »

I found this page helpful:
http://www.babylink.info/edinburgh/BabyOnUnit/Outcome.aspx

It is just based on one unit, but it gives real figures for weeks 23 to 36. I found it helpful to know real numbers.

I should have read a couple of posts further down before replying to Krystal's post straight away.

Thank for that, it's just what I wanted.

The very last line on that page is interesting - for babies born at 33-36 weeks, the chance of being "normal" at two years old is 83%. I was surprised at that - I thought it would be higher. As 37 weeks is considered term, I would have thought at 36 weeks, the chance would have been higher than 83%. Although, I suppose that is an average for 33-36 weeks and there is quite a difference between 33 and 36 weeks.

chopsticks

money_maker wrote: »

Would it be really bad if I were to take one of the bars of chocolate from Jasmines egg??????????

Nope, because it's the baby who wants it, not you

searching_me

i want the egg but not sure x

feelinggood_2

chopsticks wrote: »

I should have read a couple of posts further down before replying to Krystal's post straight away.

Thank for that, it's just what I wanted.

The very last line on that page is interesting - for babies born at 33-36 weeks, the chance of being "normal" at two years old is 83%. I was surprised at that - I thought it would be higher. As 37 weeks is considered term, I would have thought at 36 weeks, the chance would have been higher than 83%. Although, I suppose that is an average for 33-36 weeks and there is quite a difference between 33 and 36 weeks.

It says:
"In many cases the problems experienced by the child are mild, for example he may need to wear glasses."
And I imagine it would take into account moderate hearing loss and things too? They are scary figures, but not so scary when you think that 'normal' really is completely normal.

I found it great every Monday, I'd check and see that the survival rate had increased a little bit. Very reassuring for a worrier like me!

money_maker_3

MMMmmmmmmmmmmm

I just had a packet of Rolo and they were delicious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chopsticks

searching_me wrote: »

i want the egg but not sure x

Are we talking chocolate eggs or egg thermometers?

chopsticks

feelinggood wrote: »

It says:
"In many cases the problems experienced by the child are mild, for example he may need to wear glasses."
And I imagine it would take into account moderate hearing loss and things too? They are scary figures, but not so scary when you think that 'normal' really is completely normal.

I found it great every Monday, I'd check and see that the survival rate had increased a little bit. Very reassuring for a worrier like me!

I'm glad you said that cos I read that and thought the same as you but then I read it again and it said the figures were for children aged 2 "...who are normal (that is without any disability or learning difficulties)". So, I then thought "surely they don't count wearing glasses as a disability?"

But, now you've said what I thought the first time round, I'm going to go back to that line of thought cos it's much better and makes much more sense than my overactive imagination

With DH and I both being shortsighted, chances are bubba will be too regardless of how long he/she is inside me for