MSE Pregnancy Club IX

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

searching_me

chopsticks wrote: »

Are we talking chocolate eggs or egg thermometers?

eggs thermometer but if theres a nice lovely easter egg might get that to :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Sami_Bee

astonsmummy wrote: »

Oh yeah, I never thought of that, I'm sure them mixed with Stella and rum didnt help the situation.
They are called Isobelle and Abigail.
I

Aww nice names, thank god she has some class in there

money_maker wrote: »

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

I've already eaten one of Chris's and the 2 tubes of smarties from another he's too young to know tho...

chopsticks wrote: »

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 does say "normal" not "still alive" I mean how many people in general are "normal":rotfl:
just for example; My dad is circumcised for medical reasons, I wear glasses for an astigmatism, my sister wears glasses & was born with hip dysplasia and my mum had to have her hand in a cast from birth - 6weeks as she was born with a slightly disfigured thumb so I suppose all 4 of us would fall into the "not normal" category :D

PS all of us were born post 40 weeks too at varying amounts

chopsticks

searching_me wrote: »

eggs thermometer but if theres a nice lovely easter egg might get that to :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

:rotfl:

I just wanted to make sure before I replied

I wanted to get an egg (thermometer ) too but my friend who has one said she's not sure how accurate it is. When the room feels cold, the egg says it's OK but when the room feels warm, the egg says the room's a bit cold. Maybe she's got a faulty one

I do the shopandscan thing, so was going to pick a £10 Amazon voucher next time I'm due to receive a voucher and and get it for £6 (I think they were about £16 last time I looked) but now I'm not so sure about it.