Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.
They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.
THIS is not true. The deaths were for two reasons - infants over 3 months who rolled over, AND younger newborns who suffocated due to positional asphyxiation. The latter is what's being ignored on this thread and many other places, and that's perhaps the most dangerous part.
No one has provided evidence of the latter. The former is the subject of the news article last week which is the first definitive information about RnP safety I have ever seen.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.
They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.
THIS is not true. The deaths were for two reasons - infants over 3 months who rolled over, AND younger newborns who suffocated due to positional asphyxiation. The latter is what's being ignored on this thread and many other places, and that's perhaps the most dangerous part.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.
They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.
THIS is not true. The deaths were for two reasons - infants over 3 months who rolled over, AND younger newborns who suffocated due to positional asphyxiation. The latter is what's being ignored on this thread and many other places, and that's perhaps the most dangerous part.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.
They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.
Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP - Can I ask why a swing is fine for naps but the RnP is not? Am I misreading?
Also, I feel awful I never knew this, but I wasn't aware we were supposed to stop using those once they could roll. Honest to goodness, I kept my first kid in the RnP til 9mo because he wouldn't nap in the crib at home (at daycare, sure, but home... sigh...). Realizing now how lucky I was and rethinking our sleep approach with the one I'm due with this summer.
A swing or other inclined surface isn’t considered safe either. The AAP only approves flat, firm surfaces like cribs, bassinets, or play yards. I agree it’s really hard trying to get them to sleep that way.
Anonymous wrote:NP - Can I ask why a swing is fine for naps but the RnP is not? Am I misreading?
Also, I feel awful I never knew this, but I wasn't aware we were supposed to stop using those once they could roll. Honest to goodness, I kept my first kid in the RnP til 9mo because he wouldn't nap in the crib at home (at daycare, sure, but home... sigh...). Realizing now how lucky I was and rethinking our sleep approach with the one I'm due with this summer.
Anonymous wrote:NP - Can I ask why a swing is fine for naps but the RnP is not? Am I misreading?
Also, I feel awful I never knew this, but I wasn't aware we were supposed to stop using those once they could roll. Honest to goodness, I kept my first kid in the RnP til 9mo because he wouldn't nap in the crib at home (at daycare, sure, but home... sigh...). Realizing now how lucky I was and rethinking our sleep approach with the one I'm due with this summer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I plan on using the RnP with the safety harness according to the clear directions.
Isn't the safety harness designed to keep them from falling out when the thing is rocking? I think the problem is that the harness doesn't prevent their head and neck from shifting position which in a tiny baby can block oxygen flow.
Every baby that died was more than three months and not secured so likely rolled over and could not roll back. The harness prevents that.
I'm not saying that there isn't a slightly increased risk of positional asphyxia. But the risk is very very very small and for a lot of people the benefit of what the RnP provides far outweighs that tiny tiny uptick in risk.