As England opens up a little today, I wanted to write about what it’s been like to have a baby who has only known lockdown. Obviously caring for a newborn can be tough at the best of times. This is not the best of times.
My son, Finn, was born in December. Apart from medical staff, he has only been held by four people. He has close family he has never met, including his paternal grandmother, two aunts and two uncles.
A friend calls babies born in the pandemic “coronials”; I’ve been thinking of them as “zoom babies”. I’ve wondered a lot if this will have a long-term impact on them. At 15 weeks, Finn has barely seen another child’s face.
There’s the proverb that it takes a village to raise a child. In the pandemic, there’s been no village; just parents struggling on their own. Some new mothers have had to do that after traumatic births and with restrictions on how much support partners could give them in hospital
Care for both pregnant women and new mothers has been patchy. I’ve never met the health visitor or even seen her over Zoom. She has phoned twice. I’m very lucky that my friend, the brilliant @sadieholland67, is a midwife and she has helped me hugely after a pretty tough labour.
I imagine many parents - and mothers particularly - who’ve had babies in the pandemic feel a little robbed. Friends have told me what they enjoyed about mat leave - simple things like seeing other mothers in cafes; parent and baby classes - and none of that has been possible.
At times, I’ve found it lonely - and exhausting. When I thought Finn was ill, I had to take him to A&E on my own because only one parent is allowed in and I’m the one feeding him. And, for example, I have never been able to let my sister look after him for an hour so I can sleep.
And I’m lucky! I am married with a healthy child. I can’t imagine how hard this period has been on single parents, those with children who are sick or have a disability, or those who’ve had twins or more.
Incidentally, I’m sure lots of mothers have also felt like they can’t complain - after all, so many people have had a v hard time in the pandemic. But there are signs that it has taken a toll - such as a possible rise in cases of postnatal depression itv.com/news/2020-12-1…
There’s also been a lot less in-person support for breast-feeding, which many women find so difficult (and there are long delays to get tongue-tie fixed acc to friends who’ve struggled with that).
To end on a happier note, I am now pathetically excited about Finn starting parent-baby swimming classes at the end of the month. And his heavily-delayed christening in the summer will mean he can finally meet family and friends. He’s a joy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pregnancy in the pandemic: a thread (1/ a lot). The NHS has finally changed its guidance to say women should be allowed to have their partner there 'at all times': scans, in labour ward from the start and not just for 'active labour'. I gave birth 8 days ago.
I found out I was pregnant with my first child on the day the UK went into 1st lockdown. Many people asked me how my pregnancy was going over the past few months. I’d say: “it’s not an easy time to be pregnant!” Most would reply: “it’s never an easy time!” Sure... but a pandemic?
I love the NHS. My doctor mother gave all her working life to it, my brother is now set to do the same. This is not a criticism of most of its staff who - long before Covid happened - have been people I championed in many of my columns.
A thread on no deal Brexit. This came to mind as I’m currently trying to feed a newborn, but I was in India in 2016 when Modi scrapped the 2 largest banknotes. The news had a story of a baby who died after a hospital refused to accept his parents' money google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inde…
I know far too little about Indian politics to say much on that story, but the obvious point is there can be an enormous human cost of policy decisions. governments forget that at their peril. When ministers speak of “disruption” with no deal, what is the true human cost of that?
When I was briefly asked to cover no deal brexit for @thesundaytimes last year (a friend called me the “apocalypse and sheep farming correspondent”), what struck me was that risk. The granny who can’t get her medicine; the remote community where the baby formula doesn’t arrive.
Fair to say that Charles Moore as BBC chair will not go down well with the corporation's 21,000ish staff: "This will shatter morale. People will leave, thinking: I won’t stay working here under Thatcher’s vicar on earth." thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/p…
A few extra thoughts. Early on, there was speculation it could be a tech boss to arm the BBC to take on Netflix etc. As one media source said: "You have to know what 4G and 5G are, and whether the 'Sounds' app is working - Moore won't."
In fact, he - like Dacre - is particularly untech-savvy. Though that does mean no worries about his Twitter account. He has only ever tweeted once: "Where there is discord, may I bring more of it."
On Sunday: Boris Johnson promises tougher prison sentences.
On Tuesday: One of his MPs claims that a two year sentence is too long for her sex pest estranged husband
.@TheHowardLeague makes a powerful case that too many people are sent to our already over-crowded prisons. However, there is a certain group of people who only protest when the privileged go to prison and see jails as places for people who aren't like them.
This is from the judge's statement. Natalie Elphicke describes this as "bad" behaviour. The judge is clear that it's much worse than that:
- It did lasting damage to his victims.
- The judge calls him a sexual predator who abused his position and then laughed it off afterwards
So much wrong with this approach of trying to scare people back into the office, not least that it seems to assume that it is fair/ acceptable for bosses to sack those they don't see. What about those with caring responsibilities that aren't solved by schools reopening?
I've been going into the office for weeks, in part because I know that in my third trimester (which is about to start) it won't be safe for me to. This is the guidance from the RCOG, not that the gov seems to care about this:
There'll be many people who have major issues with returning to work: who are immunocompromised or living with someone who is, say. And to tell them: "you're more likely to get sacked" for protecting themselves/ someone else is cruel. They (and their jobs) deserve protecting
Sorry to weigh in on media studies, but assume those who study it (on top of being aware of disinformation etc) will be more likely to know:
- Reporters/columnists don't write headlines
- If a reporter/interviewer reports someone else's opinion, that doesn't mean it is their view
- News stories should not (and usually do not) reveal the biases of the writer (though they may reveal the biases of the news outlet)
Frankly it would be a blessing if everyone studied it.
Also think that we have an example today of why media studies matters. Seen some attacks on the Guardian for reporting Maureen Lipman's comments. But the interviewer didn't leave those comments hanging - she refuted them in the next paragraph. Surely that's good journalism?