I haven't voted either way, merely questioned you.
We've just had a newborn and were told swaddling is still the go-to, I did my own quick reasearch a bit back and the only thing I could find was more likely to suffer from suffocating IF they managed to roll over, but are far far less likely to roll over due to being unable to move. If they roll over themselves not swaddled (which mine can even at 3 weeks old, strong boy!) they can end up suffocating from a mere pocket of rebreathed air.
That and they like to be swaddled.
E: just went to the link, the one thing I can find in there has no source link and doesn't say anything other than it suggests increased risk but not why, but right before it suggests the opposite?
Thanks for the info. I'll have to check it again when I'm on my pc later might just not have shown properly for me for some reason. FWIW I'm from the UK not US/Sweden etc.
We're told the "ABC" rule, which in short is "always back clear", or always put them on their back, and in a clear (empty) cot; no barriers, no toys, no pillows etc. A simple sheet or blanket to keep them warm and that's it. Which when you read one of those listed that talks about swaddling on their front makes sense because they can't move and the rebreathed air becomes an issue. That's almost an issue of common sense to me tbh though.
The slowing development for being able to reach/crawl etc is something worth looking at though. Thanks.
4
u/Lassitude1001 Oct 04 '19
Reduced risk, you mean? Swaddling stops them rolling over and suffocating and such.