This is going to sound weird, but something fishy seems to be going on with the New Yearѻýs Babies.
Not the babies in particular ѻý Iѻým sure theyѻýre very nice! ѻý but the annual routine. You know it well: Every year, the media gathers at some hospital or another in B.C. to meet the parents of the first baby born in the province. The same routine takes place across Canada.
Itѻýs one of those feel-good stories that gets done because itѻýs an excuse to tell a feel-good story at a time of year when thereѻýs not much else to report on at this time of year. Also: health officials seem happy with the publicity.
Ideally, itѻýs a random way to profile one random new baby.
But what if the New Yearѻýs Baby isnѻýt random at all?
First, letѻýs be clear: a spokesperson from the Fraser Health Authority vows that the fact a New Yearѻýs Baby may be in play doesnѻýt influence any health decisions. And thereѻýs no sign that any one recent New Yearѻýs Baby was the byproduct of someone trying to bring a baby into this world precisely at the stroke of midnight.
RELATED:
RELATED:
RELATED:
But a little math suggests that 12:00 and 12:01 on Jan. 1 might just be the busiest time for birthing all year.
Seven of the last eight years have seen B.C.ѻýs New Yearѻýs Baby delivered within the first two minutes of midnight. And thatѻýs not normal. (Twice in the last 10 years, the baby was reportedly born within 10 seconds of midnight.)
Every year, around 40,000 babies are born in B.C. Every year has 525,600 minutes. Even if babies were born randomly throughout the year (theyѻýre not, Iѻýll get to that later), to have seven of eight babies born within the first two minutes would seem unlikely.
How unlikely? After getting far too carried away with this question, I asked SFU statistician Richard Lockhart.
There is, he wrote me, about an eight in a million chance that youѻýd have so many babies born in the first two minutes of the year, if no other forces were at work.
Other forces, of course, are at work. Babies are more likely to be and much less likely to be born at night. Theyѻýre also . Eight-in-a-million odds might actually be pretty good.
(Lockhart pointed out that I may be cherry-picking the eight-year/two-seconds thing. Thatѻýs true, and was done to make the math easier. Beyond eight years, babies were born at 12:02, 12:03, 12:01, 12:13 (!) and 12:03. If everything were normal, youѻýd expect the average delivery time of the first baby to average around the 12:06 mark.)
If something is up, itѻýs not probably that nefarious.
One possible scenario would have Caesarean sections delivery schedules adjusted to increase the chances of a 12:00 baby and decrease the chances of one plucked from a mother at, say, 11:50.
Many New Yearѻýs babies are Caesarean sections, some planned, others of the unplanned or emergency variety. Iѻýve been in the room for one of each. The doctors know exactly how long the procedures take and ѻý even if the health of the couple is the priority ѻý itѻýs reasonable to wonder if operations are timed to land a kid close to 12:00, instead of 11:45 p.m. or 12:15 a.m.
But I asked the parent of one recent New Yearѻýs Baby, who also happens to be a doctor. He wrote that after-hours surgeries in most hospitals require the situation to be deemed urgent life- or limb-threatening, which one would hope would remove a birth time from the equation.
Those numbers ѻý and the insane number of 12:00 New Years babies in other provinces ѻý suggest something is up. Remember: midnight on a holiday would otherwise be an unlikely time to have a baby. Instead, it seems to be one of the busiest times.
The other possibility is more mundane: the gentle rounding of birth times after the fact.
My hunch is that this is primarily responsible for all the babies ѻýbornѻý right after the stroke of midnight.
Normally, it doesnѻýt matter if a baby is born at 12:05 or 12:01. On New Yearѻýs it kind of does. So when someone gets around to looking at the clock, and they see itѻýs 12:05 and the baby is breathing, they round down a few minutes to when the baby was first glimpsed.
If someone looks at the clock and it says 12:00 on New Yearѻýs, my guess is theyѻýre much less likely to round down. On the other hand, if a baby squirms out at 11:59, and the operating room clock says 11:59, it would be understandable for a doctor or nurse to double check to see what the official time might say. All would combine to make it more likely for a baby to have a birth time recorded in the minutes after ѻý rather than before ѻý New Yearѻýs. (I asked Vital Statistics for information on birth times. They said the information would cost $300.)
In a way, the subconscious rigging of the New Yearѻýs Baby might be the humane thing to do. There is a ton of attention given to a New Yearѻýs Baby, and maybe itѻýs better for everyone if the parents involved would welcome the attention, rather than shooing the cameras away, as is their obvious right.
In fact, itѻýs a little startling, in a country where people are often reluctant to talk to the media, just how consistently babies are born at the stroke of midnight to parents with stable households. Itѻýs also worth noting that doctors and nurses seem far more aware than the parents of the prestige of a New Yearѻýs Baby. In interviews talking about their babies, several parents mentioned just how excited hospital staff were to note that the baby was born right at midnight.
There is one area in which the potentially pre-planned nature of the New Yearѻýs Baby could get problematic: gambling.
In 2018, the BC Lottery Corporation let people bet on the location of that yearѻýs New Yearѻýs Baby. (The bet wasnѻýt offered this year, because of website maintenance.) The ѻýnovelty betѻý is one of several meant to give people a way to gamble on current affairs and other issues. But you can see where this is going. The BCLC says it closed wagers in 2018 two days before betting ѻýto maintain the integrity of the bet.ѻý
But if the location of the New Yearѻýs Baby is determined in part by staffѻýs enthusiasm for delivering such babies, then you wonder how fair it is to everyone who thinks the big birth is actually random.
In 2016/17, the last year for which I could get statistics, Fraser Health delivered 40 per cent of all babies in B.C. Sixty per cent of babies were delivered in other health regions. But when it comes to New Yearѻýs, Fraser Health is king, with five of the last six midnight babies delivered at the health authorityѻýs hospitals.
As for that 2018 bet: it, clearly wasnѻýt rigged for betting purposes. I asked, and only the BC Lottery Corporation made any real money. Gamblers wagered $905 on the baby bet. Only $212 in prizes were paid out for correctly guessing Fraser Healthѻýs Royal Columbian Hospital would be the location of the provinceѻýs first birth. Odds were nine-to-one. In 2020, the first baby was again delivered at RCH.
Tyler Olsen is a reporter for the Abbotsford News
Do you have something to add to this story, or something else we should report on? Email:
tolsen@abbynews.com
Like us on and follow us on