Ah, but you forget the other side of the coin - for a birth that has no complications and proceeds in the normal and expected manner to produce a healthy child and healthy mother a hospital setting carries additional risks (generally speaking simply being in a hospital carries risks such as increased exposure to MRSA; specifically speaking many women experience hospital births as involving more stress, and more unnecessary/unwanted medical intervention during their birth).
There are many women and babies whose health post partum are vastly improved by not being in a hospital setting, and simplifying that to "home comfort" is unfair; it is desperately unpleasant to think about but, yes, I would venture to suggest that for most people there is a number of people in perfect rather than slightly-dodgy health that "makes up for" a single death collaterally caused. What you feel that number is, and how it fits into the evidence presented here, are things that I obviously do not know.
The risk equation also requires further information which is non-obvious (although presumably covered in this report) - exactly what procedures are there which you are very likely to be able to access in hospital but not at home? Home births supervised by NHS midwives are not the same thing as a birth free of medical intervention or assistance; not all hospitals are able to guarantee to offer all types of intervention that are theoretically available (that is, that exist, are approved etc); what is the likelihood of experiencing unexpected complications? Further - how far is your home from the hospital, how long will it take you to get there in an emergency situation, which you should compare with how long you would have to wait in the hospital for the appropriate teams and equipment to be available to you when you are considering what risk you are actually running by having a home birth.
So; yes. It's news. Just because the answer turns out to agree with your gut-feeling about the risks doesn't mean that you were correct to trust your gut-feeling rather than go out (well, send someone out) and collect evidence about the question.
no subject
There are many women and babies whose health post partum are vastly improved by not being in a hospital setting, and simplifying that to "home comfort" is unfair; it is desperately unpleasant to think about but, yes, I would venture to suggest that for most people there is a number of people in perfect rather than slightly-dodgy health that "makes up for" a single death collaterally caused. What you feel that number is, and how it fits into the evidence presented here, are things that I obviously do not know.
The risk equation also requires further information which is non-obvious (although presumably covered in this report) - exactly what procedures are there which you are very likely to be able to access in hospital but not at home? Home births supervised by NHS midwives are not the same thing as a birth free of medical intervention or assistance; not all hospitals are able to guarantee to offer all types of intervention that are theoretically available (that is, that exist, are approved etc); what is the likelihood of experiencing unexpected complications? Further - how far is your home from the hospital, how long will it take you to get there in an emergency situation, which you should compare with how long you would have to wait in the hospital for the appropriate teams and equipment to be available to you when you are considering what risk you are actually running by having a home birth.
So; yes. It's news. Just because the answer turns out to agree with your gut-feeling about the risks doesn't mean that you were correct to trust your gut-feeling rather than go out (well, send someone out) and collect evidence about the question.