4 ms·

I wasn't the commenter, but as to vaccines being 'rushed', I'd imagine that most people feel a Hep vaccine for a 1 day old is probably not necessary due to the

by fecak 13y ago

I wasn't the commenter, but as to vaccines being 'rushed', I'd imagine that most people feel a Hep vaccine for a 1 day old is probably not necessary due to the exposure a newborn simply wouldn't have to the virus. The CDC lists the common ways it is spread, and none are likely other than contracting from the mother (who can be tested before birth). How likely are any of these events for a newborn? Would waiting a week, a month, etc put an infant at risk? From CDC site: "Babies and children can get hepatitis B in the following ways: At birth from their infected mother. From bites from an infected person. By touching open cuts or sores of an infected person. Through sharing toothbrushes or other personal items used by an infected person. From food that was chewed (for a baby) by an infected person. From ear piercing needles that were not cleaned well." Source - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hepb/fs-parents.html http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hepb/fs-parents.html Edit - added CDC info

mikeash 13y ago
Is testing the mother before birth so much better than simply vaccinating the baby, especially since blood transfer from other people is not completely out of the question anyway? If you wait a week, that's a week-long window for infection. It's small, certainly, but what's the gain? Is there any advantage to waiting?
- fecak 13y ago
  I was simply stating one example of what is often considered a rushed vaccine, again due to exposure levels for infants. Using your logic, it seems we could vaccinate all babies on day one with every single vaccine available, even for diseases that are rarely found in the country, as the is some small chance a one day old could have exposure. The gain comes when the safety of vaccinations comes up into question. The CDC doesn't advocate giving every available vaccine on day one, in a single massive cocktail form, for this very reason. This would be the cheapest and most efficient way to vaccinate (all at once, one shot for all vaccines), but obviously that is not how it is done due to safety of the newborn.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    By my logic, we'd end up doing something completely sensible that helps protect infants from disease? How terrible. Your reasoning seems to boil down to anti-vaccination people thinking it's worse, and this is some small concession to them. Which is essentially saying, it's rushed because I say it's rushed.
    - fecak 13y ago
      I may be misinterpreting your comment, but you aren't suggesting we should give every available vaccine at the same time to a newborn, or are you? That practice isn't condoned by the CDC and thinking that might be worse (due to safety of the recipient) isn't a concession to anyone. The CDC isn't advocating for that, because they surely would have some safety concerns. There are a number of vaccines to give, and if there were no concerns about safety they could all be given at birth. However, there obviously are concerns by manufacturers and the CDC (and of course elsewhere) so the CDC created a schedule. People that question the schedule often question the Hep first, based on the incredibly small chance an infant would come into contact with the virus. Part of the reasoning behind the schedule being the way it is relates to doctor visits. The CDC wants children vaccinated, so accelerating the schedule and giving multiple vaccinations at once isn't due to fear of exposure at certain ages as much as the logic of "while you're here, let's take care of these vaccines as well." Kind of like the reasoning behind topping off your fluids during a car's scheduled maintenance. No need to bring the car in when you are more likely to run dry on fluids, we'll just fill you up while you're here. Part of the CDC's concern is making sure kids are vaccinated, so the more vaccinations at once mentality makes sense to increase the likelihood of vaccination. Parents would surely be less likely to visit a doctor 15 times in a year than say 2-3 or less. The link below shows the number of vaccines recommended in the first 6 years. Bundling them and accelerating the schedule helps guarantee higher vaccination rates, but can complicate matters when safety of vaccines is harder to test and compare in a multitude of combinations. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch...
      - mikeash 13y ago

by fecak 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Is testing the mother before birth so much better than simply vaccinating the baby, especially since blood transfer from other people is not completely out of the question anyway? If you wait a week, that's a week-long window for infection. It's small, certainly, but what's the gain? Is there any advantage to waiting?

fecak 13y ago
I was simply stating one example of what is often considered a rushed vaccine, again due to exposure levels for infants. Using your logic, it seems we could vaccinate all babies on day one with every single vaccine available, even for diseases that are rarely found in the country, as the is some small chance a one day old could have exposure. The gain comes when the safety of vaccinations comes up into question. The CDC doesn't advocate giving every available vaccine on day one, in a single massive cocktail form, for this very reason. This would be the cheapest and most efficient way to vaccinate (all at once, one shot for all vaccines), but obviously that is not how it is done due to safety of the newborn.
- mikeash 13y ago
  By my logic, we'd end up doing something completely sensible that helps protect infants from disease? How terrible. Your reasoning seems to boil down to anti-vaccination people thinking it's worse, and this is some small concession to them. Which is essentially saying, it's rushed because I say it's rushed.
  - fecak 13y ago
    I may be misinterpreting your comment, but you aren't suggesting we should give every available vaccine at the same time to a newborn, or are you? That practice isn't condoned by the CDC and thinking that might be worse (due to safety of the recipient) isn't a concession to anyone. The CDC isn't advocating for that, because they surely would have some safety concerns. There are a number of vaccines to give, and if there were no concerns about safety they could all be given at birth. However, there obviously are concerns by manufacturers and the CDC (and of course elsewhere) so the CDC created a schedule. People that question the schedule often question the Hep first, based on the incredibly small chance an infant would come into contact with the virus. Part of the reasoning behind the schedule being the way it is relates to doctor visits. The CDC wants children vaccinated, so accelerating the schedule and giving multiple vaccinations at once isn't due to fear of exposure at certain ages as much as the logic of "while you're here, let's take care of these vaccines as well." Kind of like the reasoning behind topping off your fluids during a car's scheduled maintenance. No need to bring the car in when you are more likely to run dry on fluids, we'll just fill you up while you're here. Part of the CDC's concern is making sure kids are vaccinated, so the more vaccinations at once mentality makes sense to increase the likelihood of vaccination. Parents would surely be less likely to visit a doctor 15 times in a year than say 2-3 or less. The link below shows the number of vaccines recommended in the first 6 years. Bundling them and accelerating the schedule helps guarantee higher vaccination rates, but can complicate matters when safety of vaccines is harder to test and compare in a multitude of combinations. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch...
    - mikeash 13y ago