3 ms·

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 vac

by 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
    You have to decide whether or not the CDC is reliable. If they are, then you can use their schedule as evidence that it's a bad idea to give all vaccines immediately, but you must also accept that giving the Hep B vaccine at birth is safe and not "rushed". If they are not reliable, then you need reasons for why giving vaccines at birth may be unsafe besides the CDC saying so.
    - fecak 13y ago
      Agreed. But I think part if this is necessity based. When going overseas you are often given shots for things that are less likely found in the US. It's not impossible to catch those diseases in the US, but the costs or risks of vaccinating the entire US population prevents us from doing that. The vaccine court has paid out individuals for vaccine injury. The results of the court are generally not widely publicized, but defining safe is somewhat key to these points.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Well, nothing is going to be 100% safe. If vaccines do more good than harm, then they should be used. A court that awards damages to those who got unlucky is a good way to try to even it out a bit. I really would like to know what, if any, reasons there are to delay vaccines and why one might consider any given schedule to be "rushed". But so far I only get handwaving.
        fecak 13y ago
        On the day you are born, we know the least about you. Maybe you have a pre-existing condition that will be revealed in weeks to come. One of the few known vaccine court payouts went to a young girl named Hannah Poling, who had a mitochondrial disorder, and there are likely others with the same condition. Now that we know that a certain mitochondrial disorder may make a child more apt to vaccine injury, testing could prevent future injury. This is only one specific case, but the point is that the more we know about a person, the more likely we are to make informed decisions about their safety and health. Only some kids are allergic to peanuts, but we don't give kids peanuts until they are two or so. We know more about them at two, and they are less vulnerable.

by fecak 13y ago

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
  You have to decide whether or not the CDC is reliable. If they are, then you can use their schedule as evidence that it's a bad idea to give all vaccines immediately, but you must also accept that giving the Hep B vaccine at birth is safe and not "rushed". If they are not reliable, then you need reasons for why giving vaccines at birth may be unsafe besides the CDC saying so.
  - fecak 13y ago
    Agreed. But I think part if this is necessity based. When going overseas you are often given shots for things that are less likely found in the US. It's not impossible to catch those diseases in the US, but the costs or risks of vaccinating the entire US population prevents us from doing that. The vaccine court has paid out individuals for vaccine injury. The results of the court are generally not widely publicized, but defining safe is somewhat key to these points.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Well, nothing is going to be 100% safe. If vaccines do more good than harm, then they should be used. A court that awards damages to those who got unlucky is a good way to try to even it out a bit. I really would like to know what, if any, reasons there are to delay vaccines and why one might consider any given schedule to be "rushed". But so far I only get handwaving.
      - fecak 13y ago
        On the day you are born, we know the least about you. Maybe you have a pre-existing condition that will be revealed in weeks to come. One of the few known vaccine court payouts went to a young girl named Hannah Poling, who had a mitochondrial disorder, and there are likely others with the same condition. Now that we know that a certain mitochondrial disorder may make a child more apt to vaccine injury, testing could prevent future injury. This is only one specific case, but the point is that the more we know about a person, the more likely we are to make informed decisions about their safety and health. Only some kids are allergic to peanuts, but we don't give kids peanuts until they are two or so. We know more about them at two, and they are less vulnerable.