Unit mandate vaccine

[qwazse]

15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I would not be so quick to write things off.  I agree with the studies.  But I also raised four kids.  At the 2 month and 15 month (?? intervals) vaccines, each had fevers or grumpy / irritable after their vaccinations.  I remember two that went from making some pre-speech sounds before vaccine to not making some again for months.  ... I'm not blaming the vaccine.  But vaccines are known to cause fever and grumpy / irritable babies after.  It is not wholly inconceivable that someday a connection will be found saying fever affects ear channels and can slow speech development or has some minor speech.  ...

I think that was one of my pandemic guy's first lessons learned. While a pediatric fever is disconcerting to parents, it translates directly into lost income in parents with terrible jobs. Those same parents have the nation's lowest math literacy so it's difficult to tell them how likely things can go bad by forgoing vaccines. (Since you mentioned hearing loss, here's an article about viruses that drive permanent or temporary hearing loss https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222184/ .)

Furthermore, since many people feel pressured to contain costs by minimizing visits, the pediatric vaccine schedule is aggressive. The sole reason for this is to give a fighting chance to kids whose parents may not bring them back to the clinic often enough for a staggered schedule. A pediatrician friend of ours arranged a less aggressive schedule for her kids, and pulled it off because she was a very good time manager. Most of us simply don't have it together that well to manage frequent returns to the clinics for different shots.

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Furthermore, since many people feel pressured to contain costs by minimizing visits, the pediatric vaccine schedule is aggressive. The sole reason for this is to give a fighting chance to kids whose parents may not bring them back to the clinic often enough for a staggered schedule. A pediatrician friend of ours arranged a less aggressive schedule for her kids, and pulled it off because she was a very good time manager. Most of us simply don't have it together that well to manage frequent returns to the clinics for different shots.

Wow.  That is disconcerting.  I have wondered too.  I suspect it's also that as a patient ... every visit is a doctor charge.  Clinics are not wired at all to do one shot at a time.  

I would have gone out of my way to do that if it was an option.  The big vaccination day was a known ... oh oh ... it will be a rough night ... thing.  Sad that medical professionals would know without suggesting it as an option. 

[yknot]

Veterinary pediatric patients are also vaccinated with multiple vaccines on an aggressive schedule and it has more to do with waning maternal antibodies and the nascent immune system than human behavior.  I have to believe that's similar in people. 
 

[walk in the woods]

Every child is different.  My son's first round of vaccines, his autism diagnosis, and the Wakefield study all happened within a few months of each other.  We stopped all his remaining vaccines.  When school rolled around, the docs offered to run titers to check his immunity.  I think he hoped they would be low to convince us to do the boosters.  Turns out they were good all the way through his school years.

[qwazse]

@yknot, that’s more the case for some vaccines than others. For example, I don’t think the response to HPV is any more robust in childhood, but it is offered early because the concern is that the probability of a child being able to decide and get it in advance of any unchecked sexual encounter is low — especially since for 1/5 of girls and 1/20 boys the encounter is unwelcome.

@walk in the woods, I think titers will be the wave of the future if costs keep dropping. This could spare quite a few children unnecessary boosters. Or, better, allow for effective timing of boosters. But it won’t happen in our country. We don’t have the cradle-to-grave info-tech to help all patients navigate it.

[yknot]

23 minutes ago, qwazse said:

@yknot, that’s more the case for some vaccines than others. For example, I don’t think the response to HPV is any more robust in childhood, but it is offered early because the concern is that the probability of a child being able to decide and get it in advance of any unchecked sexual encounter is low — especially since for 1/5 of girls and 1/20 boys the encounter is unwelcome.

@walk in the woods, I think titers will be the wave of the future if costs keep dropping. This could spare quite a few children unnecessary boosters. Or, better, allow for effective timing of boosters. But it won’t happen in our country. We don’t have the cradle-to-grave info-tech to help all patients navigate it.

I'm not sure what you are saying. The HPV vaccine while pediatric is an outlier in many ways, primarily because it is not part of the battery of vaccines we were discussing that are given during infancy and toddlerhood. Maternal antibody interference with that one is also not much of an issue? However, my kids received HPV exactly because of the statistics you cited.

It's not the cost so much with titers it's more a question of how reliable some of them are for certain diseases. The body of research is growing but titers don't always correlate to real world protection. Immune response can be very individual and influenced by many factors, some of which are not well understood.