Hackles, not shackles.
I think the reason for early vaccination is mostly just that doctor visits trail off as kids get older -- something scheduled for the first year is going to happen, but something scheduled for a four-year-old might get missed.
I'm really curious what people have to say about this. Mara is up-to-date on vaccines now, but I wonder whether she got the ones for younger kids as early as she should have. I guess the WIC public health nurse might have been pushy about it. Someday I'll get to see her medical files for myself and know what happened when.
And also that the baby has antibodies that it has acquired from its mother in utero, but these dissipate as the baby gets older and need to be replaced, either by vaccination (good) or exposure to the pathogen (often bad).
Yeah, if I were going to make stuff up (and so I am) I'd guess that late vaccination doesn't matter much in a conscientiously vaccinating environment, but if you have too many nonvaxers around, you need to vax your kids as early as possible for safety.
(We put off Sally's chicken pox vax for one month, because we were traveling. And while we were traveling, she got something that looked exactly like chicken pox, but later turned out not to have been. Then we found five euros.)
I'm on your side generally, but I do think it's true what they say about the chicken pox vaccine.
What do they say about the chicken pox vaccine?
The anti-vaccination stuff is straightforwardly stupid misinformed. Drinking unpasteurized milk isn't. There's no reason you would make as much of an argument about both.
Hackles, not shackles.
Hugs, not drugs.
What do they say about the chicken pox vaccine?
To get to the other side.
I do think it's true what they say about the chicken pox vaccine.
It has a big dick?
Unfogged just loves pox jokes.
It's not as effective at immunizing people as just catching chicken pox is.
Pox parties: the original chicken pox vaccination.
Pox parties
All the shingles, laydeez.
Speaking of delayed vaccinations, what's new and recommended for people in their mid-30s these days? I had whatever was normal for schoolchildren and then required for going to college, but I suspect they've invented new ones or made them more common. Hep-B? Update everything that I haven't had in 17 years?
(I will ask my actual doctor about this when I see her next, which I am scheduled to do, but it would be good to be informed).
There's a rather straightforward argument for early vaccinations. The vast majority of the increase in average life expectancy in the last 100 years has come from the huge drop in deaths of children under five. And much of that comes from vaccination. Measles vaccination alone increases a country's life expectancy by three years for a 10% increase in the innoculation rate.
You down the DPT?
No, vaccinated, I be.
16.2: Since back in the old days, they've invented a new vaccine called Hep-Cat-B that you need to look into. It protects you from a disease that makes you want to dig in the crates for old Coltrane records.
Yes. I should really stop working so hard today.
Nathan, Adults should get hep-b. Gay men are often encouraged to get hep-a as well.
When I got my physical this spring, I got a DPT booster also. It was the first vaccine I've had a reaction to in a long time. It wasn't a big reaction or anything, but I could feel the drag of it.
A cousin seems to be slowly losing custody of her child and anti-vaccination/homeopathy/christian science beliefs are a factor in it. I'm on the periphery of hearing about stuff, so I don't know the details, but the court stuff has been trending against her. Her response to the many anti-anti-vaccination arguments put forwards seems, unfortunately, to have led to a doubling down on anti-medicine views: christian science (without most of the christianity) was a more recent add.
The father's an asshole and pressing to get everything he possibly can. He also got the kid vaccinated without saying he was going to do it; medically, that was probably the right thing to do. He also seems to be turning the kid back over to her full of sugar and energy late at night.
Truth be told, they're both not without some personality problems, and both taking maximalist stances on everything, and both making lots of accusations. It's just a horrible situation and the worst is that you could see how it would all play out, when they were going through the motions of trying to "make things work", 3 years ago, in the months before the kid was born.
That's all I have to say. It's just too on topic for the pause play symbols.
I got what seemed like a pretty complete suite of vaccinations for some travel early this year. Hep-A and hep-B, MMR, flu shot and probably others. I did not give much thought to whether I was doubling up on some of them.
He also seems to be turning the kid back over to her full of sugar and energy late at night.
Wow, people just find the weirdest ways of getting back at their (ex-)spouses.
What is Christian Science without Christianity? They pray to Baal?
Wow, people just find the weirdest ways of getting back at things to blame on their (ex-)spouses.
the HPV one is new, right? And I think men can get it too so they won't transmit, though I don't know if they bother vaccinating sexually active adults.
Oh, fucking anti-vaxxers. I had a run in with a couple of them recently that really ... did not ... go well. Thinking about it afterwards I think what annoys me the most is the double-whammy intrinsic to the way they. There's garden-variety parenting beliefs about gluten-free diets or no plastic toys or whatever. These sometimes lead to smugness, mommy drive-bys, etc, but that's basically harmless. Then there's the inability to accept actual evidence and all that. That's much more annoying, especially when preached at you embedded in some dumbass theory of toxins or whatever. But then, with the anti-vaxxers, there's the problem that on the basis of their *own stupid point of view* they actively need/want as many people as possible to (from their point of view) endanger their children by vaccinating them, so that they can free-ride on the herd. This is what makes it so much worse. They want to have their cake and eat it, professing their deep care for their own children while necessarily hoping others will do something they think actively harms children.
Incidentally, there's no evidence that kids get "sugar highs" from sugar.
I hate anti-vaxxers as much as the next person, but I don't think they want other people to get vaccinated. They're genuine in their belief that vaccines are harmful (the civilians, that is, as opposed to the snake oil people).
Eh, the kid's barely 3, already has behavioral problems, and comes back at around 9 or 10 at night with even more for the rest of the "evening". Could just be a response to the change over. As I say, it's a horrible situation and it's ugly enough that I don't want to say anything more. I only mentioned it because I saw this comment in the original thread, which was surely a joke, but thought, maybe that's a known thing?
Believe me, a number of us have laid out clearly and in great detail everything that's wrong about anti-vaccination, along with the implications for custody, and she won't budge. That's one of the things that makes it so awful.
Yeah, HPV is worth mentioning, though I think it's chiefly for younger folks; possibly younger than mid-thirties.
I had a tetanus booster recently -- presumably DPT -- any doctor who's following things might can should call for it.
Is there a shingles vaccination or booster now? I recall seeing and hearing a fair amount about that in recent years, and a couple of friends have fallen prey to a sudden recurrence of the herpes zoster virus -- basically chicken pox -- who were in their 30s/40s. Didn't Di experience this? It can have quite serious complications on the rebound, on the order of nerve damage. A good friend wound up with partial facial paralysis, unfortunately, though his life has gone on well since. But.
I see that Wikipedia -- see the "Prevention" section -- as well as a couple of other sources, recommend it for those over 60, but I wouldn't take that age as definitive. I should consider it myself, actually; what happened to my friend was pretty grim.
I was led to understand that with HPV they don't generally vaccinate over the age of 26. Could just be my doctor, though.
I don't think they want other people to get vaccinated. They're genuine in their belief that vaccines are harmful (the civilians, that is, as opposed to the snake oil people)
Yeah, they believe vaccines are harmful, polio or whooping cough is worse, and thankfully they can choose the lesser of two evils because those disease are rare--thanks to enough other kids being vaccinated.
35 gets it right, except for the typos.
I hate anti-vaxxers as well, for all reasons above plus the strong class/race element. Just one more reason why your kid won't have to hang out with the dirty brown folks on the playground!
My pediatrician advised a slightly modified and delayed vaccination schedule; she said something like that the FDA mandated one is designed to reduce the number of doctor visits and thus the risk that people won't show up, but that there are some real safety benefits to spacing things out over time. Since I'm not a fucking doctor, I have no idea if she's right or not, but I listened to the advice.
Yeah, they believe vaccines are harmful, polio or whooping cough is worse, and thankfully they can choose the lesser of two evils because those disease are rare--thanks to enough other kids being vaccinated.
Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean they're making a calculated decision on herd immunity. They're being stupid and freeloading on rational people and endangering their kids, but I've not seen anything to suggest they're cynical on that level.
Stupidity in the absence of cynicism is no vice.
the 'my child is MY PROPERTY!!' libertarianism stuff, and pretty much anyone too invested in their importance as A PARENT
40: That's something like my understanding as well. It's because a great many women (not sure about men) have have an HPV infection by their mid-twenties anyway, assuming they're sexually active, so have already built up antibodies and fought it off via natural immune system, and likely never even knew about it. It's more of a danger for first-timers.
Men carrying HPV about I'm less clear on. I could look it up!
I could look it up!
That's the stuff!
I've heard diseases described as "obsolete" without acknowledgment of the causal chain that has led them to be rare. Even after it's explained. It's really quite amazing. "Well, in that case, I still don't have to vaccinate" would be a more cynical, but somewhat less unsettling, response.
there are some real safety benefits to spacing things out over time
Do you know what they are? (Totally not being tendentious.)
I don't think the conclusion of 47 is true. The first half:
It's because a great many women (not sure about men) have have an HPV infection by their mid-twenties anyway, assuming they're sexually active,
is the sole reason. They've already been exposed to the virus that potentially causes cervical cancer; a vaccine wouldn't do them any good now. It's not that they've fought it off and are somehow in the clear for having done so.
43: Ours also did a slightly delayed vaccination schedule.
Incidentally, there's no evidence that kids get "sugar highs" from sugar.
Well from what do they get sugar highs then?
This all reminds me that as far as I know, I never got chicken pox despite my sister and lots of classmates having it, and that since I haven't seen a regular doctor for possibly 10 years, I probably need boosters in everything that has them. And maybe new vaccines for innovative, win-the-future diseases.
51: Right - my doctor told me that if you were over the age of 26, they assumed at that point you'd had the infection and thus it was pointless. However, if you had a limited sexual history they would still vaccinate if you wanted it. The CDC website also gives 26 as the cut-off age.
55: But they now test for HPV along with one's Pap smear, so they know if you have it or not.
55: Yeah, I had this conversation around the age 26, so my information is out of date.
I hate it when a thread drifts uncomfortably close to an upcoming post I have planned. I just read "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" who died of cervical cancer in 1951 and her cancerous cells gave rise to the Hela cell line, which is EVERYWHERE and contaminates everything and 99% of all SCIENCE! has been done on Hela. Her family is both sympathetic and has been treated horribly by the medical industry and is amazingly clueless about biology. It was a very good read. I guess I don't need to do that post now, though.
51: Oh. Well, um, okay. I'm slightly confused now: is there not such a thing as having developed antibodies due to having had the viral infection already? I thought that's how vaccines work in the first place. But I see what you're saying, certainly; this all makes it clear to me that I really don't understand how this stuff works. Presumably different viruses work in different ways.
58: I, for one, am interested in reading that post. It would mean stomping on Stanley, but.
59: HPV in so far as it causes HPV is not a problem. Where HPV is a serious health threat is in cervical cancer - several strains of HPV are the leading cause of cervical cancer.
(Or, to take someone else's word for it: "Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers. It was estimated that, in 2010, about 12,000 women in the United States would be diagnosed with this type of cancer and more than 4,000 would die from it. Cervical cancer is diagnosed in nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives annually.")
59: You can get pre-cancerous cells before you fight off the infection is you get immunity the old fashioned way.
56: But they now test for HPV along with one's Pap smear, so they know if you have it or not.
Right, but if you do have it, you should not freak out: you will probably fight it off of your own accord, as you likely have done in the past.
Right, you've already got antibodies which would successfully protect you from being re-infected with the same virus, which is also what the vaccine accomplishes. But the original infection is what heightened the risk of cervical cancer, and the antibodies don't undo that.
62 was just me guessing but it sounds like it might be right.
In other words, that's why there's a considerate effort to vaccinate 12-year-olds, before sexual activity starts. If they never get HPV, they should never get cervical cancer.
I don't think 62 is necessarily the mechanism, though.
63: There are also multiple strains of HPV - the vaccine protects against the most dangerous ones. Having antibodies for one infection, though, wouldn't necessarily save you from a second.
62: Ah. Enlightenment! Those of you with girl children should get them the HPV vaccine in, what, their early teen years? Do do that.
(Also, I just realized I meant considerable. Though it is awfully considerate.)
67: What if I said "pre, pre, pre-cancerous cells"?
64 and 66 both make it clear. Thanks, guys. I hadn't realized that the cancer risk was ongoing from the first infection.
59: I think what 51 is saying is that 47's ...so have already built up antibodies and fought it off via natural immune system, and likely never even knew about it. It's more of a danger for first-timers. is too strong, because it implies that all those women over 26 who've likely already been infected "fought it off" and are out of the "danger" that applies to first-timers and have no worries.
In fact, some of them have fought it off and are protected from repeat infections by antibodies, some have the persistent infections that may lead to cell changes and cervical cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV Neither group is helped by the vaccine.
What's the correct etiquette for pointing out you've already linked something? Is there some sort of special hand move while hitting enter?
I think everybody should be more worried about shingles.
Those of us who are sluts over 26 are just too late for the HPV vaccine to be of use. Shingles, though ....
Can you do anything to stop your risk of shingles?
It's stress-related, isn't it? So stay calm and happy. And if you don't, it's your own goddam fault if you get sick.
Hey, there's a vaccine for shingles, but it isn't close to 100% effective.
The wikipedia page says being around kids with chickenpox provides a boost to your immune system that helps keep shingles away. So, maybe the vaccine isn't a bad idea now that kids don't get the chickenpox much.
Also, the pictures are pretty scary.
As I mentioned in 39, it can have significant complications: my friend wound up with Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, which affected his throat/ear/eye (basically the skin blistering occurred internally, or at least he didn't have any external skin problems, so diagnosis was a bitch), and had quite a bit of pain, had to wear an eye patch over one eye, and could barely slurp down broth soup for a couple of weeks, and was all but whimpering. Eventually resulting in permanent nerve damage to one side of his face (but he's a very happy man now).
Er, if the vaccine is available, I don't see why we wouldn't all go for it.
18
... Measles vaccination alone increases a country's life expectancy by three years for a 10% increase in the innoculation rate.
As stated this seems clearly wrong. The US went from 0% to near 100% but I don't think life expectancy went up by 30 years.
It would mean stomping on Stanley, but.
I don't mind being stomped. I just feel bad stomping others, but I probably shouldn't.
84: that's because you're naively assuming that because a 10% rate gives you three extra years, 100% gives you 30 which nobody is saying.
I'd expect a graph showing which percentage of the population has had measles vaccination vs increase in average life expectancy to grow steeply at first, then flatten.
Hey, ho, hey diddle diddle,
Aunt Emily's shingles have met in the middle.
She's buried in Devon,
So God's in his heaven,
And that is the end of the news!
Right - my doctor told me that if you were over the age of 26, they assumed at that point you'd had the infection and thus it was pointless.
The other reason I've seen is that they arbitrarily used that age because it corresponded to the age range used in the clinical trials. Both of my little tart children got it this year.
He also seems to be turning the kid back over to her full of sugar and energy late at night.
Is this different from "happy and excited"? When we're talking about a small child?
39: Yes, had shingles a couple of years back. Stress triggers it, I'm told. Not fun.
This whole thread is interesting, as I've come across some information that raises the possibility that the new Mrs. UNG is expecting. She herself has never gotten vaccinated against anything. I'm curious whether the hypothetical spawn will be vaccinated.
Is UNG as daft as his fancy bit about this? If not, he may be able to apply some pressure.
Presumably he will favor vaccination, as Rory's had all her shots. Enough so to stand up to the Hausfrau? This, I am unsure of.
84: that's because you're naively assuming that because a 10% rate gives you three extra years, 100% gives you 30 which nobody is saying.
I'd expect a graph showing which percentage of the population has had measles vaccination vs increase in average life expectancy to grow steeply at first, then flatten.
To be fair, James wrote "As stated." He's right, you didn't specify at which margin your stat applied.
I ended up getting Mara's full medical and WIC file yesterday and she's certainly had a lot of vaccines in her life, I assume at the appointed time. As I'd suspected, WIC withholds (or at least threatens to withhold) food vouchers from the parents unless the kids are up-to-date on vaccines.
And I now have a photocopy of the birth info that includes Mara's infant footprints! She kept holding her feet up to the page to marvel at how much she's grown. We have one piece of clothing that I know entered foster care with her (half a pair of pajamas) but other than that had absolutely nothing from her life pre-age 2.5. Knowing about her birth and babyhood health is huge.
She kept holding her feet up to the page to marvel at how much she's grown.
Aww. My oldest son now wears shoes a size larger than mine.
Probably more expensive than your shoes also, if the kids are still wanting the fancy sneakers with all the endorsements.
Entirely more expensive than my shoes, yes.
I get my shoes from a hobo who sleeps on the bench nearby. Some charity or another keeps giving him new shoes, so no harm.
The Canadian segment of the family was entirely amazed to learn that nigh on immediately after birth and foot printing, O had an alarm locked to his wee leg that would have sounded alarms if taken too close to any means of egress. America is overrun with crazed baby thieves!
It is bizarre, but stupidly comforting when you're a crazed mix of adrenaline and no sleep and new baby.
99: Nobody would bother to steal a Canadian.
I can't believe Apo didn't pick the low fruit of his own comment.
If you try to cut the baby lock off, does it squirt him with ink to ruin his resale value?
That's wise. Many babies have been carried off by an egress.
99: holy god, really? You give babies anti-theft tags? Is this standard in the US?
I can't believe Apo didn't pick the low fruit of his own comment.
I thought of posting "takes after his father, I see!" but I thought it might be simultaneously too insulting and too obscure.
People wonder why healthcare in the US is so expensive, but then you find out that other places in the world don't even give newborn babies anti-theft tags as part of the standard protocol. So obviously we're paying more for higher quality care.
|| It occurred to me this morning that I am, in fact, phenomenally unhappy with this new baby news. Fuckers*. |>
*Yeah, I know, hangin' low...
You could steal it, if they have the baby in Canada.
106: having a baby is free in Knifecrime Island, so we don't feel the need to protect our investment. If someone steals it, you can just get another.
99: It was in fact the alarm form that had the footprints. It also has one fingerprint from her mother and then her mother had to sign that the tag numbers matched.
And Di, I'm sorry. I, too, am finding that connected-through-your-kids family dynamics are more painful than might be expected, and I don't even have to deal with having had a prior relationship with the people involved.
phenomenally unhappy with this new baby news
Why do you think that is? I have friends in a pretty much identical situation (daughter about Rory's age even, though I think their divorce is more recent than yours) and the ex-wife is similarly unhappy about his new baby.
It's straight-forward in my case. I have wanted another baby for 11+ years now. The "maybe next year" routine was one (of many) factors leading to the divorce. I'm not going to get to have another baby. The ignorant cunt he fucked in my house while our divorce was pending does. New Baby is due on Rory's birthday.
111: On the veldt, it would mean fewer resources for her child.
I suppose that is indeed straightforward.
113: Yeah, there's also that echo of the therapist cautioning me that his biggest concern with UNG vis-a-vis Rory was that she'd basically get dumped if he had a new baby with the hausfrau.
Is this standard in the US?
At most large hospitals (or in large cities), apparently yes. But it's standard in Norway (!) and some big hospitals in the UK and Canada do it too. Who knew?
Our first baby (2004) did not have the security system, third did (2009), I forget with the second because he was in the level 2 nursery so there was already higher security to get to him. I don't believe he had one.
117: You should put more pix up, because your sons are crazy adorable.
he was in the level 2 nursery so there was already higher security to get to him.
Because he'd been a BAD NEONATE!
There was an article somewhere about Chinese maternity hospitals, where it's SOP for the hospital to hang on to the baby until the parents pay the fees.
115: I don't know if this is consolation or the reverse or just weird, but my stereotype of men with a younger set of half-siblings from a new wife is that mostly, everything's fine. But where there are issues between the two sets of kids at all, the younger set of kids tends to get a lot more in the way of tangible resources, but the older set tends to be more functional in adulthood and have a better relationship with the parents. This is from a giant sample set of three families I'm thinking about, so take it for what it's worth, which isn't much.
And I don't think my kids got the LoJack. I wonder if I've forgotten, if St. L/R was unusually relaxed, or if that's new in the last decade.
Di, I'm sorry. That does suck.
They had it at Weill Cornell in 2004.
121: Yeah, the therapist's comment was based principally on his direct familiarity with UNG and the ways he likes to feed his ego. Babies generally garner more oohing and aahing than teenagers, so... We'll see, I guess. The new baby will probably be ugly, so Rory will still be the center of attention.
There were almost no baby-theft prevention measures at the small hospital in update NY where Joey was born. No tags. No proximity alarms. Nothing. They are simple farming folk up there.
The new baby will probably be ugly
And almost certainly naked, at least at first.
Sympathies, Di. My ex didn't want kids when we first started dating, I did. Eventually I convinced her that it would be great. Then we split and she was pregnant by the guy she cheated with within 3 months. Sometimes it's hard not to direct my negative feelings towards the kid.
The impending spawn will, truthfully, likely be quite attractive. The Hausfrau has a pretty face, despite her loathsome personality. UNG was a good looking kid. The UNGlein will be probably be cute, unvaccinated and hopefully glean insight into good behavior from Rory.
will be probably be cute, unvaccinated
Until the small pox scars, at least.
Ugh, Di, that sounds pretty wretched. Sympathies.
Re nursery security: My uncle was born prematurely in 1939 in a poor family in Brooklyn. The only way he oculd get into an incubator was to be part of a freak show at the 1939 World's Fair, where the preemies in incubators were on public display. In other years the display had been on the Coney Island boardwalk. He has a letter from the Freak show to his mother reminding her to pick up her baby on a particular day so aother baby could get into the incubator, with a suggestion that if she missed her pickup time they'd give the baby to someone else.
On the plus side, the extended family got free passes to the World Fair and the slightly older cousins apparently had an awesome Summer.
133: I was going to say this was too good a story to be true, but ...http://www.neonatology.org/pinups/nywf.html
134: Yeah, my uncle he has one of those certificates also.
On freakshow baby security, From the linked 1939 New Yorker article:
"He has had more difficulties inducing parents to take their children back than to trust them to him. As the Doctor explains it, a baby is a lot of trouble, and parents are sometimes more than willing to postpone the day of reunion. This hurts Dr. Couney's sense of decencies; it also does not help his business, since a normal-sized baby is useless for exhibition purposes. When the parents of such a child are balky, he takes the infant back to its parents' home and leaves it. He has never been stuck with one yet. Nor has he ever been accused of getting his babies mixed. Each has a little identification necklace, which is put around its neck when it comes in, and the necklace goes home with the baby. Grown persons sometimes turn up at the concession showing these necklaces as proof that they were once Couney preemies. They get in free."
and in further WTF
"Most of the nurses are fascinated by the incubator babies, because making one grow is a kind of vicarious motherhood. The summer is a long competition among the nurses, with weekly prizes of stockings for those whose charges gain the most weight."
from http://www.neonatology.org/classics/liebling.html