Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ab
Continuing because rage.
*froths*
|
So if more viruses in a vaccine is always better (because, after all they're a rounding error compared to eating dog shit, snails and a dirty kitchen floor), why don't doctors include every virus they can think of and vaccinate at birth? Why is there even a schedule? Either a newborn baby can handle every virus under the sun all in one go, or it can't and age/maturity of the immune system has something to do with what a child can take. That is why some vaccines are only given at 12 months, isn't it? 15 months in NZ for MMR, maybe 12 was a bit... risky? I MEAN THERES NO RISK, VACCINES ARE SAFE, HERE I'LL EAT A BOX OF THEM MYSELF.
The fact that some vaccines require repeated/follow up shots as standard practice means that your mummyfeels argument does not hold because children probably cry every time anyway, and the current vaccine schedule still takes place.
Assuming you can't be enrolled in a public school/child care unless you're fully vaccinated, does it matter if you get your shots separately or together, or at 2, 12, 18, 24 months or just before you start school? Some parents could choose all in one, some might choose to spread them out. I believe the operative word is FREEDOM. Minimising costs (your justification) is also a way to maximise profits, so daddy tin foil can fuck off. More shots = more GDP - it's the economy, stupid.
No-one is proposing to discontinue vaccinations.