Anonymous wrote:

I'm one of those posters. It's just not a very common disease in this country, and the addition of the vaccine to the schedule is relatively recent. According to the CDC, since it's been introduced on the schedule, rates have declined significantly, which is a great public health win. Public health, like everything else, is political (see, for example, the debate about gardasil) and choices for emphasis have to be made. I simply question whether focus on this disease, which is most commonly, though I agree not exclusively, transmitted via sex and blood contact is the right public health choice. My kids were vaccinated in accordance with the schedule, so it's really a political/social point and it's certainly not an anti-vax point.

Anonymous wrote:I did it at the ped's office, around 4 weeks.

I'm very pro-vax, but that one is given at birth for social reasons, not medical ones (with obvious exceptions like pp's situation). The population most at risk are the ones least likely to get all their immunizations, so it's on the schedule to be given at birth. I personally wasn't comfortable giving permission for it before he was born, so we just waited to do it with the pediatrician.

Anonymous wrote:

I am shocked at the number of parents here who seem to think there are "risk factors" and "risky behavior" for Hep B.

You do realize that if your kid it at a playground, playdate, or in a daycare setting you are potentially exposing them to hep B, right?

I guess all these kids are kept at home.

But if your kid has ever been bitten by another child there is a chance he/she could have been exposed and that is why you get vaccinated.

No parent is required to not have their child in school or daycare if their child has hep B. Nor is any childcare worker/nanny, etc required to disclose either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did it at the ped's office, around 4 weeks.

I'm very pro-vax, but that one is given at birth for social reasons, not medical ones (with obvious exceptions like pp's situation). The population most at risk are the ones least likely to get all their immunizations, so it's on the schedule to be given at birth. I personally wasn't comfortable giving permission for it before he was born, so we just waited to do it with the pediatrician.

How is it "social reasons"? The vaccine is given at birth because there are no risks associated with giving it early, and doing so provides protection for kids who were exposed prenatally, including those whose parents didn't realize they were exposed.

That's a hell of a lot better reason for giving it on that particular day then the fact that we give the Chicken Pox vaccine at 12 months, a decision that was likely made because it's an easier age to remember than say 12 months and a week, or eleven and a half months.

Not that PP, but hep is not transmitted in the same way as chicken pox or many of the other diseases for which children receive vaccines. It's transmitted to children generally only from the mother, and mothers generally only have hep B because they engage in risky behaviors and those behaviors are associated with low rates of vaccination. Giving the vaccine to everyone can cover those children even though their mothers aren't getting care, so we do that even though the majority of children aren't at risk until they are older and start engaging in the risky behaviors - sex, IV drugs, tattoos, etc. I believe that's what PP means by social reasons, not temporal placement on the schedule relative to other early childhood vaccines.

Anonymous wrote:No risk here so we waited till the first chance at the ped's office. I think that was 1 month. An added bonus was that all of the records are at the same place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am shocked at the number of parents here who seem to think there are "risk factors" and "risky behavior" for Hep B.
You do realize that if your kid it at a playground, playdate, or in a daycare setting you are potentially exposing them to hep B, right?

I guess all these kids are kept at home.

But if your kid has ever been bitten by another child there is a chance he/she could have been exposed and that is why you get vaccinated.

No parent is required to not have their child in school or daycare if their child has hep B. Nor is any childcare worker/nanny, etc required to disclose either.

I'm even more shocked by the poster who thinks that the Hep B vaccine isn't necessary AT ALL.

+1

I guess as long as your kids don't leave the house, play with other children or engage in sports, or play in public places then the shot is not necessary.

I'm one of those posters. It's just not a very common disease in this country, and the addition of the vaccine to the schedule is relatively recent. According to the CDC, since it's been introduced on the schedule, rates have declined significantly, which is a great public health win. Public health, like everything else, is political (see, for example, the debate about gardasil) and choices for emphasis have to be made. I simply question whether focus on this disease, which is most commonly, though I agree not exclusively, transmitted via sex and blood contact is the right public health choice. My kids were vaccinated in accordance with the schedule, so it's really a political/social point and it's certainly not an anti-vax point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am shocked at the number of parents here who seem to think there are "risk factors" and "risky behavior" for Hep B.
You do realize that if your kid it at a playground, playdate, or in a daycare setting you are potentially exposing them to hep B, right?

I guess all these kids are kept at home.

But if your kid has ever been bitten by another child there is a chance he/she could have been exposed and that is why you get vaccinated.

No parent is required to not have their child in school or daycare if their child has hep B. Nor is any childcare worker/nanny, etc required to disclose either.

I'm even more shocked by the poster who thinks that the Hep B vaccine isn't necessary AT ALL.

+1

I guess as long as your kids don't leave the house, play with other children or engage in sports, or play in public places then the shot is not necessary.

Anonymous wrote:My ped told me he thinks Hep B is unnecessary for kids and should be delayed until the teen years. We still haven't gotten it. Child is 2 and not in daycare. We will have to get it by school age as it is required for school but are delaying until then. DH and I know we don't have it and we are the only caregivers for our child.

Anonymous wrote:My ped told me he thinks Hep B is unnecessary for kids and should be delayed until the teen years. We still haven't gotten it. Child is 2 and not in daycare. We will have to get it by school age as it is required for school but are delaying until then. DH and I know we don't have it and we are the only caregivers for our child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am shocked at the number of parents here who seem to think there are "risk factors" and "risky behavior" for Hep B.
You do realize that if your kid it at a playground, playdate, or in a daycare setting you are potentially exposing them to hep B, right?

I guess all these kids are kept at home.

But if your kid has ever been bitten by another child there is a chance he/she could have been exposed and that is why you get vaccinated.

No parent is required to not have their child in school or daycare if their child has hep B. Nor is any childcare worker/nanny, etc required to disclose either.

I'm even more shocked by the poster who thinks that the Hep B vaccine isn't necessary AT ALL.