Sadly, they won’t. Evidenced by the parents that still refuse to vaccinate their children even in the midst of the recent measles outbreak in both the US and Canada.Maybe once babies start getting sick and dying, those parents will finally realize their ignorance and why we do healthcare the way we do. And if they don't... well, natural selection will march on. It's too bad those babies will never have a fair chance at survival, it's definitely not their fault.
There is no simpler explanation than the current powers that be want unregulated die-off to maintain their wealth.
I am just waiting for the first country to impose Vaccine requirements for entry on US Citizens.
It’s not that the US allows election of a felon - ‘Trump’ could happen without convictions.Fuck. I hate this timeline.
I'm so tired of grifters in power ruining DECADES of science because they don't like <whatever the worm in their brain says is bad today>. So many people in 20-30 years will face an illness that ONE person destroyed the defense against, and this is all because of the US allowing the electing of a felon.
Fuck!!!!!!
At least it only makes you feel ill. A measurable number of infants will actually become ill as a result of this and bear the negative impact for their entire life.This makes me feel ill. I can never forgive people who supported MAGA.
Great answer! Even better, since by the time they test positive they will actually have the disease, for the cost of the test they could receive the vaccine with what is no discernible risk!We should test ahead of time rather than treat everyone as if they had been exposed.
Unfortunately the insurance that pays for the preventative care (including but not limited to vaccines) almost never get the savings from lower healthcare costs later. So they’re not very interested in paying for preventative care unless legally forced to. “Line must go up” wins.One of the interesting, at least to me, things about insurance is that it's motivated by money. Strongly motivated, one might say. In this case, I'm sure they're calculating how much the shot would cost versus the potential costs of caring for someone with the disease. It's interesting how the insurance company's motivation to keep you healthy for a minimum cost generally aligns with our best interests.
Of course, I say that, then I'll have a depressing conversation with my neighbor (who works for an insurance company) about how they deny care to people for various things. So, IDK. Your mileage may vary. But at least on paper, you'd think it would be a no brainer to support vaccines.
But what you actually stated had none of that nuance or relevant information, so it was an odd comment if that was what you wanted to emphasize.Yes, the Canadian recommendations are to vaccinate at birth where there is an infant vaccine program or if the mother has a positive test. Whether only some or all of the provinces have programs to vaccinate at birth, i.e. before 2 months after birth, as was previously claimed to be the Canadian recommendation, seems not irrelevant to the argument, doesn’t it? My point was to stick to discussions of the actual recommendations, which are much more nuanced and dependent on specific circumstances than what is typically used to descend into some random political rant.
Haha, yes, all that nuance was not in my first comment because it diluted my main point, which was that the statement I responded to (“In Canada it’s two months and always has been“) is incorrect. And I did provide the relevant information for why I believe that this general statement is incorrect. Your response citing the details of what is recommended in Canada and where, provided a good context to add the that nuance.But what you actually stated had none of that nuance or relevant information, so it was an odd comment if that was what you wanted to emphasize.
I think it’s a combination of true believers and grift - mostly grift. RFKJr. and most of the people on the panel scam money from those they’ve convinced that actual medicine is a con - they sell books, have podcasts, sell “supplements”, whatever. To what extent they actually believe the idiocy is unknown.
Why is this tolerated or even encouraged by those above them in the administration? It feeds the base, reduces trust in science and expertise, and degrades the functioning of the (formerly apolitical) aspects of the government, all of which gives them more power to reshape things to their liking.
Edit: quote the post I was replying to, which for some reason I didn’t notice was missing
"Gold standard" now means whatever the Gilded Calf, Trump, approves.
We should test ahead of time rather than treat everyone as if they had been exposed.
The more miserable and poor everyone is the more desperate we will be to break our backs working for the crumbs falling off the billionaires' tables. And there are just more people than are needed to grant the wishes of the billionaires, using up the natural resources that billionaires need, so thinning the herd is a sacrifice the billionaires are willing to make.I genuinely don't understand what the endgame is for putting all these incompetent and inexperienced people in positions of power. I realize the general administration's MO is simply back scratching and corruption, but how does any of this help even them? Does someone stand to benefit from the increased infections and death that are sure to come?
I think Republicanitiss sounds more appropriate.Let it forever be renamed "Kennedy's disease" to honour his stupidity.
Don't forget the brain worm(s)!The Three Stooges are running the Department of Health
Their ultimate goal is to destroy the government so thoroughly that they can replace it with a theocracy of their choosing. Read Project 2025! This is the American Taliban in charge.I genuinely don't understand what the endgame is for putting all these incompetent and inexperienced people in positions of power. I realize the general administration's MO is simply back scratching and corruption, but how does any of this help even them? Does someone stand to benefit from the increased infections and death that are sure to come?
Some parents have already shown that they don't actually care what happens to their children.Maybe once babies start getting sick and dying, those parents will finally realize their ignorance and why we do healthcare the way we do. And if they don't... well, natural selection will march on. It's too bad those babies will never have a fair chance at survival, it's definitely not their fault.
Every accusation made by the GQP is a confession.So this is the death panels the GOP was warning about?
They were concerned about PUBLIC death panels. Private death panels are just called insurance companies.So this is the death panels the GOP was warning about?
I don't know who Robert Felchi is, and I'm not gonna ask if he's where the term "felching" came from.This is what happens when you trade Anthony Fauci for Robert Felchi.
But then Junior appeals it to the Supreme Court, where who knows what the Injustices would do. [But given their stellar track record so farWhich is a very long-winded way of getting to my point: RFK Jr might very well sue but we're beyond the point where suing to bully is likely to get anyone to submit. So it'd go to a real court. Where RFK Jr would lose, since those institutions still primarily evaluate facts
EXACTLY. Dominionism is the whole point. Trump's antics are a convenient distraction from the fact the rest of his party intend to turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship that will make Gilead look kind.Their ultimate goal is to destroy the government so thoroughly that they can replace it with a theocracy of their choosing. Read Project 2025! This is the American Taliban in charge.
Generally, yes, but it DOES affect health insurance decisions (whether it's covered or not) and reinforces the anti-vaxxers.Forgive me if I'm ignorant on this, but... since it's a recommendation, can the healthcare professionals who know* better just ...ignore it and do what's best in their medical opinion? "Fuck 'em" works both ways, sometimes.
*original said 'do' which I guess although not incorrect is a weird way of wording that.
Thanks for the research. pkirvan is a disinformation account. You can <Ignore> the account.
Two candidates IMO for a pinned post: your post, and the commentary that non-USA countries that mandate day-of-birth immunisation are like the USA in that they have high rates of Hep B, and therefore are the right baseline for comparison.Babies who are delivered vaginally come out their mother’s vagina.
When the baby comes out of the mother’s vagina, they are covered in the mother’s vaginal secretions.
If the mother has hepatitis B, it will be present in those vaginal secretions.
Since the baby is exposed to those vaginal secretions, they are at risk of contracting hepatitis B.
Fortunately if the hepatitis B vaccine is administered soon enough (like in the first 24 hours), then the baby will not contract hepatitis B even if the mother has it. In a perfect world, no mother would have hepatitis B, but we don’t live in a perfect world. I suppose we could screen every mother for hepatitis B and only vaccinate the babies that they deliver, but that is more time consuming and there is more likelihood for mistakes. The safer, easier, less expensive, more effective method is to just give every newborn the vaccine.