@Bansah1 I’m not sure why prioritisation should be an issue. We saw during Covid how the pharmaceutical industry was only too happy to inject nearly everyone (often under duress) with their barely tested and, as should be obvious to everyone now, ineffective “vaccine”. When it comes to hepatitis B, why not at least educate people about the virus and how it’s transmitted, let them know there is a vaccine against it and then let them make up their own mind about it? As et5656 pointed out, even if only 10% of people infected with hepatitis B become chronic carriers of the virus, that’s potentially quite a lot of people worldwide.
1 Like
Right, I agree that we should prioritize prevention for everyone. IMO the discussion about protecting infants should not be about protecting infants at the exclusion of protecting adults. In my opinion, it’s more about the fact that the current policy in the US is clearly working, and there’s enough evidence that going back to the risk-based model will make outcomes measurably worse. It won’t be as catastrophic as it would be in other countries where HBV is endemic, but still, people have the right to be angry that we are pushing legislation that would make people LESS healthy, for no good reason.
1 Like
I’m not quite sure what exactly is happening in the US regarding the hepatitis B vaccine but presumably people can still get it and get it for their children if they want to, right?
@Barry maybe, but like I said, if it’s no longer recommended, it may not be covered by insurance or government programs that people rely on, so those who want it may not be able to afford to pay for it out of pocket.
I see. Let’s hope then that cost won’t be prohibitive for people. Personally speaking, I don’t mind paying a bit for vaccines or medicine if I need them.
1 Like
@Barry, sorry but that’s the calculation when it comes to policies. Have you asked yourself why certain policies help some and hurt others? It’s challenging to make a blanketed policy to help everyone. Unfortunately, there are always going to be loosers. It’s called unintended consequences.
We can tackle this on 2 fronts: prevent newer infections and help improve the lives of those already infected. The most vulnerable in my opinion are children, hence the policy to vaccinate them. We cannot allow children born in any country become infected and chronic patients. If we don’t vaccinate them, the assumed 10% mentioned will balloon. The main goal is to reduce the number of chronic patients and how you do it is preventing infections that increase the risk of chronic illness through early vaccination.
We can do both. We are not doing a great job at educating people and raising awareness. We can’t also sit and wait until everyone is educated and make a decision to be vaccinated. The general health of the public outweighs individual freedoms in certain situations. We had measles outbreak across the state recently, and guess what it did affect the unvaccinated children. Their parents made this choice, but this did impact the entire community of the outbreak. While I respect their choices, say that to the parents whose children died as a result of this outbreak.
It’s not easy and straightforward. It takes communication and working together to protect everyone. Such policies differ among countries and communities. I don’t know what the policy is in your country compared to the US when it comes to HBV.
@Bansah1 I agree with you that sometimes public health should outweigh individual freedoms in some cases. The measles outbreak is a good example. However, in terms of HBV vaccination, I don’t think that we should need to choose between vaccinating adults vs vaccinating children in the US. I think it absolutely makes sense to prioritize vaccinating infants in low income countries where resources are limited (i.e. limited total number of vaccines available in the supply chain). Especially if that country has a high HBV prevalence, and perinatal transmission is the main mode of transmission. However, that is not the case in the US (and most other high income countries). We have plenty of vaccines to go around.
@ et5656, my point is being misrepresented. I am advocating for a universal approach that covers everyone. It is neither one nor the other, but a universal approach. When it comes to policies, choices are being made based on policy analysis. For example, how much will it cost, how many people will benefit, what is the cost of doing nothing, what else is available, among others. We all want the same thing: to prevent new infections and support those who are already infected. My point to @Barry was that if we must prioritize, then protecting children makes sense, as they are the most vulnerable, which is what current policies have focused on and done, often at the expense of adults. At least that is changing, with countries adopting universal testing and vaccination policies rather than the risk-based policy. Universal testing and vaccination should be the policy we all strive for. I hope this clarifies my point clearly. Thanks.
1 Like
I’m horrified that you both seem to think that people should be forced to get a vaccine that they don’t want. That’s an attack on people’s civil liberties and is highly unethical. Even if I regret not getting the hepatitis B vaccine, no way do I think people should be forced to get it like happened with Covid-19. We need education and awareness, not compulsion.
I think you are misunderstanding this. Despite a universal birth-dose vaccination, there are still parent’s who choose not to vaccinate their children. Nobody is arrested for failing to vaccinate their child by the US government for example. The majority of school systems in the US require that children be vaccinated before starting school. They have a list of vaccinations required by each school system. There’s definitely exemptions made for medical reasons.
Policy makers and those in public health balances individual freedoms and public health. It’s tricky to do and no guarantee to get it right all the time.
By going back to risk-based, there’s a possibility for parent’s who wants to vaccinate their kids to have insurance deny them the vaccine and make it hard for other community organizations who provide services such as this to continue their work.
1 Like
These are requirements not mandates. The two are very different. The universal vaccine policies are requirements not mandates.
1 Like
I agree with this. The thing that scares me the most is maybe that insurance companies will try to weasel their way out of paying for the vaccine for the infants who really need it. They have a history of doing this for various services and treatments. Requiring an obscene amount of documentation to prove medical necessity before they will cover it.
I understand perfectly. Parents have every right not to vaccinate their children if they so wish. That’s their prerogative and it’s highly unethical for any school to refuse to enroll a child just because they haven’t been vaccinated against this, that or the other disease or virus. It disturbs me that in a country literally obsessed with the concept of bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion, people can be discriminated against just for refusing a vaccine. And let’s not forget this basic principle: if a vaccine works, then those who are vaccinated have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. This is something people stupidly forgot during Covid.
If a child needs a vaccine to attend school, there is precious little difference between a mandate and a requirement. To pretend otherwise is just disingenuous semantics.
Covid-19 was a life changing event that impacted us all. While I agree that serious mistakes were made, that should not mean getting rid of other vaccines and public health policies that have saved lives and continue to. That would be more egregious and unethical.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone wants to get rid of vaccines. But there’s nothing wrong with asking questions and being critical.
In the US, that seems to be where we are heading. It might not be the issue where you are, lucky you. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but we should be guided by the science and not personal convictions and beliefs.
1 Like
Guided by “the science”? You mean like we were during Covid? Unfortunately what’s sold to us nowadays as science is often just political, ideological and/or pharmaceutical industry propaganda. I cannot respect any “science” that supports lockdowns, masking of children and vaccine mandates for a relatively harmless virus such as Covid and won’t even recommend the vaccine that exists for hepatitis B. In any case, the right to bodily autonomy has to take precedence over everything else.
That’s not the only science we have. Over 2 billion shots of the hepatitis B vaccines have been given worldwide. I am talking about hepatitis B vaccines and the decades of scientific evidence behind its safety and effectiveness.
We can talk about Covid-19, but it should be separated from the others. We can’t mix everything with Covid-19 in my opinion.
2 Likes
We all forget one thing. Covid-19 was a fast moving wildfire and everyone was trying to catch up with the next mutation that came. We were always steps behind and playing catch. Someone will say masking was a bad policy during Covid-19, but I will disagree because the mask saved me from catching the virus when we were exposed by a client at the office. Others who didn’t have masking got it.
What worked against one mutation did not work against the other. Besides, there were no manuals or textbooks that provided specific answers or guidance on what we should be doing. We were learning on the go and blind.
2 Likes