CDC recommendations vs school requirements

[lemurik]

I was researching the school requirements for vaccines and noticed a certain discrepancy between what was needed for school and what CDC recommends. For example, in my state the child only needs one dose of prevnar if started after 12 months, but CDC sais 2. It looks like there are less shots required in a lot of cases for school than what's on the regular schedule.
Can anyone explain to me why there is such a difference?

[Baby_Vol]

Ours are like that in TN too.

[tanyalynn]

State legislatures make the school attendance requirements, and only a couple have voted to match their state's requirements automatically to the CDC recommendations. So the actual school requirements are different in just about every state. Add in the differences in types of exemption and the process to get an exemption are also different in each state, and is it a wonder that parents are confused? And maybe don't even realize they have choices?

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by TanyaLopez

And maybe don't even realize they have choices?

I didn't until very recently. So can we thank drug companies for lobbying for my state to require the Hep B vax for school admission?

[lemurik]

I think my question was slightly misunderstood... What I mean is:
Do states feel that less doses of certain vaccines provide enough protection than what CDC claims? If so, then why does CDC puts more shots on the schedule? If not, then it doesn't make sence to push school mandated vaccines (in that case, I am not talking about other reasons) because even if all the kids are fully vaxed per school requirements, they are still not protected and spread disease. Who do you (those who vaccinate) follow: School requirements or CDC?

[tanyalynn]

Oh.... I see. Why don't the state legislatures mandate as many vaccines and/or doses as the CDC recommends from a health/efficacy standpoint? Why don't think care for our kids enough to make them really protected the way the CDC schedule will? (I admit, some sarcasm there ).

Well, I understand the question now, but I don't really know the answer. I'm guessing it's that some laws were passed a while ago, the state legislature has other stuff to do, things like that. I'd be surprised (but interested to learn) if there's ever been significant debate in any legislature about not needing X vaccine (except Gardasil, which didn't go over well) or extra doses of an already-approved vaccine from a health/safety standpoint.