S/o lying - Page 4

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.
If you make a deliberate decision not to do well child care and feel like you are capable of catching various developmental problems I have no beef with you.  I hardy ever go to the doctor and I can remember going only a handful of times growing up.  However, that is, again, a different case than a parent who doesn't go because they can't or just don't care enough too.  Because of the public health issue that I addressed earlier I think it's appropriate for schools to "force parents hands" on that issue.
Not getting routine check ups is certainly not child abuse or neglect, but there are a lot of children who don't get routine check ups that are abused or neglected.

You are perpetuating Bad Mommy Myths about non/sel/del vaxers - That we are conspiracy theorists who don't understand science and listen to Jenny McCarthy. 

And I don't know exactly what you are trying to say here at the end, but it's getting pretty close to the old non-vax = child abuse implication.

In the US, CDC's Vaccines For Children program provides free/extremely discounted vaccines for underinsured/uninsured/medicaid.

She's not perpetuating bad mommy myths. People who do not have access to proper health care are more likely to be non- or under-vaxed. That doesn't make them bad moms - it means they need access to health care (regardless of whether they vax or not, their children need access to health care).

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.
 

I would believe this only if you have some sources to back this up.  I would tend to think those populations in question (not deliberate, philisophical non-vaxers) would have spotty vax records, rather than no vax records.  Low income families are probably eligible for Medicaid for their kids, and are made aware of this if they apply for other assistance, like food stamps and the like.  I have nothing to back my impressions up, they are just that.  I'd like to hear more specifics to support your assumption.

Not necessarily true. Many, many people make "too-much" for medicaid, and not enough to get proper health care without assistance. There are ways around that, and many states have CHIP, that is on a sliding scale, but you can make too much to qualify for that as well, and still not be able to afford good health insurance. The eligibility for Medicaid is outrageously low, in NYS a single person with no dependents has to make less than $8,000 to qualify. A person with one dependent has to make less than $11,000 (or something similar). If I could find the eligibility website I would post it, but I'm at work so I can't spend too much time looking for it. I know about NYS because I was on medicaid there, and couldn't accept a job that didn't offer me health insurance.

There are also many people who make too much to qualify for SNAP and TANF, who cannot make ends meet. The federal poverty level is kind of a joke.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by AbbyGrant 

I think they meant in cases among children since their study was about children and this is the study they footnoted.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/e2.full

Yes, I see that.  It is all good.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

She's not perpetuating bad mommy myths. People who do not have access to proper health care are more likely to be non- or under-vaxed. That doesn't make them bad moms - it means they need access to health care (regardless of whether they vax or not, their children need access to health care).

They are more likely to be undervaccinated, not non-vaccinated. I do not think they should be lumped together as they are very different groups.    Most non-vaaxers are white, wealthy-ish and well educated, though. They can access health care.

I suppose a small amount of non-vaxxers have not vaxxed because of lack of resources, but I suspect the amount is tiny.    Infants receive vaccines before they even leave the hospital, so those with very little resources would have one vaccine at least and fall into undervaxxed.

I agree with your second paragraph  (upthread), fwiw.  

I imagine there are people who want to vaccinate fully (or don't really care - but would follow their doctors recommendation) - but who have trouble affording their shots, getting to the clinic or taking time off work.  My neighbour was one - she wanted her daughter to have a certain vaccine, but lacked transportation to get her there.  She was definitely undervaxxed versus non-vaxxed, though.

I would like to add that I think being undervaxxed because you lack resources to get your child vaccinated is as sad as vaccinating because you believe you need to in order for your child to get into school.  Vaccine decisions should be based on beliefs around risk, safety, etc. - not financial resources ( I believe in universal health care) or school entry.

Edited by purslaine - 5/7/12 at 10:14am

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

She's not perpetuating bad mommy myths. People who do not have access to proper health care are more likely to be non- or under-vaxed. That doesn't make them bad moms - it means they need access to health care (regardless of whether they vax or not, their children need access to health care).

Most non-vaaxers are white, wealthy-ish and well educated, though. They can access health care.

I suppose a small amount of non-vaxxers have not vaxxed because of lack of resources, but I suspect the amount is tiny.    Infants receive vaccines before they even leave the hospital, so those with very little resources would have one vaccine and fall into undervaxxed.

I agree with your second paragraph  (upthread), fwiw.  

I imagine there are people who want to vaccinate (or don't really care - but would follow their doctors recommendation) - but who have trouble affording their shots, getting to the clinic or taking time off work.  My neighbour was one - she wanted her daughter to have a certain vaccine, but lacked transportation to get her there.

Not all infants receive vaccines in the hospital. Also, the ones that do receive ONE - it is not plural it is only the Hep B. I have a friend (who later had an HBAC) who had a c/s in a hospital with her first, and they just didn't vax him. I guess it was forgotten? My ds also was not vaxed at birth, I gave birth in a birthing center and they did not administer Hep B (altho he got the eye goop, and they did the heel prick thing when they came to my home for the follow up visit). He also had a ped who was around 75 and did his own thing (didn't exactly follow the AAP vax schedule, he used an older one I think - anyway, vaxes started at the 2mo visit I think, I would have to check his yellow sheet since it was a few years ago now).

[slmommy]

This is excellent for US vax coverage info

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/stats-surv/nis/default.htm#nis (the links under "figures" have nice state/state maps)

Looks like in 2007-8:

93% of US children 19-35 months had 3 Hep B doses.

92% for 1 dose MMR at same age.

85% for 4 or more doses DTaP

93% for 3 doses Polio

90% 1 dose Chicken pox

[Rrrrrachel]

I guess there's a discrepancy because the same ~10% of kids aren't always the ones missing a vaccine.  I'm really surprised that the number of undervaccinated kids is so high!

[slmommy]

well it is only children 19-35 months, so probably a bunch do get caught up when they go to school. 

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Not necessarily true. Many, many people make "too-much" for medicaid, and not enough to get proper health care without assistance. There are ways around that, and many states have CHIP, that is on a sliding scale, but you can make too much to qualify for that as well, and still not be able to afford good health insurance. The eligibility for Medicaid is outrageously low, in NYS a single person with no dependents has to make less than $8,000 to qualify. A person with one dependent has to make less than $11,000 (or something similar). If I could find the eligibility website I would post it, but I'm at work so I can't spend too much time looking for it. I know about NYS because I was on medicaid there, and couldn't accept a job that didn't offer me health insurance.

Your children can be eligible at far higher income rates than for adults.  My husband and my income is roughly 24,000 (self-employed, different every year) and our children are still on Medicaid, and on the unpaid tier to boot.  There are two higher tiers with very modest premiums.  I'm not sure if the eligibility varies from state to state, honestly, and that can be the source of the discrepency.  Their insurance through Medicaid covers everything, it seems.  We have paid nothing out of pocket for them in the 6 years we have been on it.  My husband and I however are now without insurance because our state-subsidized plan (not Medicaid) kicked us off.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

This is excellent for US vax coverage info

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/stats-surv/nis/default.htm#nis (the links under "figures" have nice state/state maps)

Looks like in 2007-8:

93% of US children 19-35 months had 3 Hep B doses.

92% for 1 dose MMR at same age.

85% for 4 or more doses DTaP

93% for 3 doses Polio

90% 1 dose Chicken pox

This is somewhat helpful, but still I'm curious.  When I was keeping up on dd1's shots, but we passed on the flu vaccines, she was considered "undervaccinated" and "not up to schedule".  I chose not to get the Hep A, which was added right about the time my girls were becoming terrified of the doctors and I had had just about enough.  So, we missed 2 vaccines (yearly flu shots counted as just one) and we are undervaccinated at 3 yo for each.  I'd like to see more specifics about this.  And then statistics about how many school-aged kids fit into the category.

What I'm getting at is that the "under-vaxed" is such a squishy-squashy category, without knowing the specifics.  Pardon the technical jargon.  

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Not necessarily true. Many, many people make "too-much" for medicaid, and not enough to get proper health care without assistance. There are ways around that, and many states have CHIP, that is on a sliding scale, but you can make too much to qualify for that as well, and still not be able to afford good health insurance. The eligibility for Medicaid is outrageously low, in NYS a single person with no dependents has to make less than $8,000 to qualify. A person with one dependent has to make less than $11,000 (or something similar). If I could find the eligibility website I would post it, but I'm at work so I can't spend too much time looking for it. I know about NYS because I was on medicaid there, and couldn't accept a job that didn't offer me health insurance.

Your children can be eligible at far higher income rates than for adults.  My husband and my income is roughly 24,000 (self-employed, different every year) and our children are still on Medicaid, and on the unpaid tier to boot.  There are two higher tiers with very modest premiums.  I'm not sure if the eligibility varies from state to state, honestly, and that can be the source of the discrepency.  Their insurance through Medicaid covers everything, it seems.  We have paid nothing out of pocket for them in the 6 years we have been on it.  My husband and I however are now without insurance because our state-subsidized plan (not Medicaid) kicked us off.

It definitely varies by state - that is one thing that ObamaCare is trying to change.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

What I'm getting at is that the "under-vaxed" is such a squishy-squashy category, without knowing the specifics.  Pardon the technical jargon.  

It is very squishy!

It can include those who selective/delay and those who have a change of heart. Those who are almost entirely up to date and those who only had tetanus.

It also includes those who would like to vaccinate more, but resources are an issue.

I suspect strongly the two categories look very different, demographically.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Fortunately, like a good little statistical analysis, they define exactly what they mean by undervaccinated.  They were using the 2001 schedule (linked to int he article and below) and flu vaccine was not included.  Neither was Hep A since that comes much later.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5001a3.htm

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Fortunately, like a good little statistical analysis, they define exactly what they mean by undervaccinated.  They were using the 2001 schedule (linked to int he article and below) and flu vaccine was not included.  Neither was Hep A since that comes much later.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5001a3.htm

The Hep A is definitely on there, and on our states schedule of vaccines, as Washington is one of those states indicated as needing the vaccine.  I didn't see anything specifically addressing "undervaccinated" except to assume that anyone who doesn't follow the schedule is considered such.  Or perhaps I'm, being impatient and not seeing it?  (Wouldn't be the first time, honestly!)

[AbbyGrant]

The article about the three categories used data from 2001. 

"In 2001, an estimated 62.8% of all children 19 to 35 months of age in the United States were fully vaccinated with ≥4 doses of diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine, ≥3 doses of polio vaccine, ≥1 dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, ≥3 doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine, ≥3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine, and ≥1 dose of varicella vaccine (Table 2). Among all children 19 to 35 months of age, an estimated 36.9% were undervaccinated. In the undervaccinated group, children were most frequently NUTD on varicella vaccine (23.5%), diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (18.2%), hepatitis B vaccine (11.2%), and polio vaccine (11.0%). An estimated 0.3% of all children 19 to 35 months of age were unvaccinated."

NUTD = not up to date

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187.full

[Rrrrrachel]

I said hep a didn't count because it's not recommended until 4-6 years and the study only went through 35 months. Yes, they defined under vaccinated as not up to date according to the 2001 schedule, which included six vaccines which you can see at the link.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I said hep a didn't count because it's not recommended until 4-6 years and the study only went through 35 months. Yes, they defined under vaccinated as not up to date according to the 2001 schedule, which included six vaccines which you can see at the link.

That schedule didn't have six vaccines. It had 15.

4 DTaP

3 Polio

1 MMR

3 HiB

3 HepB

1 Varicella

If you count the DTaP as 3 vaccines (which it is) and the MMR as 3, then those kids received 25 vaccines.

An "undervaccinated" child might have received 6.  Or 24.

It's extremely misleading to say that there were only 6 vaccines.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I said hep a didn't count because it's not recommended until 4-6 years and the study only went through 35 months. Yes, they defined under vaccinated as not up to date according to the 2001 schedule, which included six vaccines which you can see at the link.

I'm not being nitpicky to be antagonistic, but the schedule at the bottom shows Hep A recommended for 24 months and up in select states.  This was my experience.  It was not on the WA state schedule (for that age group at least) when dd1 was finishing her first round of vaxes, but it was for dd2.  I signed a release for the office stating I refused the Hep A vaccine.  Neither have had any 4-6 boosters.

[Rrrrrachel]

Sorry, sweet, I must've misread it. I don't have any personal experience with that vaccine. I still don't think it was part of the study, but I guess it doesn't really matter.

[thegoodearth]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I agree that people who deliberately non vax are probably not that different than vaxxers when it comes to income and education, but I also think they are not the majority of the non Vaxing population. I think people who make an informed and educated choice not to vaccinate are probably a fraction of the total non-vaccinating population, at least for preschool aged kids.
If you make a deliberate decision not to do well child care and feel like you are capable of catching various developmental problems I have no beef with you.  I hardy ever go to the doctor and I can remember going only a handful of times growing up.  However, that is, again, a different case than a parent who doesn't go because they can't or just don't care enough too.  Because of the public health issue that I addressed earlier I think it's appropriate for schools to "force parents hands" on that issue.
Not getting routine check ups is certainly not child abuse or neglect, but there are a lot of children who don't get routine check ups that are abused or neglected.

The bolded sounds very similar to arguments I've heard about parents who FF. "It's okay if xyz" but "it's not okay if abc"... Substitute "breastfeeding" for ""routine checkups" in the last line. I've heard that too. I don't think it's fair or right to making sweeping generalizations like that in either case. 

BTW I know plenty of ppl who go to ALL the well baby visits and do not vaccinate or selectively vaccinate. We've been to every single one.

[Rrrrrachel]

I feel comfortable making the sweeping generalization that there's a difference between not doing well baby visits because you don't think they're necessary and not doing them because you don't care or don't have access.

I'm sure there are lots of people that don't vaccinate but still do well baby care. What's your point?