|
Yes, I am. Because on a surface level, your stats are for all children under age 10, not newborns. An 8-year-old is more likely to come into contact with adult fluids than a newborn. The shot could be given at age 1 or 2 or 3, just like many shots, were it not for some infected mothers passing it through breastmilk. They could test the mothers, but they don't. I understand that you believe that there is no risk difference between giving the shot on day one vs. day 730, but given that I don't believe that, it makes sense that I would advocate testing the mothers, and giving the shot later if that's what the parent wants to do.
I am also unmoved because on a deeper level, yes, children under the age of 10 get diseases. So do people over the age of 10. It sucks. It's painful. Sometimes it kills us. That doesn't mean that our current course of action will be better for us in the long run than the mechanism that evolution already provided.
You guys keep pointing out how horrible option A is, but I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that option B may actually turn out to be much worse. Why do we not also give children under 10 a steady dose of antibiotics every day? That, too, would prevent many diseases which hurt and sometimes kill us. It's what they do with penned-in cattle, after all. And have there perhaps been any negative consequences from that policy?
Of course every single childhood death should be prevented at all costs! But maybe...[/Louis C.K.]
|
05-29-2013, 06:29 PM
Threaded Mode