33% of parents in Japan delayed vaccinating kids due to coronavirus fears

Maybe due to coronavirus, not exactly coronavirus fears

I think this headline is misleading. It is because of the fear of contracting the virus that people put off going to have their children immunized. A lot of people I know have been staying away from hospitals and going to the doctors out of concern of being infected.

I'm sure once they feel that the risk is low, they will have their children vaccinated. Thankfully this is not like the US with their anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists!

My wife was also worried to bring our kid for a vaccination, because she was worried that our Kid can be infected inside the doctor's waiting room or by the doctor or nurse itself.

But what will you do if your kid catch a cold or a stomach ache...?

You have no choice than to visit a doctor.

It is a complete fear mongering situation.

Thanks to the media.

Children must be in good health when they take vaccinations. With covid 19, people who are sick often don't show symptoms, therefore it would possibly be negligent and risky for a doctor and parents to vaccinate under such conditions. It is unclear how covid 19 would effect a childs adaptation to the vaccine. A lot of doctors will do it anyway because there is no route to be compensated or for legal ramifications.

We got a letter from the city office that the health check for our infant will be postponed because of the Covid situation; if I remember correctly, that also included vaccination.

My daughter needs her measles booster but her school also sent home a letter saying it will push back the regulation for vaccinations until the virus is sorted.

On a side note, I'm pretty sure I have strep throat but both my local doctor and my regular doctor are not accepting patients with fevers/cold symptoms, and the other doctors in our area are not accepting new patients.

I wonder in what ways this is affecting others as well? The (legitimate) fear of catching/spreading Covid must be delaying treatment for more serious illnesses. Neither of my doctors have the capabilities for Skype appointments and neither would send me antibiotics without being examined first (I tried)... yet neither can see me until I'm well again. I do not like feeling this vulnerable.

Same thing happened in the US due to their lockdown (parents didn't take their infants to get vaccinated). Data from the CDC showed 30% fewer deaths due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS (COMPARED TO 2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019) during the exact same time period of the nationwide lock down.

https://healthchoice.org/lessons-from-the-lockdown/

Maybe a good thing if parents delayed but the death rate will return to normal unfortunately come 2021 going forward if there is no lock down. This data would not have been possible if not for the lock down spread nationwide.

Children must be in good health when ..

Should be changed to "I am not an expert but I think children must be in good health ..."

Further to it you should clarify what "good health" actually is in your opinion.

Finally you should in bold say that if my assumptions are correct it would possibly be negligent ..

It is unclear how covid 19 would effect a childs adaptation to the vaccine .

Here to I would suggest that you start with I don't think it is very clear how covid19 ...

A lot of doctors will do it anyway.... Perhaps change "A lot" to "Some"

Otherwise , you posting this could potentialy block another parent to on time vaccinate his children even without consulting a professional.

Again this is if you really must write something dramatic . The best would be not to write

In most cases, vaccination is a must for children. Parents should try not to delay it for fear of getting Covid-19 infection. Medical authorities may have to put in extra effort to convince the 33% parents of the importance of vaccination, else all the work in the past decades could be defeated and in vain.

n1k1,

Children who were recently sick cannot have vaccines done from my experience. I know because I have taken my kids to the appointments. That said, experts often have different opinions on issues, even ones you dont like. I wouldnt blame medical professionals for delaying a vaccine in this case, and I would discourage just ASSUMING that everything is okay as you seem to, which is quite misleading and dangerous. Spare us your bias and extremist views about imposing vaccinations unless you are an expert. However, even in that case, you have belittled my confidence in your credibility, also, you shouldnt be posting about when it is safe for other people to vaccinate their children.

"Parents know better for their kids than doctors do"

The parents of every kid who ever died of a disease with a vaccine because their parents read too much internet

Savethegaijin, I don't know if this helps, but about 2 months ago, our son had a fever, and we called the doctor we usually go to, but they told us they cannot consult him and we should call some number and get advice. We called, and the advice we got is to talk to the doctor... So we called again the doctor, and he scheduled us during a non-busy period. Fortunately, it was just a simple cold. That was during the emergency state, so maybe it is more relaxed now, just ask.

And yes, if a child has a fever or cold symptoms, they will not give him/her the flu vaccine.

If the kids are also in lockdown there is no need to rush out and have them vaccinated. However, most of these vaccinations are done in stages and major delay in an updated vaccination could prevent them being effective. Hopefully, the parents are getting them vaccinated now that the pandemic has slowed - in most parts of Japan.

So yeah, apparently it doesn't matter if we have outbreaks of other illness, as long as these other illness are not COVID-19.

ata from the CDC showed 30% fewer deaths due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - SIDS (COMPARED TO 2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019) during the exact same time period of the nationwide lock down.

The data you link say something completely different. The only information present is from infant mortality in general, no data specific to SIDS is presented, so your assumption is based only in your imagination.

It is also completely clear that the decrease in infant mortality abruptly began in the week 9 (end of February) while the drop in vaccination rates began on week 13 (end of March) so it is not "exact same time period" at all, why lie about it if you are going to provide a source where anybody can see it is false? Do you actually believe that not vaccinating a child would save his life one month before the vaccination? you are going to have a really hard time proving there is a mechanism for this to be possible.

In reality this year has been extremely different from the past in many other things, the changes in mortality may be explained by something as obvious as parents being more time in their houses or infants being less exposed to other respiratory diseases (because social distancing measures also work preventing those) at least these reasons have an advantage over vaccination and that is that they do not require time travel.

Children must be in good health when they take vaccinations. With covid 19, people who are sick often don't show symptoms, therefore it would possibly be negligent and risky for a doctor and parents to vaccinate under such conditions.

The possibility of being in the presyntomatic phase of an infection is always present, even without taking in account COVID-19, so according to you it would be negligent and risky to vaccinate at all.

What the doctors have to consider is the real possibility of this being the case, taking in account the number of cases and how exposed the children have been, if there is nothing that suggest the infant has any real chance of being infected, then the opposite of what you said is true, delaying vaccinations would put the child in more risk and could be negligent to do it.

At the end of the day the issue is a lack of information, parents were not informed properly of what is necessary or not, doctors were left to their own when deciding if they could recommend parents to come to get attention and nobody knows exactly how many cases are really around because of limited testing. The pandemic is a bad enough situation but it can become even worse with outbreaks of other preventable diseases.

virusrex,

To somewhat answer your question, because there are so many unknowns about covid 19, its an unknowable whether mixing the virus with pharmaceuticals would be recommended and administered if a medical professional where to take responsibility for the informed decision of inoculating a baby, infant, or child.

In the case the parent were aware of the implications of dying a covid 19/pharmaceutical induced death from vaccine complications or a natural death from a preventable disease, many parents would have a different opinion, but as for myself, it would depend on the likelihood and risk associated with the natural caused disease and how much responsibility the doctors are willing to take, of course.

Vaccine mandates for schools are cookbook methods for disease prevention. A parent who is aware of any preexisting conditions a child has would naturally be expected to pass the knowledge on to the doctor, so they could make an informed decision about which inoculation cocktails might be reasonable. Keep in mind, the likelihood of a parent not speaking up to a doctor is more likely than not in Japan. Obviously, it is accepted that not all patients will be mandated to inoculate because of pre existing conditions. Id also like to add that the cookbook mandates are flawed in more ways than one. For example, how about all those kids who lost their records in the 2011 disaster? Should they be expected to take them all again?

Im not an antivaxxer so long as individual patient conditions are taken into consideration appropriately. I do think that applying blanket vaccination schedules as a one size fits all prevention technique can be negligent and do more harm than good.

To somewhat answer your question, because there are so many unknowns about covid 19, its an unknowable whether mixing the virus with pharmaceuticals would be recommended and administered if a medical professional where to take responsibility for the informed decision of inoculating a baby, infant, or child.

That possibility exist for every single condition you can think about, not only from infections but from simple genetic disposition. There is never a situation when you can categorically say that this risk of complication or death does not exist. The thing is that not vaccinating is also one decision that brings risk of complication and death, so both recommending to do it and recommending not to do it means taking responsibility.

A medical professional have to consider the very real, frequent possibility of a preventable disease against a theoretical, infrequent and completely unreported supposed complication, something that has not been described even with millions of cases in the world. Ethically the consideration is very clear in a normal situation. Failing to recommend vaccination when it should be done would put the doctor in a much worse position than a totally unexpected complication from covid-19, because it choose to downplay is a risk that is well known against a risk that nobody knows if it even exist.

Records and irrational fears are of course very different situations that have to be dealt in a case by case way, but that does not mean that the general recommendation cannot simply be that vaccinations should be done as usual whenever its possible.

There is no such a thing as "blanket vaccination" because that would imply that a doctor do not need to be involved. In reality the doctor have to consider every patient and decide where the risk is less. Thinking that a normal vaccination schedule for a normal infant is somehow "dangerous" is an exaggeration, after all a small cut while the infant is playing in the floor means he get exposed to orders of magnitude more antigens (both in quantity and diversity) than the whole vaccination schedule.

Never even occurred to me to delay the kids' vaccinations. I go out for beer and groceries why wouldn't I go out for the kids' vaccines? I myself had one actually.

Im not an antivaxxer so long as individual patient conditions are taken into consideration appropriately. I do think that applying blanket vaccination schedules as a one size fits all prevention technique can be negligent and do more harm than good.

The inaccuracies in this comment indicate that you do not understand the ins and outs of that which about you are speaking.

Hey Virusex,

Appreciate the response. Should have posted the discussion in the interview with one of the authors of that report where they dig deeper into the data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxB6gLeC3xc

They specifically discuss the data with younger age groups from time index 12:48

In reality this year has been extremely different from the past in many other things, the changes in mortality may be explained by something as obvious as parents being more time in their houses or infants being less exposed to other respiratory diseases (because social distancing measures also work preventing those) at least these reasons have an advantage over vaccination and that is that they do not require time travel.

CDC was warning that there would be an increase in deaths due to not vaccinating (even during the pandemic lock down) but there was a drop in infant deaths. An increase in deaths did not occur but a decrease...specifically SIDS.

Up until now SIDS has always been an unexplained phenomenon and blamed on the parents or their genetics even with a healthy child. Now there is a relationship with a significant drop in SIDS deaths during the lock down. If you are saying lower deaths due to staying home, parents being at home and less exposure to respiratory diseases then why are deaths specifically due to "SIDS" down? The CDC would have classified those drop in infant deaths due to respiratory diseases and NOT SIDS yet it was a specific drop in SIDS.

So there was a significant drop in SIDS deaths (not respiratory disease deaths) due to social distancing and staying at home? If that is true then SIDS is caused by contact with people and going out.

OR

There is a significant relationship with vaccinations and SIDS.

OR

You can prevent SIDS by providing more hugs at home while locking down the infant

If you are saying lower deaths due to staying home, parents being at home and less exposure to respiratory diseases then why are deaths specifically due to "SIDS" down? The CDC would have classified those drop in infant deaths due to respiratory diseases and NOT SIDS yet it was a specific drop in SIDS.So there was a significant drop in SIDS deaths (not respiratory disease deaths) due to social distancing and staying at home? If that is true then SIDS is caused by contact with people and going out.

OR

There is a significant relationship with vaccinations and SIDS.

OR

You can prevent SIDS by providing more hugs at home while locking down the infant

OR an infinite number of other possibilities, which are none of the above, which we could speculate upon. Maybe SIDS is caused by aliens from another dimension that are particularly susceptible to Covid and die the minute they hit our dimension.

The point is, you came up with something to speculate about, but you clearly don't know the answer to it, which makes it all pretty irrelevant to the entire conversation.

Virusrex,

I agree with a lot that you say, and I hope that people can benefit from this discussion when deciding for themselves, since there are no blanket vaccinations and only town mandates. One other thing that I would like to mention is that vaccinations do not always prevent the diseases (even after several doses), therefore it would be impossible to, without a doubt, prove a vaccine would have prevented an ailment thus assigning negligence.

CDC was warning that there would be an increase in deaths due to not vaccinating (even during the pandemic lock down) but there was a drop in infant deaths. An increase in deaths did not occur but a decrease...specifically SIDS.

Both things are false.

One the CDC warns about the possibility of an increase in deaths, after all an outbreak is not something that has to happen with lower vaccination levels, just something that is more likely to happen.

The decrease in deaths is in general, the data makes absolutely no distinction about the causes of those preventable deaths, and SIDS is definitely not the exclusive cause, so every single prevented case could be due to other causes and you would still see the same numbers. You cannot attribute to SIDS any of those prevented deaths without specific data that is not in your source.

Now there is a relationship with a significant drop in SIDS deaths during the lock down.

Again, your data do not show any SIDS reduction, only in general deaths. Your source specifically says so "We have no specific data on the trend in SIDS deaths during the pandemic" why insist in something that can be proven to be a lie?

The CDC would have classified those drop in infant deaths due to respiratory diseases and NOT SIDS yet it was a specific drop in SIDS.

There is no classification in the data that you presented, the reduction is in deaths in general, how do you know it was not because of respiratory diseases? you need to present that specific data to be able to say it, which you have not.

OR

There is a significant relationship with vaccinations and SIDS.

Again, that would require a time machine, because the drop in deaths happened one month before of the drop of vaccinations. Unless you have a rational way in which children stop dying a whole month before not being vaccinated you can safely dismiss this relationship as imaginary. Better to search for something that happened at least at the same time as the drop in expected deaths, or before.

therefore it would be impossible to, without a doubt, prove a vaccine would have prevented an ailment thus assigning negligence.

Proving that something would have not happened without a doubt is not a requirement for negligence, it is only necessary to prove a unjustified decision. After all if a doctor makes a negligent mistake and kills a patient in a surgery it is also impossible to prove, without a doubt, that the patient would have survived if the doctor had not made that mistake.

Not vaccinating for an invalid reason, followed by the infant getting sick and dying from the preventable disease is still an example of negligence, because it can be proved that something that reduced the risk of this event was not done without a proper justification. Depending on the case a doctor can still be accused even if nothing bad happened, just because his decision increased the risk of the patient unnecessarily.

Obviously black and white cases are extremely rare, the personal experience of a doctor in a very specific situation can mean that different doctors would have decided different things and neither would be in the wrong, the important thing here is that in general vaccinations can continue as usual because it means less risk for the infants, parents should have been informed about this, as well as any extra precautions they could take if they wanted, but they were not, which means that many ended up delaying unnecessarily the vaccinations.

Not exactly covered in the article but some people apparently didn't get their kids vaccinated not for fear of covid19 but for fear of the vaccines themselves.

Something I cannot fathom, this fear of vaccine more than fear of the diseases they prevent.

Hopefully antivaxxers comprise a small enough part of the population that their kids are also protected due to the vaccinated ones.

Virusrex,

The fact remains that vaccines are not 100% effective, or preventive. The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, parents are highly unlikely to be considered negligent if their children miss a dose.

The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, doctors are unlikely to be considered negligent for not administering, but they are protected if there are complications after administering.

It seems the answers are black and white to me.

Black and white to me also. You are negligent if you are not getting your kids vaccinated. You have to understand why vaccines are important. If you can't, you have to listen to those who do.

Irreconciable, what you fail to understand is that there is no "100% effective" in the medical world. Any drug and any medical procedure has certain risks, but as we know from comparing our lifespan and quality with 100 years ago, the benefits largely outnumber those risks. And regarding risks, what virusrex said about the experience and expertise of the doctors administering a certain treatment.

The fact remains that vaccines are not 100% effective, or preventive. The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, parents are highly unlikely to be considered negligent if their children miss a dose.

Nothing is 100% effective nor preventive in medicine, not a single thing. The reason why missing a dose is not likely to be considered negligent has nothing to do with that. It is all due to most medical interventions having redundancies built in, so it will not depend on being done perfectly. If the kid gets the preventable disease this small failure can still have consequences tho, and the situation can require an investigation by social services to see if the reason for missing that dose was valid or not.

A surgery for apendicitis is neither 100% safe and effective, but a parent that let a child die because he does not "believe" in surgeries can still be accused of manslaughter.

The fact remains that since vaccines are not 100% effective, doctors are unlikely to be considered negligent for not administering, but they are protected if there are complications after administering.

No, that is a false idea born from ignorance. Doctors are protected when they do things according to their best knowledge, since vaccines are proven a safe and effective intervention it is more frequent that a doctor is accused of negligence for refusing to do something without a valid reason (because there are very few of these valid reasons) not being 100% effective has nothing to do with it because, again, nothing in medicine is 100% effective. The answers seem black and white for your because you don't understand the justifications of why things are done and think vaccines are some special case compared with everything else a doctor does, they are not.

A doctor that applies a vaccine that is contraindicated and that does not have a valid reason is also liable to be accused of negligence, for example if the child is known to be allergic to a component of the vaccine. If what you imagined were true the doctor would be completely protected against this, but in reality he can lose his licence or even end up in jail for criminal negligence.

At the end, it is the same thing, doctors are protected against negligence by not doing negligent things, which means doing the best thing according to their knowledge. With respect to vaccines this usually means applying it, there is nothing wrong with that.

I understand that vaccines are important. However, in the presence of covid-19 or any other pandemic, it would be negligent to vaccinate out of context. It would not be negligent to not vaccinate.

It would not be negligent to not vaccinate.

Except that it would.

I understand that vaccines are important. However, in the presence of covid-19 or any other pandemic, it would be negligent to vaccinate out of context. It would not be negligent to not vaccinate.

No that is false.

covid-19 or any other pandemic increase the risk of vaccination only marginally, specially now that we got literally millions of cases without any relationship with vaccines being reported. Which means that any possible complication specific for the infections is so rare that it can be ignored (specially when even the possibility of the child being infected is also close to non-existent)

On the other hand not vaccinating has well described, frequently appearing risks, you thinking those risks are not important is irrelevant because that is just an uninformed opinion not based on any scientific information, so it is perfectly logical that a doctor that simply refuses to vaccinate because there is a pandemic in the world (even if the infant has no real possibility of being infected) can and should be investigated for negligence.

What would you say if a doctor refuses to give a patient his diabetes medicines because he thinks that they could have unknown interactions with the covid infection? even if there is no data to indicate it and not being medicated has real risks for the patient (even if it is not 100% sure that he will die or complicate, only very very likely)

In this discussion you are that doctor, giving absolute importance to something that you want to imagine as important and thinking that very real risks can be ignored arbitrarily just because.

I understand that vaccines are important. However, in the presence of covid-19 or any other pandemic, it would be negligent to vaccinate out of context. It would not be negligent to not vaccinate.

In addition to the dangers of covid19/new disease/s, by not vaccinating you will be exposing the kids to the otherwise preventable diseases also.

You should really consult the most trustworthy expert you can find on this one.

If nothing else, consider this: covid19 could be with us for a long time, you could be delaying the vaccines for a long time.

Virusrex,

As I mentioned before, I agree with a lot of the things you say. I'm just not following how are you reach your conclusions. I'm with my local health department who has delayed vaccinations because of a risks concerning covid-19. With all your grandstanding, you seem to imply that anyone who disagree with you is negligent in some way. Could you please stick your neck out and produce a factual opinion regarding vaccinations in the presence of covid-19. All the if and or but of your routine arguments, despite lack of vaccine effectiveness, don't apply as well now. With all due respect, and despite your persuasiveness, I, for now, will remain more skeptical of vaccines than you.

you seem to imply that anyone who disagree with you is negligent in some way.

No, what I am saying is that you assuming that the only responsible thing to do with vaccinations is to delay them is a mistake, specially when you try to justify it with some obscure, badly define "risk" that is every present and makes vaccines automatically more risky, without proving it in any way.

Could you please stick your neck out and produce a factual opinion regarding vaccinations in the presence of covid-19.

You give way too much importance to personal opinions, specially when opposite to all the professional organizations that work to preserve human health.

What do you Imagine I could see that could contradict the mountains of scientific evidence that organizations like the CDC or the WHO have and that makes them recommend to keep immunizations as close as possible as usual, none of those organization share your worries nor they give special warnings about vaccinating due to covid-19.

If your local health services are overrun by infected people or were terribly unprepared for the pandemic and cannot see patients without putting them at risk you are in a terribly bad situation, but that is NOT normal and of course not the rule. In most cities of the world health services are perfectly capable of doing it, even for example in USA where cases are rampant. And in them vaccination (and medication for other diseases) is to be kept as much as possible the same as before, even if nothing is ever 100% effective.

All the if and or but of your routine arguments, despite lack of vaccine effectiveness, don't apply as well now.

Yes they do, the same as they apply for diabetes medication. You being in denial about how risk is to be managed in health care does not make those arguments less true, you have not been able to contradict even one of them, which would make any honest person that wants to know the truth consider if he may be in the wrong. That apparently does not apply to you, that insist in the same falsified argument just because you want to believe it.

With all due respect, and despite your persuasiveness, I, for now, will remain more skeptical of vaccines than you.

Which you are free to do, unfortunately against logic and reasons, and mountains of evidence. Something that seems not to matter to you, nor would to my bad doctor example, that stops medication necessary to life and health just because some imaginary risks nobody can negate.

Virusrex,

The local health department has declared the risks. You might want to try blithering to them. By the way, your diabetes guy would probably die whereas an unvaccinated person would have no demonstratable damage nor factual proof of negligence because vaccines are known to be ineffective sometimes. I thought you could make a better analogy than that. That's all you have to offer for a stance based on facts. The opposite of the health department. Good luck with that.

The local health department has declared the risks.

Which I am telling you is not normal and only justified in terrible situations, you are either in a horribly unprepared place or under authorities that disregard the professional advice of higher authorities, neither of those things are good. Also you could just be misinterpreting what your local health department has said and actually they are openly recommending people to get their vaccines on time, who knows? all that we have is what you say they have declared

your diabetes guy would probably die whereas an unvaccinated person would have no demonstratable damage nor factual proof of negligence because vaccines are known to be ineffective sometimes.

How do you know that? lots of people live with untreated diabetes for decades,

also, diabetes treatment are known to be ineffective sometimes, so since they are not 100% effective for you that means there is no proof of negligence either.

Or, you are just using double standards, one only for your own opinion, just so you can avoid being obviously mistaken, and another much more rational for every other thing apart from vaccines because that makes much more sense.

You think it is a bad analogy because it completely demonstrate how illogical you are.

medications

are not 100% effective, nor 100% safe,

nobody knows what complications they have together with COVID infection

you cannot negate that the possibility of infection increase the risk of using them.

If the person do not complicate immediately you could not "demonstrate" damage

So, according to you the, not negligent option is to delay them until the pandemic is over, right?

I mean, if you change "medications" for "vaccinations" that is what you have been writing.

Is it clear now why it makes no sense, neither for medications nor for vaccinations, why? because delaying them brings more risk than using them during the pandemic as much as usual. The real non-negligent decision is to do whatever is less risky for the patients, which normally means keep vaccinating normally.

Virusrex,

What you consider, "some imaginary risks no one can negate" is a perfect example of your issue, lack of humility. Your here still trying to figure everything out. You think you're capable of knowing everything. Don't worry, it'll be okay thats just some imaginary risk that no one can negate. Ha,ha

Get some humility because that attitude is a danger to us all. With this virus there are a lot of unknowables. I wouldn't shrug other people's insights off so carelessly.

What you consider, "some imaginary risks no one can negate" is a perfect example of your issue, lack of humility.

You have provided absolutely no detail about those risks you consider so important, risks of what? how much they increase? how they are compared with normal vaccination? are they more than the risks for getting a preventable infection? how did you calculate this?

Sorry if you consider lack of humility to say that imaginary things are imaginary, what guides completely your worries is not concrete at all, in any sense, just something that you think it may exist, but every professional organization that deals with health care in the world say should be disregarded as not important enough to delay vaccinations. It is obvious who has the evidence to support that recommendation, and it is not you.

Your here still trying to figure everything out.

Is that so bad? do you prefer a comfortable lie instead of the truth? I have no need to figure everything out, people dedicate their whole lives to do it based on scientific data and they do all the hard work I only have to read what they recommend and maybe, if I have the interest, see the data they used to reach that conclusion. I know is not as easy as deciding by yourself what has to be true ignoring reality but it is definitely more productive.

You think you're capable of knowing everything.

Of course not, but I can know when something is wrong when compared with what the experts recommend, it is not that hard.

Don't worry, it'll be okay thats just some imaginary risk that no one can negate. Ha,ha

Again, nobody can make you accept the reality, you can live in denial if you want, but if it is so easy to prove your opinion is mistaken and based on nothing concrete there is no point if trying to defend it on the first place, specially if your only defense is that you want to believe it so.

Get some humility because that attitude is a danger to us all.

Never as dangerous as considering your own uninformed, proved mistaken opinion as if it were above the opinion of the world experts, someone that thinks that cant really talk about humility anymore. I have based nothing on what I personally recommend, everything is according to organizations like the WHO, CDC, etc.

You on the other hand based absolutely everything on what you personally believe, what do you think that means?

With this virus there are a lot of unknowables. I wouldn't shrug other people's insights off so carelessly.

well, you did exactly the same the moment I changed the word "vaccinations" to "medications", you don't know what effect the infection with covid-19 could have on people taking any medication right? but still you considered wrong to deny it. How com you can shrug that insight so instantaneously?

Now knowing if there is a risk is a terribly bad reason for ignoring risks that you know there are there, like preventable diseases that are avoided thanks to vaccination. That can be done for absolutely everything, for example How do you know that covid-19 infection would make the immune system incapable of fighting the diseases prevented by the vaccines? can you prove this possibility does not exist? you should promote vaccination then, right?

Virusrex,

I never said I was perfect either, or that I know everything. I've got a feeling we're going to be finding out a lot in the next coming months. I'd like to think that you're right in assuming covid-19 is unlike other sicknesses and compatible with different cocktails of vaccines. why don't you give it a try and tell us how you get on.

never said I was perfect either, or that I know everything.

Your opinion is contrary to what every professional organization that deal with human health recommend, but even knowing that you insist in that you must be right and everybody else must be wrong. That is not so much different from saying you know everything, at least it means that you consider you know more than everybody else in the world.

I'd like to think that you're right in assuming covid-19 is unlike other sicknesses and compatible with different cocktails of vaccines. why don't you give it a try and tell us how you get on.

How much value do you think a single anecdotal uncontrolled experience would have against the detailed and well controlled data of literally millions of cases around the whole world? Because that is what is being considered and studied right now by the experts, those that make the official recommendations.

Also why do you worry so much about "cocktails" of vaccines? a tiny cut while playing on the floor, or taking a toy from the rug to their mouth introduce much more antigens (both in quantity and in variety) to an infant's blood stream than all the vaccines he will receive in his life? do you think then that babies should be kept in an sterile bubble until the pandemic is over? I mean, since the antigens are unknown and uncontrolled every time these small accidents happens the "unknown risks" for the infant are thousands time more than vaccinating