I think a lot of the reasoning is also that some high risk group members may not return for the next vaccinations.
Printable View
I think a lot of the reasoning is also that some high risk group members may not return for the next vaccinations.
the vaccine at birth is a different kind of vaccine to what is offered later - has to be administered very early on to be effective. it's not essential,but if you're in a high risk group or have a lot of exposure to high risk groups, i can see why it's recommended
How is it different BG?
there was a thread a while ago about the mother who was being chased with her new born as she was Hep B positive and declining the vacc for the baby - authorities had DOCS or similar on the case cos the birth vaccine is a different version to the one later on - i can't honestly remember how though, i just remember reading that it had to be administered within, i believe, 72 hours for it to be effective, otherwise it was a waste of time... i cant find the posts now to refer back to it though:
ETA here is an article related to the case i was mentioning - it refers to both immunoglobulin and vaccine being administered if the parent is hep b positive - perhaps that is what was meant
I think that what it means is that if a child is born to a mother who is HBP then they must recieve the vax within 72 hours for it to be an effective prevention against the baby contracting a full blown infection of the virus. (I think I posted this earlier, but it is about 90% of kids born to HBP mothers who contract the full virus) The actual makeup of the vax is the same, I believe, as it is when given at 2 months
the article says they actually get two injections at birth if to a hep b pos mum - one of immunoglobulin (immune defence) and one of vaccine:
Well lucky I dont have to worry about that. So J will be injection free.