[atmavatar]

> That said, the example that has always bugged me though the default of giving babies Hepatitis B vaccine even if there is no possible vector for them to get the disease.

Hepatitis B is spread via bodily fluids, including blood. In this, Hepatitis B is particularly insidious: there is generally a large viral load in the blood relative to other diseases, so even microscopic amounts of blood are sufficient for infection, and the virus can remain active for up to a week on exposed objects.

Perhaps your children are different, but blood is a pretty common sight with most children.

Worse: when you contract Hepatitis B, it may become a lifelong infection.

Sadly, screening those people who have contact with your child is thwarted by the fact that roughly half of those infected don't realize it.

See: https://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis-b/about/index.html

See: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b

See: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=hepati...

See: https://www.chop.edu/sites/default/files/vaccine-education-c...

See: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/why-hepatitis-b-vaccinatio...

[YZF]

My daughters were born at home. Me and my wife do not have Hepatitis B. They did not go to daycare, my wife stayed at home with them.

I think the burden of proof is on you (or the health authorities) to have some conclusive evidence based story here how them getting this vaccine is a net plus, or at least that not getting the vaccine is a high enough risk in the big picture. What I read online borders propaganda, it is just the natural reflex to defense the existing practices, there is no evidence that I have seen that has real world data comparing the risk that proves what needs to happen here. Because hard evidence is the enemy of bad policy.