back
13 comments
People love to frame this as "patient choice" but this:

> They will recommend that decisions on vaccinations against flu, Covid-19 and rotavirus be based on “shared clinical decision-making,” which means people who want one must consult with a health care provider.

Will directly mean that a vaccine, which used to be free, will now cost a doctor-consultation fee (between $35 and $100+ depending on insurance plan). So for the poor they actually lose the "choice" if they cannot afford the new higher cost.

For example in my state, COVID-19 which was free last year, cost a doctor visit this year ($110) even if the actual vaccine remains 100% covered.

There is no reason for children to be vaccinated against Covid given risk profile. There never was. The risk associated with the vaccine is greater than the risk associated with Covid for children. The risk profile is different for the elderly, overweight and comorbid.
The risk associated the vaccine is less than the risk associated with Covid. The vaccine doesn't have unique risks that aren't also associated with Covid.

The only scenario where the risk is lower is if they won't get Covid at all. That is pretty unlikely given that it is an endemic disease.

Nothing has no risk.

A not insignificant number of people suffered from severe health issues from the covid vaccine alone.

The definition of what a vaccine is and the requirement for testing were relaxed to allow for what would otherwise have been regarded as immature to be included in the vaccine category, and has remained so since. It is therefore reasonable that the trust in vaccines had been impacted to some extent.

And flu and rotavirus vaccines that also now require an expensive doctor's visit?
The thesis was known from the very beginning. The rest is just window dressing to justify the outcome.

I still scratch my head about some no-brainer vaccines such as HPV. All upsides, prevents the literal cancer. No downsides.

HIV was a gift to the Christian right and now that medication has been so successful, things like HPV make up a larger part of what they have left. Helping parents misuse their small power in general but extreme power over their children also plays into the hands of people wanting the corruption of power over truth.
There is no change in the HPV recommendation.
You are not correct according to Reuters. "The new schedule also recommends U.S. children receive a single dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, rather than a two-dose course. Recent studies have concluded that a single dose is not inferior to the longer course and noted the World Health Organization also backs a single dose schedule." https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
This clarification is missing from many others sources (such as the AP one I saw from a local news source): https://www.wral.com/news/ap/9b8df-us-drops-the-number-of-va... .

What you are describing is a somewhat routine adjustment and if it's non-inferior... sure. But it sure reads differently in different sources...

Interesting. In context that is not the claim what I am contradicting in the comment chain, despite that it is the literal reading of what I said.
The HPV single dose recommendation was probably coming regardless of who was in office.
Interesting to compare the US to Denmark while they are so different with respect to their healthcare system.

On another note, why are there quite a few articles posted on US healthcare? Genuine question. I deliberately skip many news websites because I don’t want to read about such topics but just want to focus on technology.