In the animal side, for sure yes (vary by which species they can affect, how bad they can get, and other probably other things). In the human side, I get the impression that we’ve always had different viral strains, with one of them becoming more prevalent and causing more damage than others.
Except you never know if that particular baby/pup is receiving a good preventive dose from mom in the first place. Also, it is a balance between maternal antibody decline and letting the pup/kid develop its own antibodies. Take parvo… it is a nasty and deadly disease in puppies. If you wait until ALL the maternal antibodies are gone… guess what, you’re risking that pup getting parvo. The same I’m guessing go for other diseases in humans. If you wait too long, you’re risking the kid getting them.
Yup. I not only inherited the allergies, I also have RA, am legally blind in one eye, my father was crap for a parent and they were not even close to financially stable when I was born.
You also never know if that particular baby/pup still has too many maternal antibodies in it for the vaccine to take hold. We used to try to compensate for that by giving four shots between weaning and about 16-20 weeks of age, until they found out that was counter productive. It looks like they are still doing it with babies.
Eh… that’s the way is done in many places. And in many occasions, since they may not know when the animal was weaned nor the status of mom, or if the mom even had good enough antibodies to pass to begin with, that is what is done. Provided there is a limit on how young you can give them. IIRC, the way I was taught was that the earliest was maybe 6 weeks, if no info whatsoever was given on the pups/kittens and their mom. Preferably to start at 8-10 weeks. Breeds that are more prone to parvo could still get the initial series until they were older, 20 weeks, but those are exceptions.
Other vaccines (rabies) are not to be given until the pup is older. And of course this schedule varies with animal species and vaccine.
In humans, the initial series are spread much more apart and except for a couple of diseases, they start them later than in animals. At least in one, rotavirus, it is probably given when the baby is young because chances are the mom does not have antibodies to pass and that is the age when the baby is more susceptible to get the disease. You could delay the vaccine, but then what would be the point when the whole idea is to prevent the disease while it is more likely to strike?
Oh, I was talking about responsible people, not pups from a box at a grocery store!
Are you youngish? When I first started in dogs over 35 years ago, we were supposed to start giving shots as soon as we introduced solid food so most were started at 5-6 weeks. Then every two weeks after that until 16 or so weeks of age.
How likely is it that a well cared for newborn is going to get Hep B?
I finished my degree less than a year ago and I’m still involved in post-graduate studies. From what I was told, as well as the places I shadowed, most of the pups were not started until they were 8-9 weeks (sometimes later), and my infectious diseases prof. made a point that giving the vaccine too early would be ineffective. Six weeks was the age I was told could be the earliest, if nothing at all was known about the mom and the pups/kittens were at risk (orphans, hand fed, shelter animals).
The main place where a newborn is at risk for Hep B is at the hospital (from an accidental needlestick). That’s why they give the first shot immediately after birth.
More so, from Mom during birth, and (surprisingly to me) vaccinating at birth is somewhat protective from caching it from that perinatal exposure. The argument for vaccinating then is made as follows:
If pups and babies are roughly equivalent (which curlcoat seems to believe), we may be overlooking one key reason why there seem to be fewer autistic and allergic dogs compared to humans - the maternal consumption of the afterbirth (placenta) in dogs. We hear that this is done instinctively by the mother dog to keep predators away and for nutrition - but could there be an reason tied to immunity?
Maybe by not consuming the afterbirth*, human moms are not taking in crucial immunologic components that could be later passed to nursing infants, thus avoiding allergies and autism. You never hear about allergies and autism running rampant among canines, or in ancient semi-human groups like the Neanderthals, do you? Sounds like proof to me!
Yes, I know that antibody proteins and such would be degraded by digestion and not make it into the mom’s bloodstream. Still, my theory makes at least as much sense as what curlcoat has been spouting.
*there are a few nutso moms who in fact do eat the placenta - cooked I assume.
How do you know Neanderthals weren’t all autistic? Huh? All the evidence is that they had poor language skills and poorer communication skills in general, less agile social skills, and a restricted pattern of interests and behaviors. Sounds autistic to me!
“Finally, it has been proposed that the related group of neurological disorders that include autism, Asperger’s syndrome, dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) may be due to the presence of Neanderthal genetic material, rather than mis-functioning genes. Supporters of this theory draw parallels between the symptoms of autism and deduced behaviours of Neanderthals: dispraxia (lack of hand-eye coordination) compared to absence of Neanderthal throwing weapons; seasonal affected disorder (SAD) may indicate Neanderthals hibernated; autistic children typically have a slightly larger brain; and difficulty in learning a language. They also note that autism is more common among people of European descent, who would be expected to have more Neanderthal genes than those of purely African or Asian descent. Opponents point to the circumstantial nature of this evidence, maintain that there are many symptoms of autism that are not explained in this way, and object to the assumptions made (there is no direct evidence to support the idea that Neanderthals hibernated outside of the Neanderthal theory of autism, and Neanderthals may well have had a language).”
I know of no definitive evidence that Neanderthals ate placentas, but I have little more to go on than Geico ads.
