I'm not really understanding what relevance one child having a rare reaction to the varicella vaccine has to do with your decision to extend the duration of the normal side effects of other vaccinations on your other child, and not sure how either of those things related to your claim about Big Vax Baba Yaga.
Stringing together a series of non-sequiturs is not the same thing as constructing an argument.
It was due to how lathargic they would be for days. I am not really understanding why you think SIX vaccines into a 20 pound body seems OK?
Do you have kids and did you give them six vaccines all at once?
What the heck does that not make sense to people for?
It makes the kid miserable.
And if you have one of your kids get chicken pox from the vaccine during a family vacation to go to the chicago zoo, which she couldnt do and we had to stay in chicago another week - so yeah, fuck risking it.
Maybe my kids were extra sensitive - but would you deploy six patches at once to all your production servers with no idea what the outcome will be and you have no idea what's in those patches other than their name when you already had a two week outage caused by a previous attempt at doing such?
> I am not really understanding why you think SIX vaccines into a 20 pound body seems OK?
Because body weight and number of vaccines don't really have any relationship?
> Do you have kids and did you give them six vaccines all at once?
I have two relatively young kids, I don't think they've ever been recommended for more than four at a time, but I could misremember, the numbers never been a big deal. I've never had them given less than what our pediatrician recommended. The CDC schedule has some ranges in it so I see you could possibly end up with six at once.
Haven't observed any relationship between number of vaccines and side effects, either. The times they've gotten one have been pretty much the same as the times they’ve has a bunch.
> It makes the kid miserable.
I'm not aware of any evidence that more vaccines at once does that; I am aware of evidence that spreading them out over a succession of weeks extends the length of time that they are likely to experience side effects.
> And if you have one of your kids get chicken pox from the vaccine during a family vacation to go to the chicago zoo, which she couldnt do and we had to stay in chicago another week - so yeah, fuck risking it.
I'm not sure how you think that very rare side effect (varicella vaccine produces chickenpox in about 2% of cases, but even in the vast majority of them it's extremely minor with a few pox, nothing like what you describe) of a single vaccine has anything to do with your belief in a higher risk from giving multiple vaccines at one time rather than spread out 1/week. That makes no sense at all.
> Maybe my kids were extra sensitive - but would you deploy six patches at once to all your production servers with no idea what the outcome will be
I wouldn't apply any patches to a server with no idea what the outcome will be, but that's not analogous to the case with vaccines, anyway. The only reason I might spread out different batches is to make placing blame for any unexpected problems easier, but even that is only a benefit because patches can be backed out. Your analogy is deeply flawed.
> when you already had a two week outage caused by a previous attempt at doing such?
But even by your own account, the “outage” wasn't caused by the practice you were later avoiding, which simply magnified the impact of common side effects without doing anything to mitigate the risk of serious, rare ones.
Stringing together a series of non-sequiturs is not the same thing as constructing an argument.