Is there a benefit to waiting three months? At least theoretically, the shorter window of vulnerability would be a benefit for the earlier one.
Again, you're asking a completely different question. The question should be, is there a benefit to vaccinating a newborn who is at low-risk? If there is no evidence of benefit, then you're simply introducing risk, no matter how small it might be. "First do no harm" means tthat if we're going to recommend that every newborn baby should receive a Hep B vaccine within hours of birth, there should be evidence of benefit for such a recommendation.
Your theoretical can only be true if you assume that the risk associated with vaccination at birth is zero. It's not. We may not know exactly what it is, and I'm sure it's quite small. But it's not zero. There is
always a risk in any medical intervention. I know people have been taught to believe that vaccines are all benefit and no risk, but that's simply not true. If there is no evidence of benefit, then all you have left is risk, no matter how small it may be.
Earlier in the thread, there was a link to the ACP's statement on this change in recommendation. It said:
“For example, ACIP’s decision to downgrade the longstanding recommendation to vaccinate all newborns against hepatitis B at birth will lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children. No new data was presented during the ACIP meeting to justify this change.
“The evidence remains clear: the hepatitis B birth dose is safe and an essential component in helping children develop immunity against a serious, potentially lifelong disease. In fact, since the U.S. implemented the hepatitis B birth dose in 1991, annual hepatitis B infections among infants and children have dropped 99%, from 16,000 to less than 20. This progress is directly attributable to timely vaccination.
“ACIP’s actions will harm children, their families and the medical professionals who care for them. That is why we are joining together to speak up. American families deserve information grounded in science and clear, consistent guidance – not speculation intended to scare them. We urge the CDC leaders to reject ACIP’s new recommendation and instead retain the current, evidence-based approach.”
Those are bold statements. Is there any evidence that "timely vaccination" is
the reason that Hep B infections have dropped? We've already established that correlation is not causation, but here it seems it gets a pass. They make a bold statement this is "directly attributable to timely vaccination", as if we're to believe that there are no other confounders in play here over the last 34 years. No in this case, correlation IS causation.
Where is the evidence that supports this apoplectic hand-wringing?