What you've written is unproven, and I see two facets of confusion:
First, there's a huge difference between "strong" immune responses and "good" immune responses.
Triggering the adaptive immune system is dangerous, like unleashing Skynet robots against a zombie apocalypse. You don't nuke a city at the first police report of one person biting another. Your body has a ton of cascading safety interlocks to try to avoid triggering more than is absolutely necessary.
Second, there's a difference between "we need dangerous exposure to actual pathogens" versus "we need calibration against a mileu of benign species we co-evolved with."
There's no evidence our immune systems are somehow "weaker" than our ancestors', but they do seem to be miscalibrated and trigger-happy.
No, it's the vagina itself which is heavily colonized with bacteria (lactofermenting bacteria and friends). With a C-section you're removing the baby directly from the amniotic sac into the world.
Practically 100% of children will have "dangerous exposure to actual pathogens" multiple times before they turn 20.
If parents only get a choice as to when, I think nearly all would choose for them to be exposed younger and before the critical high school/college years, when the stakes are much higher.
When a disease is dangerous depends a lot on the specific disease. Measles for an adult is mostly a non-issue. Measles for a child carries a high risk of deafness and blindness. Chickenpox for an infant can be deadly, for a child is normal, and for an adult man can cause sterility.
There's no blanket "best time" to get sick with an infectious disease. And some diseases, like chickenpox, later surface as painful shingles (which in the worst case can result in permanent nerve damage).
The best thing to do is vaccination. It's safe for the vast majority of the population and sidesteps complications completely. Get your flu shot.
It’s funny on how we can be on a site where people spend all day working on how to account for things like dynamic conditionals, but immediately become absurdly reductive and incapable of applying the same logic to anything outside software. Real life also has a lot of if statements!
Life is a bunch of statistics and probabilities and we humans have a strong tendency to want to simplify those away. We are further very naturally bad at stats (probably due to our amazing pattern finding abilities).
Heck, I think what makes a programmer good is something that can easily get in the way of fields like medicine. Good programmers like to create abstractions to put things into neat boxes. Programming is an exercise in generalization and specialization and, unfortunately, that can drive people to thinking "Oh, these diseases are alike so lets put them in the same box". That particularly gets in the way because MOST people won't experience complications from illness. Consider measles blindness, 30 million people get measles a year, 60,000 will get blindness. That's a 0.2% chance of developing blindness as a result of measles (1 in 500). That can lead to unfounded skepticism because your observed reality "I don't know anyone that's been blinded by measles!" might make you think that the risks are lower than they are.
And, heck, as a programmer if you have a method that fails at 1 in 500 cases you might even be justified in punting fixing that thing.
> And, heck, as a programmer if you have a method that fails at 1 in 500 cases you might even be justified in punting fixing that thing.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but if I intentionally ignored a fix to a method that resulted in a service-level equivalent of a user going blind every 1 in 500 times it ran, I’d get fired pretty quickly. But then again, I have also met many programmers who, when presented with such cases, pretend they do not exist.
First, there's a huge difference between "strong" immune responses and "good" immune responses.
Triggering the adaptive immune system is dangerous, like unleashing Skynet robots against a zombie apocalypse. You don't nuke a city at the first police report of one person biting another. Your body has a ton of cascading safety interlocks to try to avoid triggering more than is absolutely necessary.
Second, there's a difference between "we need dangerous exposure to actual pathogens" versus "we need calibration against a mileu of benign species we co-evolved with."
There's no evidence our immune systems are somehow "weaker" than our ancestors', but they do seem to be miscalibrated and trigger-happy.