6 ms·

Mandatory vaccination is definitely a contentious subject, although many do not understand or acknowledge the subtleties. Pros for this position: 1. The indiv

by lend000 10y ago

Mandatory vaccination is definitely a contentious subject, although many do not understand or acknowledge the subtleties. Pros for this position: 1. The individual is incurring some level of risk by not vaccinating. 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vaccinated anyway?) Cons: 1. You are mandating a person subject themselves to a medical procedure, a very personal violation of that person's liberty. 2. Taking a forced vaccine incurs its own (low) risk. A distant family member of mine contracted Polio from a Polio vaccine. The 'anti-vaxxers' have claims of other unhealthy complications of vaccines, some of which are probably true to a degree. The only argument I see for mandatory vaccination is that it has to be done before the individual in question can legally consent, so perhaps 'society' should have greater say than the individual's parents for what's best for their child, similar to how society imposes certain education requirements, even for home schooling.

aanm1988 10y ago
So the pros are innocent people don't up hurt the cons are "BUT MUH FREEDUMB". > Plus all the claims of other unhealthy complications of vaccines, some of which are probably true to a degree. This is the type of thing that gives anti-vaxxers fuel. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt, don't say more research is needed before deciding. Fine, you can choose not vaccinate your kids. They should be banned from public schools, and pretty much anywhere else. If you don't want to vaccinate them then they should have to live a shitty isolated life, because you sure as hell shouldn't get to make them or others sick with your idiocy.
- godshatter 10y ago
  If freedoms means so little to you, feel free to give them up on a whim. Stay the hell away from mine, though.
- szemet 10y ago
  In my country vaccination rules are rather strict! But: I've heard many stories about anti-vaxxer parents who managed to bribe doctors to throw out the vaccination but then do the bookkeeping as the if the child were vaccinated. And this is the worst imaginable setup... :( Maybe in richer countries, where the doctors are well payed (by the state or whoever enforces the vaccination rules), this would not be a problem...
defen 10y ago
> 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vaccinated anyway?) No, that's not how it works. A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic." And in epdiemiology 102, you learn a near-eradicating policy is one of the most dangerous things you can do: >"Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a non-eradicating mass vaccination policy." More in my earlier post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252
  - defen 10y ago
    Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people? Do you think your post is an argument in favor of higher vaccination coverage or lower?
    - nonbel 10y ago
      I'm just spreading more accurate information than usually found in these threads and leaving my opinion out of it.
- lend000 10y ago
  > I'm not trying to be rude A self-defeating statement. Also, note the question mark at the end of the original sentence with which you took issue. > A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". This seems logical from a mathematical standpoint, but you're missing a big piece. If we are consequentialist here / interested in the most realistic scenario, then we have to recognize that most people will get vaccines regardless of whether or not they are forced to do so. So now it's a different comparison: 95% vaccinated with a 95% successful vaccine vs. 100% vaccinated with the 95% successful vaccine, and the practical improvement is no longer so compelling as to prove that not taking away people's freedom to choose will really have such a negative effect on society.
xyzzy123 10y ago
Here in Victoria, Australia, they have a "no jab, no play" law, which I think is an interesting practical take on this. The legislation means that if you don't vaccinate your child, you miss out on childcare rebates and can't access licensed daycare (doesn't affect primary school and later, presumably because vaccinated children are less vulnerable by that age, but also I suspect because the law would collide with other legislation related to schools, and uneducated unvaccinated kids would be a terrible outcome :). https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B22AA80DA-7330-4FC6-B9E9-ADA67D7FAB5A%7D https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B22AA80DA... I'm actually still not sure how I feel about this. On the face of it, it's a fair, risk based approach (e.g, minimise risk to others) but it also places more pressure on the poor than the rich.

by lend000 10y ago

aanm1988 10y ago

So the pros are innocent people don't up hurt the cons are "BUT MUH FREEDUMB". > Plus all the claims of other unhealthy complications of vaccines, some of which are probably true to a degree. This is the type of thing that gives anti-vaxxers fuel. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt, don't say more research is needed before deciding. Fine, you can choose not vaccinate your kids. They should be banned from public schools, and pretty much anywhere else. If you don't want to vaccinate them then they should have to live a shitty isolated life, because you sure as hell shouldn't get to make them or others sick with your idiocy.

godshatter 10y ago
If freedoms means so little to you, feel free to give them up on a whim. Stay the hell away from mine, though.
szemet 10y ago
In my country vaccination rules are rather strict! But: I've heard many stories about anti-vaxxer parents who managed to bribe doctors to throw out the vaccination but then do the bookkeeping as the if the child were vaccinated. And this is the worst imaginable setup... :( Maybe in richer countries, where the doctors are well payed (by the state or whoever enforces the vaccination rules), this would not be a problem...

defen 10y ago

> 2. Society is incurring some level of risk if the individual's risk of getting the disease is increased (although shouldn't this not affect people who are vaccinated anyway?) No, that's not how it works. A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic.

nonbel 10y ago
>"A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". I'm not trying to be rude, but that is kind of epidemiology 101 - meaning, take that as an indication that you are not fully informed on this topic." And in epdiemiology 102, you learn a near-eradicating policy is one of the most dangerous things you can do: >"Then, suddenly, a new epidemic appears as if from nowhere. This is an illustration of a phenomenon known as the ‘honeymoon period’. This is the period of very low incidence that immediately follows the introduction of a non-eradicating mass vaccination policy." More in my earlier post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13656252
- defen 10y ago
  Do you think that is the logic employed by even one out of 100 anti-vaccination people? Do you think your post is an argument in favor of higher vaccination coverage or lower?
  - nonbel 10y ago
    I'm just spreading more accurate information than usually found in these threads and leaving my opinion out of it.
lend000 10y ago
> I'm not trying to be rude A self-defeating statement. Also, note the question mark at the end of the original sentence with which you took issue. > A vaccine that is not 100% effective can still be the difference between "exponential growth" and "peters out quickly". This seems logical from a mathematical standpoint, but you're missing a big piece. If we are consequentialist here / interested in the most realistic scenario, then we have to recognize that most people will get vaccines regardless of whether or not they are forced to do so. So now it's a different comparison: 95% vaccinated with a 95% successful vaccine vs. 100% vaccinated with the 95% successful vaccine, and the practical improvement is no longer so compelling as to prove that not taking away people's freedom to choose will really have such a negative effect on society.

xyzzy123 10y ago

Here in Victoria, Australia, they have a "no jab, no play" law, which I think is an interesting practical take on this. The legislation means that if you don't vaccinate your child, you miss out on childcare rebates and can't access licensed daycare (doesn't affect primary school and later, presumably because vaccinated children are less vulnerable by that age, but also I suspect because the law would collide with other legislation related to schools, and uneducated unvaccinated kids would be a terrible outcome :). https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B22AA80DA-7330-4FC6-B9E9-ADA67D7FAB5A%7D https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B22AA80DA... I'm actually still not sure how I feel about this. On the face of it, it's a fair, risk based approach (e.g, minimise risk to others) but it also places more pressure on the poor than the rich.