7 ms·

So, in this sense, vaccination should be an individual choice? This is something which concerns the individual, but has consequences for society as a whole.

• rubatuga 10y ago
  It has and always be the individual's choice, unless they are unconscious or unable to make a reasonable decision on their own. Vaccination has always been opt out, and it's a right to choose whether or not to accept medical treatment.
• dexterdog 10y ago
  Not related. Vaccination is for the population as a whole more so than the individual. Experimental treatments are a risk the individual should be able to choose to take.
• jacquesm 10y ago
  > So, in this sense, vaccination should be an individual choice? Emphatically: YES. Bodily integrity is something that is very high on the list of things that a person should have a say over. Whether they do it because they are mis-informed, dumb, irrational or religious doesn't matter, they still should have the final say over whether or not they get a specific injection or not. There are many things that concern the individual that have consequences for society as a whole, in fact, it is very hard to point at a single thing that concerns an individual that has absolutely no consequence for society. And many of those things are regulated to benefit society. But your body is yours and yours alone and that's a good thing even if there are negative consequences for society. Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority instead of a large majority so the risk is somewhat controllable and fortunately the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated yet (a risk that for many diseases is extremely small) so the consequences for society as a whole are manageable. If that should change dramatically then this should be revisited but for now I'm pretty happy to support this even though I would never apply it to myself or my children (who, ironically, don't get to chose because the argument isn't really framed right, it's not an individual choice but in almost all cases a choice for a parent about their child...). This also ties in with religious freedom, and as an atheist you might find it surprising that I'm a big proponent of that, I don't believe in any of this but I will definitely defend the right of others to believe in whatever they want, including in things that may make them make sub-optimal choices when it comes to their own health or the health of their kids. If you start to take away those rights you will end up with a very unhealthy society, far more unhealthy (and unhealthy on a different plane) than the society that has to deal with some actual health issues in a small part of their population.
  • rincebrain 10y ago
    It's not "just" those who haven't been vaccinated at risk, though - vaccines often have both an efficacy rate (the likelihood you develop sufficient immune response) and duration (how long it lasts without repetition). One of my relatives was vaccinated for pertussis, and yet still came down with it one day. Their parent had a hard time convincing the doctors to even test for it because, in their minds, it was no longer an option. Even later, it came out that the particular vaccine that my relative had been given had a markedly lower effective duration than had been initially advertised. So even if other entities make all the "safe" choices (presuming they're not immunocompromised or otherwise unable to be vaccinated), disruptions in herd immunity can have problematic consequences.
  • johncolanduoni 10y ago
    > Fortunately the anti-vaxxers are a small minority instead of a large majority so the risk is somewhat controllable and fortunately the only people at risk are those that have not been vaccinated yet (a risk that for many diseases is extremely small) so the consequences for society as a whole are manageable. Loss of herd immunity effects those who have gotten the vaccine as well (especially with vaccines that have more significant failure rates). Choosing to not vaccinate your child and expecting everybody else's children at the public school you send them to to just deal is about more than personal bodily integrity.
    • jacquesm 10y ago
      That's true, but it's not an absolute: there is no guarantee anybody will get ill, it's rolling the dice with a somewhat higher chance of someone else getting ill but a much bigger chance of you yourself getting ill. As an analogue: if you want to categorize the non-vaccinated person as a 'drunk driver' who is not allowed to partake in traffic then you prioritize (rightly, imo) their choice to be drunk over the risk they pose to the lives and health of others because the chances of causing a serious accident are large enough - and we have the evidence to back that up - that we collectively have decided against people having that particular freedom. So if that's your argument (which I don't know for sure) you definitely have a point. The counter point (to that convenient strawman :) ) is that the chances of someone getting ill are not as easy to determine and that that someone might have gotten ill anyway. Cause and effect are a lot more distant in that case and much harder to relate to each other.
• ghaff 10y ago
  It is. Not many people favor coming in with a SWAT team and vaccinating children against the parents' will. However, society and institutions do in many cases also properly forbid unvaccinated children from attending school and participating in various activities with other children.
• dang 9y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14120292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14120292 and marked it off-topic.