10 ms·

Germany proposes $2,800 fine for parents skipping measles vaccination

77 points by RobertSmith 7y ago

acd 7y ago
There is a concept called herd immunity. When enough people have taken vaccination against a disease it stops spreading because if cannot infect more people. If people then stop taking vaccines herd immunity does not work. Herd immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
sprash 7y ago
I hope this will get shut down at the constitutional court. No matter how you stand towards vaccinations. You can not force sovereign citizens to undergo any medical treatment in a free country. What is next? Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here.
- seattle_spring 7y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
- crazygorilla 7y ago
  It could also backfire to force the people to do it. Maybe there are people who refuse the vaccinations now because they are not allowed to choose on their own anymore.
- maze-le 7y ago
  Right, they shouldn't be fined for refusing to vaccinate, they should be fined for endangering the life of their kids and others with this reckless behaviour.
  - ponow 7y ago
    "Reckless"? You mean sub-optimal. Sure, if the issue is spreading disease people outside one's family, then fine away. But choices whose primary consequences are to be borne by the family, ought to stay within the family. Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.
    - maze-le 7y ago
      No I do mean "reckless". It is one thing to have no knowledge about a topic and act accordingly, it's quite another to be in active denial about a topic that has been proven again and again. >> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family. Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly externality.
      - convolvatron 7y ago
        it would be so much easier if we could just assign a dollar amount to each human life. then the insurance industry could perform its normal risk-management function. since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really most natural framework to sort all this out. as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about trollies and track switches anymore.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      Okay, let's take your argument to the extreme. You say that choices whose primary consequences are to be born by the family ought to stay with the family. With that logic established, do you believe violence against family members is permitted? How about psychological harm or abuse? Your logic doesn't hold up because we've established that certain things are Bad regardless if it's self-contained within a family unit. Ergo, vaccinations should be included as something that should be included. Avoiding vaccinations I argue is tantamount to child abuse.
  - seattle_spring 7y ago
    Why in the hell was this comment flagged, and why can't I vouch for it?
    - maze-le 7y ago
      Apparently using reason and holding people accountable is too controversial these days. Btw I didn't meant it snarky or sarcastic, I meant it as it stands there. Not doing a medical procedure is not a good reason to drag someone on front of a court, bodily harm by negligence is...
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  >> Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here. I don't want to be funny here, but I am pretty sure if you took the people who don't want to vaccinate their children and the people who would like to sterilize the "god-damn-migrants" - there will be a significant overlap. It's not a slippery slope. We're not living in Wild West any more - the population is growing and lack of vaccinations is becoming more of an issue than in a more sparsely populated past.
  - hodr 7y ago
    If you don't want to be funny, how about you go for accurate? The recent anti-vax movement (not to be confused with the religious groups that have always been anti-vaccination) is very much a product of the far left. Completely opposite side of the political spectrum from those who most vehemently oppose migrants.
    - detaro 7y ago
      I see examples pretty much all over the place, and certainly not centered around what's "far left" in Germany.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Jacobson vs Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts Already resolved in America, at least, with good arguments
  - stmfreak 7y ago
    Treason from the high court.
Vinnl 7y ago
I wonder if and how much a fine of, say, €5 would work. It wouldn't be the first case where a small nudge would be enough to make a change, and it would surely be a lot less controversial.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  These anti-vax folks believe vaccines cause autism AND that there is some massive conspiracy to give their kids autism via vaccines so a small nudge seems unlikely to much effect at all. What we need are massive civil suits against these folks for putting other people into danger.
  - gdhbcc 7y ago
    Would you hold that same argument for other things that cause people to die? Could I sue you for driving, given that the likelyhood that you killing someone due to driving is higher than the unvaccinated equivalent ? Can we use that same argument to interfere in peoples bodily integrity? Can we ban abortion due to that reasoning? I dont think you would like the results if that argument is applied to things you approve of, so you should beware when making it
    - ThirdFoundation 7y ago
      Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous. A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off. Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue. Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push).
      - 7y ago
sorryforthethro 7y ago
The rich/poor gap in the vaccine debate is pretty shocking. Not just these legal fines (cheap if you're rich), but the "alternative vaccine schedule" that some (very few) doctors recommend is also expensive and not covered by commoner insurance.
sgeisler 7y ago
That's just cruel, it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. That would still leave you with the choice of living away from other humans and taking care of your children at home without endangering anyone _and_ without taking away the right to control what happens to your body. In the end most people would choose to just get vaccinated. I especially wonder what happens to people that just pay the fine, are their children still allowed to go to public schools? If yes you didn't really solve the problem, you just created another tax.
- drivingmenuts 7y ago
  Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.
  - sgeisler 7y ago
    > Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.
    - 7y ago
mullingitover 7y ago
Just last week a person infected with measles spent several hours in Terminal 2 at LAX, and several more at The Grove and the LA Farmer's Market. Measles is no joke, something like 90% of people exposed to a measles carrier will come down with it if they're not immunized. Germany is on the right track, I think their only mistake is not making this fine operate on a sliding scale.
the_70x 7y ago
kids not vaccinated are not allowed to go to school works better
- detaro 7y ago
  Great, one easy trick to be able to homeschool your kids, just don't vaccinate them...
  - bingerman 7y ago
    Homeschooling is great, with or without vaccinations. Personally I prefer spreading actual knowledge about vaccines and their advantages (and possible side-effects, too) to calling skeptical people dumb and trying to make them hate "the system" more.
    - detaro 7y ago
      The point is that homeschooling is not legal in Germany, so banning vaccinated kids from school would give some parents a way towards what they want (keep their kids out of school) by not vaccinating them, which is exactly the opposite of encouraging vaccination. (If we assume the concept of "ban from school" makes sense if there's a law mandating school attendance)
averros 7y ago
Here's a good rule of thumb: if you are a mentally competent adult and are forced to do something, this something is not in YOUR best interests. A propos: the "herd immunity" line of argumentation is totally red herring, since the Western rate of immunization is way above of what is needed for herd immunity to be effective (defined as driving pathogen reproduction rate below one - note that reproduction rate is NOT the same as infection rate). So is the "recklessness" line of argumentation, since the chances of actually getting infected and suffering serious consequences of that are rather small. It's way more reckless to cross a street once a day. We should have the "Say No to Totalitarians" day. A free society can tolerate some amount of foolishness - both because not doing so implies reduction of humans to livestock, and because fools sometimes turn out to be right.

77 points by RobertSmith 7y ago

acd 7y ago

There is a concept called herd immunity. When enough people have taken vaccination against a disease it stops spreading because if cannot infect more people. If people then stop taking vaccines herd immunity does not work. Herd immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

sprash 7y ago

I hope this will get shut down at the constitutional court. No matter how you stand towards vaccinations. You can not force sovereign citizens to undergo any medical treatment in a free country. What is next? Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here.

seattle_spring 7y ago
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
crazygorilla 7y ago
It could also backfire to force the people to do it. Maybe there are people who refuse the vaccinations now because they are not allowed to choose on their own anymore.
maze-le 7y ago
Right, they shouldn't be fined for refusing to vaccinate, they should be fined for endangering the life of their kids and others with this reckless behaviour.
- ponow 7y ago
  "Reckless"? You mean sub-optimal. Sure, if the issue is spreading disease people outside one's family, then fine away. But choices whose primary consequences are to be borne by the family, ought to stay within the family. Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.
  - maze-le 7y ago
    No I do mean "reckless". It is one thing to have no knowledge about a topic and act accordingly, it's quite another to be in active denial about a topic that has been proven again and again. >> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family. Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly externality.
    - convolvatron 7y ago
      it would be so much easier if we could just assign a dollar amount to each human life. then the insurance industry could perform its normal risk-management function. since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really most natural framework to sort all this out. as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about trollies and track switches anymore.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Okay, let's take your argument to the extreme. You say that choices whose primary consequences are to be born by the family ought to stay with the family. With that logic established, do you believe violence against family members is permitted? How about psychological harm or abuse? Your logic doesn't hold up because we've established that certain things are Bad regardless if it's self-contained within a family unit. Ergo, vaccinations should be included as something that should be included. Avoiding vaccinations I argue is tantamount to child abuse.
- seattle_spring 7y ago
  Why in the hell was this comment flagged, and why can't I vouch for it?
  - maze-le 7y ago
    Apparently using reason and holding people accountable is too controversial these days. Btw I didn't meant it snarky or sarcastic, I meant it as it stands there. Not doing a medical procedure is not a good reason to drag someone on front of a court, bodily harm by negligence is...
heavenlyblue 7y ago
>> Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here. I don't want to be funny here, but I am pretty sure if you took the people who don't want to vaccinate their children and the people who would like to sterilize the "god-damn-migrants" - there will be a significant overlap. It's not a slippery slope. We're not living in Wild West any more - the population is growing and lack of vaccinations is becoming more of an issue than in a more sparsely populated past.
- hodr 7y ago
  If you don't want to be funny, how about you go for accurate? The recent anti-vax movement (not to be confused with the religious groups that have always been anti-vaccination) is very much a product of the far left. Completely opposite side of the political spectrum from those who most vehemently oppose migrants.
  - detaro 7y ago
    I see examples pretty much all over the place, and certainly not centered around what's "far left" in Germany.
scarejunba 7y ago
Jacobson vs Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts Already resolved in America, at least, with good arguments
- stmfreak 7y ago
  Treason from the high court.

Vinnl 7y ago

I wonder if and how much a fine of, say, €5 would work. It wouldn't be the first case where a small nudge would be enough to make a change, and it would surely be a lot less controversial.

wavefunction 7y ago
These anti-vax folks believe vaccines cause autism AND that there is some massive conspiracy to give their kids autism via vaccines so a small nudge seems unlikely to much effect at all. What we need are massive civil suits against these folks for putting other people into danger.
- gdhbcc 7y ago
  Would you hold that same argument for other things that cause people to die? Could I sue you for driving, given that the likelyhood that you killing someone due to driving is higher than the unvaccinated equivalent ? Can we use that same argument to interfere in peoples bodily integrity? Can we ban abortion due to that reasoning? I dont think you would like the results if that argument is applied to things you approve of, so you should beware when making it
  - ThirdFoundation 7y ago
    Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous. A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off. Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue. Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push).
    - 7y ago

sorryforthethro 7y ago

The rich/poor gap in the vaccine debate is pretty shocking. Not just these legal fines (cheap if you're rich), but the "alternative vaccine schedule" that some (very few) doctors recommend is also expensive and not covered by commoner insurance.

sgeisler 7y ago

That's just cruel, it takes away choice of people about their own bodies. I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. That would still leave you with the choice of living away from other humans and taking care of your children at home without endangering anyone _and_ without taking away the right to control what happens to your body. In the end most people would choose to just get vaccinated. I especially wonder what happens to people that just pay the fine, are their children still allowed to go to public schools? If yes you didn't really solve the problem, you just created another tax.

drivingmenuts 7y ago
Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.
- sgeisler 7y ago
  > Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands? Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved. > I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well. I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration. I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.
  - 7y ago

mullingitover 7y ago

Just last week a person infected with measles spent several hours in Terminal 2 at LAX, and several more at The Grove and the LA Farmer's Market. Measles is no joke, something like 90% of people exposed to a measles carrier will come down with it if they're not immunized. Germany is on the right track, I think their only mistake is not making this fine operate on a sliding scale.

the_70x 7y ago

kids not vaccinated are not allowed to go to school works better

detaro 7y ago
Great, one easy trick to be able to homeschool your kids, just don't vaccinate them...
- bingerman 7y ago
  Homeschooling is great, with or without vaccinations. Personally I prefer spreading actual knowledge about vaccines and their advantages (and possible side-effects, too) to calling skeptical people dumb and trying to make them hate "the system" more.
  - detaro 7y ago
    The point is that homeschooling is not legal in Germany, so banning vaccinated kids from school would give some parents a way towards what they want (keep their kids out of school) by not vaccinating them, which is exactly the opposite of encouraging vaccination. (If we assume the concept of "ban from school" makes sense if there's a law mandating school attendance)

averros 7y ago

Here's a good rule of thumb: if you are a mentally competent adult and are forced to do something, this something is not in YOUR best interests. A propos: the "herd immunity" line of argumentation is totally red herring, since the Western rate of immunization is way above of what is needed for herd immunity to be effective (defined as driving pathogen reproduction rate below one - note that reproduction rate is NOT the same as infection rate). So is the "recklessness" line of argumentation, since the chances of actually getting infected and suffering serious consequences of that are rather small. It's way more reckless to cross a street once a day. We should have the "Say No to Totalitarians" day. A free society can tolerate some amount of foolishness - both because not doing so implies reduction of humans to livestock, and because fools sometimes turn out to be right.