6 ms·

I can't understand why vaccinations aren't mandatory for non-allergic, non-immunocompromised children at this point. You shouldn't have the option to kill your

I can't understand why vaccinations aren't mandatory for non-allergic, non-immunocompromised children at this point. You shouldn't have the option to kill your kid, and especially others' kids.

Y-bar 7y ago
My guess is that enough people did it without requiring a law. Laws can be costly to implement (additional bureaucracy) and are prone to edge cases. Better to just let it be while it works. But now it does not and we may require laws unless the misinformation can be quenched soon.
- benj111 7y ago
  You could fit it in with child abuse laws already? I'm in the UK that has lost eradication status. Before I could claim my children weren't in danger because its eradicated. Now it isn't and am now exposing my children to a clear danger. Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?
  - hhas01 7y ago
    “Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?” Oh, my sweet innocent child. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach
- skrebbel 7y ago
  Forcing people to undergo medical treatment is ethically questionable at best. It's an extremely heavy measure to take. So no, cost is not the reason and I think it's a bit scary that that's the best reason you could come up with. I'm as sceptical of antivaxxers as most of HN, but I'm appalled at the level of support for forced medical intervention in the comments here. That's the stuff of dictatorships.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    For that reason the laws don't make vaccinations mandatory, they make it illegal to enter public schools without a vaccination. Limiting dangerous activities in public places is accepted by most as a valid function of government.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      I consider people who vote differently from myself to be a threat to my safety. Acting on that opinion is not a good idea. The question isn't 'can we rationalise this?' - we can rationalise everything. The question is 'is the threat great enough for the government to start infringing on liberty?'. It probably isn't, otherwise we'd ban all hard and soft drugs (including alcohol & smoking) as a similar level of threat to public health. That battle has been fought and lost by the public safety folks. An incentive program would probably be a good idea, but I expect there is already one in place.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - gumby 7y ago
        Actually nuance is given close to the proper level of attention. You may drink yourself to death but some controls are in place to reduce the chance you’ll run someone over via drink driving. You may smoke but not in places where you might be fumigating others involuntarily. Etc. It’s all about managing th externality.
  - BerislavLopac 7y ago
    Vaccination is not treatment. And we are being "forced" to undergo much more than that which is in our interest: filtering of air and water, food quality regulations and so on.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - gumby 7y ago
DC-3 7y ago
Given how recently democratic western governments have conducted eugenics programs, I would be uncomfortable with any law that enforces mandatory injections for children - even for vaccines.
- tapland 7y ago
  The cutoff isnt at injections here. Its way past that somewhere between vaccine and poison.
- ophsj 7y ago
  So fucking tired of the nazism argument. Nobody cares about nazis anymore, nobody would even remember them if we weren't bombarded by American propaganda all day.
  - hobs 7y ago
    Right wing populism is on the rise across the world; it is not a uniquely american problem.
    - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
      Of which one reason is that people cried nazism too many times in the past, and now nobody takes them seriously outside their filter bubbles. The boy who cied wolf, basically.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    The US practiced eugenics well before the Nazi movement began. And then we have other horrible things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. Followed up by Operation Sea-Spray. The various US governments have done some pretty horrible things to its citizens over the years. Citizens should be rightly dubious of mandated medical treatments. That said, vaccines are good. Please get your kids vaccinated.
  - Hitton 7y ago
    The propaganda obviously left traces on you, because eugenics weren't done just by Nazis. I assume what DC-3 was referring to, were forced sterilization which were being done in Nordic countries till seventies. For more info I would recommend book "Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland".
vetinari 7y ago
From the article: > Ms O'Brien said all four European nations that have lost their eradication status have "extremely high" vaccination coverage.
- makomk 7y ago
  Oddly enough, England hit one of the WHO's vaccination targets (95% of five year olds having received their first MMR vaccination) for the first time ever just a couple of years ago. Not just since Wakefield and co (though they certainly didn't help) but in the entire history of the vaccine.
mc32 7y ago
Yeah I don’t know. I thought people in the US were/are abusing the religious exemption option (which states are rescinding). How are European patents skirting immunization requirements?
- rscho 7y ago
  They just say "no". Apart from looks of despair and despise from their pediatrician nothing will happen.
scawf 7y ago
In France, it is mandatory. Still, there is some cases of measles because of anti-vax that go against the law...
Hitton 7y ago
Although rare, vaccines can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones, even in healthy children. I think that state shouldn't have the right to kill your kid, however small is the chance. As for children who can't be vaccinated and have to depend on collective immunity, they are as big danger as antivaxxers' kids. You wouldn't force it on the first group, what gives you right to force it on second group?
- noonespecial 7y ago
  Just a reminder that Measles also has negative side effects, and refusing a vaccination may force it on someone else less able to withstand those effects.
  - Hitton 7y ago
    Obviously. But the question is to whom do you feel you have bigger obligations - to yourself/your kid or some rando? Related neighbour thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940
    - lolc 7y ago
      I would feel very sorry if I (or my children) infected somebody else with an easily preventable disease. And I would be super pissed if "some rando" did it to me!
- rscho 7y ago
  Measles can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones. Measles causes grave neurologic damage in approximately 1:10^5 and death in approximately 1:10^6 of naive children. The complication profile is far worse in adults. That's far more than the vaccine. What do you prefer?
  - Hitton 7y ago
    Dunno why you think that I am antivaxxer. I tried to represent other, in fact quite valid point of view. Personally I would obviously prefer vaccine. But even more I prefer right to choose and not having government's decisions forced upon me.
raaaaraaaa2 7y ago
It's not about children. Majority of new cases are older adults (immunization failed after ~ 25+ years).
- dfawcus 7y ago
  Define older adult - an age range please. According to this [1] non-immune adults in the UK can get vaccinated, if born between 1970 and 1979, and hence got the single measles vaccine, or between 1980 and 1990 and hence missed the mumps vaccine. However what about those of us born before 1970 (measles vaccine licensed in UK in '68), and so presumably never vaccinated against any of the three? That would leave people of 50 and older, and viewed as having "life long" acquired natural immunity. So presumably not vaccination failure amongst them. So is the "older adults" only referring to some age < 50, who were vaccinated, and that vaccine immunity has now faded? Edit to add - there are age / year statistics available here [2], which lumps everyone >= 35 in one bucket. Which may imply these "older adults" are actually people between the ages of 35 and 50. [1] - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ The section "MMR for non-immune adults". [2] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed-cases/confirmed-cases-of-measles-in-england-and-wales-by-region-and-age-2012-to-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed...

I can't understand why vaccinations aren't mandatory for non-allergic, non-immunocompromised children at this point. You shouldn't have the option to kill your kid, and especially others' kids.

Y-bar 7y ago

My guess is that enough people did it without requiring a law. Laws can be costly to implement (additional bureaucracy) and are prone to edge cases. Better to just let it be while it works. But now it does not and we may require laws unless the misinformation can be quenched soon.

benj111 7y ago
You could fit it in with child abuse laws already? I'm in the UK that has lost eradication status. Before I could claim my children weren't in danger because its eradicated. Now it isn't and am now exposing my children to a clear danger. Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?
- hhas01 7y ago
  “Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?” Oh, my sweet innocent child. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Kerri+Rivera+bleach
skrebbel 7y ago
Forcing people to undergo medical treatment is ethically questionable at best. It's an extremely heavy measure to take. So no, cost is not the reason and I think it's a bit scary that that's the best reason you could come up with. I'm as sceptical of antivaxxers as most of HN, but I'm appalled at the level of support for forced medical intervention in the comments here. That's the stuff of dictatorships.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  For that reason the laws don't make vaccinations mandatory, they make it illegal to enter public schools without a vaccination. Limiting dangerous activities in public places is accepted by most as a valid function of government.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    I consider people who vote differently from myself to be a threat to my safety. Acting on that opinion is not a good idea. The question isn't 'can we rationalise this?' - we can rationalise everything. The question is 'is the threat great enough for the government to start infringing on liberty?'. It probably isn't, otherwise we'd ban all hard and soft drugs (including alcohol & smoking) as a similar level of threat to public health. That battle has been fought and lost by the public safety folks. An incentive program would probably be a good idea, but I expect there is already one in place.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - gumby 7y ago
      Actually nuance is given close to the proper level of attention. You may drink yourself to death but some controls are in place to reduce the chance you’ll run someone over via drink driving. You may smoke but not in places where you might be fumigating others involuntarily. Etc. It’s all about managing th externality.
- BerislavLopac 7y ago
  Vaccination is not treatment. And we are being "forced" to undergo much more than that which is in our interest: filtering of air and water, food quality regulations and so on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- gumby 7y ago

DC-3 7y ago

Given how recently democratic western governments have conducted eugenics programs, I would be uncomfortable with any law that enforces mandatory injections for children - even for vaccines.

tapland 7y ago
The cutoff isnt at injections here. Its way past that somewhere between vaccine and poison.
ophsj 7y ago
So fucking tired of the nazism argument. Nobody cares about nazis anymore, nobody would even remember them if we weren't bombarded by American propaganda all day.
- hobs 7y ago
  Right wing populism is on the rise across the world; it is not a uniquely american problem.
  - layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
    Of which one reason is that people cried nazism too many times in the past, and now nobody takes them seriously outside their filter bubbles. The boy who cied wolf, basically.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  The US practiced eugenics well before the Nazi movement began. And then we have other horrible things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. Followed up by Operation Sea-Spray. The various US governments have done some pretty horrible things to its citizens over the years. Citizens should be rightly dubious of mandated medical treatments. That said, vaccines are good. Please get your kids vaccinated.
- Hitton 7y ago
  The propaganda obviously left traces on you, because eugenics weren't done just by Nazis. I assume what DC-3 was referring to, were forced sterilization which were being done in Nordic countries till seventies. For more info I would recommend book "Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland".

vetinari 7y ago

From the article: > Ms O'Brien said all four European nations that have lost their eradication status have "extremely high" vaccination coverage.

makomk 7y ago
Oddly enough, England hit one of the WHO's vaccination targets (95% of five year olds having received their first MMR vaccination) for the first time ever just a couple of years ago. Not just since Wakefield and co (though they certainly didn't help) but in the entire history of the vaccine.

mc32 7y ago

Yeah I don’t know. I thought people in the US were/are abusing the religious exemption option (which states are rescinding). How are European patents skirting immunization requirements?

rscho 7y ago
They just say "no". Apart from looks of despair and despise from their pediatrician nothing will happen.

scawf 7y ago

In France, it is mandatory. Still, there is some cases of measles because of anti-vax that go against the law...

Hitton 7y ago

Although rare, vaccines can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones, even in healthy children. I think that state shouldn't have the right to kill your kid, however small is the chance. As for children who can't be vaccinated and have to depend on collective immunity, they are as big danger as antivaxxers' kids. You wouldn't force it on the first group, what gives you right to force it on second group?

noonespecial 7y ago
Just a reminder that Measles also has negative side effects, and refusing a vaccination may force it on someone else less able to withstand those effects.
- Hitton 7y ago
  Obviously. But the question is to whom do you feel you have bigger obligations - to yourself/your kid or some rando? Related neighbour thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940
  - lolc 7y ago
    I would feel very sorry if I (or my children) infected somebody else with an easily preventable disease. And I would be super pissed if "some rando" did it to me!
rscho 7y ago
Measles can still have negative side effects, sometimes very severe ones. Measles causes grave neurologic damage in approximately 1:10^5 and death in approximately 1:10^6 of naive children. The complication profile is far worse in adults. That's far more than the vaccine. What do you prefer?
- Hitton 7y ago
  Dunno why you think that I am antivaxxer. I tried to represent other, in fact quite valid point of view. Personally I would obviously prefer vaccine. But even more I prefer right to choose and not having government's decisions forced upon me.

raaaaraaaa2 7y ago

It's not about children. Majority of new cases are older adults (immunization failed after ~ 25+ years).

dfawcus 7y ago
Define older adult - an age range please. According to this [1] non-immune adults in the UK can get vaccinated, if born between 1970 and 1979, and hence got the single measles vaccine, or between 1980 and 1990 and hence missed the mumps vaccine. However what about those of us born before 1970 (measles vaccine licensed in UK in '68), and so presumably never vaccinated against any of the three? That would leave people of 50 and older, and viewed as having "life long" acquired natural immunity. So presumably not vaccination failure amongst them. So is the "older adults" only referring to some age < 50, who were vaccinated, and that vaccine immunity has now faded? Edit to add - there are age / year statistics available here [2], which lumps everyone >= 35 in one bucket. Which may imply these "older adults" are actually people between the ages of 35 and 50. [1] - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ The section "MMR for non-immune adults". [2] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed-cases/confirmed-cases-of-measles-in-england-and-wales-by-region-and-age-2012-to-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed...