13 ms·

Routine vaccinations drop among U.S. kindergartners for the third year in a row

• nickpp 4y ago
  Maybe this is what happens when you try to force people do something, even if for their own good? Like some sort of resistant force born in response to the force applied? Added: I am totally pro-vaccine as an extraordinary medical tool, just trying to understand this phenomenon hoping we won't make the same strategic mistakes again.
  • hestefisk 4y ago
    Parents have a responsibility of best interest for their children. Not vaccinating them so they can die from chicken pox is unforgivable, sorry.
    • ominous 4y ago
      It sounds like a good response only if you ignore the real point being raised: when coerced, a being who thinks of itself as having free will fights back at least a small amount. Do you disagree?
      • eesmith 4y ago
        That summary is so high-level and abstract as to be useless. At that level, we face coercion all the time: a traffic light is a form of coercion backed by the threat of state violence. Does fighting back against that coercion explain why people run red lights? Moreover, if it's the expected human response, what explains the 2% difference between now and the 2019-2020 school year? Do more people now think of themselves as having free will than a few years ago?
        • iinnPP 4y ago
          Your example is correct. The 2% is why you don't force vaccine mandates. There are studies showing it (pre covid) and we knew the entire time what would happen. It's so common sense I have to just fu*ing laugh about it all. Sorry.
        • ominous 4y ago
          Do you agree with every single traffic light in every single circunstance (place, and your timing)? Moreover, do you agree with every future traffic light that will ever be placed?
          • eesmith 4y ago
            My disagreements with a traffic light placement so far have not been based on a don't-tread-on-me sense of The Man treading on my free will. For example, I strongly prefer a modern roundabout for many of the places where the US uses a stop sign or traffic light. But my argument is made on increased safety and improved traffic flow. I once accidentally ran a red light because I got confused about which traffic light was for my lane. My father once deliberately ran a red light. After waiting for 5 minutes in the middle of the night. Because the detector didn't sense his motorcycle. A cop ticketed him. My father went to court and the judge ruled that what my father did was reasonable. So while I'm certain that someone, somewhere ran a red light because of moral outrage over repressive government, that's not main reason people run a red light. Just like this linked-to article seems to describe that the drop in routine vaccinations does not seem primarily due to increased vaccine hesitance due to the covid pandemic, even though certainly that is a reason for a few people.
            • ominous 4y ago
              > So while I'm certain that someone, somewhere ran a red light because of moral outrage over repressive government, that's not main reason people run a red light. So you agree coercion causes pushback. A bit tricky to get that out of you. Thank you for the exchange.
              • eesmith 4y ago
                Like I said, your point is "so high-level and abstract as to be useless." I expect far more people have run a red light because they were texting than as pushback against coercion. It appears far more kids have failed to receive their MMR shots due to pandemic-related interruptions in children’s medical visits than parental pushback against coercion.
    • mach1ne 4y ago
      It’s not about the morality of something, that’s another discussion. It’s the objective why.
    • MarcoZavala 4y ago
      [dead]
    • phpisthebest 4y ago
      Government agencies have a responsibility not to lie to the public to achieve what they think is a "greater good". The have a responsibility not to just change the definition of words like vaccine to fit their political goals The failure here is not parents it is every single person in power and every single spineless person that unquestionably was regurgitating the dracionian narratives of those in power the last 2+ years
      • pavlov 4y ago
        No, the failure is still the parents. They’re the ones choosing to expose their children to deadly diseases. That was true five years ago and it’s equally true now — we’re talking about the same routine vaccines. Nothing that happened during the Covid-19 pandemic changed that.
        • phpisthebest 4y ago
          Are we... Is the COVID-19 vaccine not added to that "routine"
          • pavlov 4y ago
            It is not.
            • phpisthebest 4y ago
              You are responding based in the research paper who were looking at the non COVID vaccines however as another poster has indicated a lot of doctors are only doing vaccinations if parents "agree to all required vaccines" which in most areas of the US they have added COVID to that list So if doctors are only giving the other vaccines if parents alos.agree to the COVID one then naturally parents that are refusing just COVID one will also have to refuse the others Seems like a bad idea to hold the other vaccines hostage unless people agree to take the COVID treatment
      • hestefisk 4y ago
        What lies, specifically?
    • lolinder 4y ago
      I'm pro vaccines, but chicken pox isn't a great choice for making a rhetorical point. It's the least dangerous illness of the standard childhood vaccines, and was added recently enough that even millennials just lived with it (the vaccine became available in the US in 1995). Measles and polio are the ones I'd emphasize, not chicken pox.
      • iinnPP 4y ago
        Super weird given the link between covid vaccines and Shingles.
      • hestefisk 4y ago
        Fair enough. Polio is a better example. Either way, you get the gist.
    • thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Not vaccinating [children] so they can die from chicken pox is unforgivable, sorry. Children don't die from chicken pox. It's only dangerous to adults.
  • smcameron 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • MarcoZavala 4y ago
      [dead]
  • eesmith 4y ago
    1) We know it isn't because the same routine vaccination requirements have been around for decades. 2) They aren't forced. They are required to go to public school (with limited exemptions) but parents have other options, albeit more time-consuming and/or costly. The primary reason given is "pandemic-related interruptions in children’s medical visits as well as in-person schooling", and catching up with documentation. While it's "also possible that anti-vaccine sentiment, inflamed during the Covid-19 pandemic, is widening", "Health officials said they haven’t seen an increase in vaccine exemptions nationally".
    • phpisthebest 4y ago
      Not all of the required "vaccines" have been around for decades. One of them is very new and that one seems to have a lot of controversy when it comes to kids and mounting questions on if it is safe or effective for said age group. Even mainstream news networks like the BBC are starting to air concerns from their own medical experts
      • eesmith 4y ago
        See the "routine" in the title? The linked-to page says those are: "measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) shot; the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) shot; and the shots against poliovirus and varicella (chickenpox)." Not COVID vaccination.
        • phpisthebest 4y ago
          I understand that is what the story has said but as another poster has indicated a lot of doctors are only doing vaccinations if parents "agree to all required vaccines" which in most areas of the US they have added COVID to that list So if they make it "take them all including COVID or none" Then naturally parents that refuse to give their children the new COVID treatment will also have to choose refuse the "routine" ones as they are not being given the opportunity to only receive the routine vaccines with out COVID
          • 4y ago
  • idontwantthis 4y ago
    You’re implying this natural property of humans has appeared suddenly and gradually in the 21st century.
  • bamboozled 4y ago
    It's this combined with the horror of not having vaccines, people have forgotten or don't know what that looks like, so we probably have to see children destroyed from diseases (we already have vaccines for) before people will understand why things like vaccine mandates exist. I do agree with others though, I don't feel the same way about Covid19 vaccines, even though I took them, it really does, in retrospect, look like a lot of it was trying to get people onto a yearly vaccine plan, "get your yearly covid19 booster", I don't like that personally.
    • MrVandemar 4y ago
      > it really does, in retrospect, look like a lot of it was trying to get people onto a yearly vaccine plan I think, yes, the companies are for sure rubbing their hands and thinking about the extra money from another mandated yearly vaccine. But the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, though they have a short window of effectiveness (as do flu vaccines) have protected some people from severity of the symptoms and death, which is not a bad thing. There may be some value in a yearly vaccine for at least susceptible people that covers a window of time where infection rates are typically highest.
    • busymom0 4y ago
      Yearly? More like every 2-3 months. The shots are waning so fast plus new variants. It is entirely unsustainable.
  • hotpotamus 4y ago
    I wonder what my life would be like if no one had ever tried to force me to do anything. I'd probably describe myself as deeply unambitious and as such I probably wouldn't have accomplished much without some prods, and I think I agree with you that I resent all of it. All the expectations about wearing the socially acceptable clothing, all the weirdness about expectations from your neighbors about proper behavior and lawn/house upkeep, and all the societal expectations and laws are incredibly stifling and seem like a waste of time and effort. But you probably wouldn't like what people would get up to without them.
• jslql 4y ago
  That’s what happens when you burn a lot of good faith.
  • _Microft 4y ago
    No, that's what happens if people lack self-reflection. If they had asked themselves if there is any chance that they could possibly know better than someone who's working on a topic all the time, the answer would have been a resounding no, no matter the topic in question.
    • hcrean 4y ago
      It is almost unperceivable to people who truly have faith, that other might not believe in the same higher authority as them. This is a story as old as time.
      • ben_w 4y ago
        This is very true. I don't know if you're saying that about vaccination providers or anti-vax campaigners (Deliberate ambiguity? I ask because I do that sometime). While there is a massive difference in evidence supporting these two sides, as I have a mere GCSE grade C in biology, I necessarily have to just have faith in the research methods and licensing regimes that made my 4 Covid jabs and humpteen others. Not unadulterated faith, but I do have faith, and it is only faith. I can't do a double-blind replication even if I wanted to.
        • fidgewidge 4y ago
          Why? There's no requirement that you get a credential from a particular group in society before being allowed to distrust them. If such a rule really existed it'd be a field day for scammers. For example nobody would be allowed to doubt any claim related to Web3 if they hadn't already spent years writing smart contracts. Or they wouldn't be allowed to decide Tesla FSD isn't safe enough, because they aren't themselves self driving car researchers. It's really smart to distrust vaccine providers and public health authorities. Having blind faith in them is bad. You don't need a credential to see that, you just have to observe that they constantly make strong claims in favor of vaccines that they later walk back when it's too late, without any consequences whatsoever.
• jurassic 4y ago
  We're shopping around for a pediatrician for our forthcoming baby and several offices we called said they will only accept new patients who will commit to a full schedule of vaccines. That's fine with us, but I got the feeling some providers are just tired of having the same stupid arguments with parents.
  • Xylakant 4y ago
    Our pediatrician (not in the US) has the same policy. She mentioned that the people that reject recommended vaccinations are often the same that show up with a highly contagious child at the front desk, asking for immediate treatment instead of calling ahead and being let in at a dedicated side entrance to avoid endangering other patients.
  • thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > our forthcoming baby Congratulations :)
  • wil421 4y ago
    Same here. They flat out told us on day 1 if you aren’t going to get the full schedule of vaccines find another doctor. To clarify, they don’t care if you get the flu or Covid shots.
  • leesalminen 4y ago
    We hired a concierge doctor for our son for the first 2 years post birth. We had mediocre insurance from an employer at the time. After doing the math, it wasn’t really that much more expensive. And the benefits are huge! Answers the phone the first time 24x7, they come to your house, no need to sit in a waiting room, willing to personalize care instead of a cookie cutter model. It was really great for our family. Also, our son was born 60 days before the COVID outbreak, so all of those benefits really shined.
• mariambarouma 4y ago
  Direct link to peer-reviewed research: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7202a2.htm?s_cid=mm7202a2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7202a2.htm?s_cid=mm...
• knaik94 4y ago
  I am not sure what the best way to communicate with these kinds of parents is. This is a parent with a very specific kind of mindset about who should be the ultimate authority on their child. More often than not, it becomes unhealthy for the child living in this environment both physically and emotionally. Everyone understands the parents ultimately mean no harm, but their warped perception of science, among other things, means their actions are harmful. But trying to point this fact out makes them very, very defensive and they take it personally. Others only spend energy communicating because they want to help the child too. That's the thing that always causes me difficulty when dealing with parents like this, it's like talking to a brick wall. My usual attempt is trying to get them to see me as someone speaking from a place of trustworthiness, but it's frustrating. Usually the kids are smart enough to pick up on certain things so I guide them a little. For context, I tutor. The same parents that dismiss me about things like this or getting a diagnosis/treatment for ADHD pay me to teach their kids about science and math. I want to continue caring and trying, but I understand why teachers become so jaded. Does anyone have suggestions?
  • generalizations 4y ago
    > very specific kind of mindset about who should be the ultimate authority on their child What are you referring to here?
    • ihatepython 4y ago
      I believe he is saying that the state has ultimate authority over their child, not the parent.
    • knaik94 4y ago
      They believe as a parents, they have all of the specific knowledge required to give their child the best possible life. While ignoring pediatricians and teachers. I wasn't referring to myself in any way.
      • generalizations 4y ago
        I mean, given they hired you as a math tutor, that sounds like hyperbole. Which doesn't sound like it answers my question.
• passwordoops 4y ago
  There's a frightening crisis of trust in authority, and frankly those in authority are the only ones to blame. It's been brewing for decades. More recent causes of this decay: -mixed messaging on basics from NIH on COVID in the early days, including outright lies (remember when wearing masks was bad for you?) -> Elites are clueless -Mixed messaging from pretty much every global leader about the best approach to handling the pandemic, clearly showing there are many uncertainties and unknowns. HOWEVER instead of genuinely acknowledging and encouraging public discourse on these uncertainties beyond lip service, act in a very paternal manner then do whatever polls tell them to do. -> Elites are clueless and only care about retaining power -Pfizer's CFO actually saying in a call in 2021 that when the pandemic is over, they will be able to drastically bump up the price on the vaccine, pricing out the global South ensuring a constant, annual "supply" of new variants to threaten the global North that can afford the annual booster. -> Elites are corrupt, in particular Pharma. -The Sackler family faces zero consequences and kept their fortune. -> Elites are corrupt, in particular Pharma. These are just three examples surrounding health and pharma, but like I said it's been brewing for decades (WMD, Banksters, Austerity, etc) and frankly I don't blame people for losing trust in authority like this. Especially given the education system is structured in a way to engender Trust in authority. Unless those in position of leadership face real consequences, inclusively serious prison time and loss of fortunes for their mistakes (accidental or otherwise) this corrosion will go on. P.s. to the downvoters: please provide a comment including how any one of the above items does not erode trust in authority
  • philjohn 4y ago
    You fail to account for the rise in the (mostly) right wing grifters who make money from being contrarian.
    • passwordoops 4y ago
      And everyone who uses this argument fails to account for the fact that grifters are a symptom of the problem and only enabled by the loss of trust in the first place
  • bad_username 4y ago
• nnx 4y ago
  This is really sad as it will probably cause unnecessary children deaths down the road. I think public health authorities have serious soul-searching to do, this outcome was clearly warned upon by a lot of doctors and paediatricians who seen first hand parents not understanding why those authorities were pushing so hard novel mrna covid-19 vaccines on healthy children that were basically not at risk from this disease.
  • hutzlibu 4y ago
    Yeah, the push to vaccinate children was not for the children, but to protect the old. And what will likely happen now, is a stronger push for forced vaccinations, met by even more entrenching of the anti-vaxx crowd.
    • realjhol 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • blumomo 4y ago
        Why in 2023 people still believe that C19 mRNA prevents infecting others? This myth has long been classified as wrong (unlike advertised in the beginning of its rollout)
        • knaik94 4y ago
          If you don't become infected, you can't infect others. The vaccine reduces the chances of you become sick with covid.
          • hutzlibu 4y ago
            https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597 "Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission." Not to dispute your claim, but to put it into context. But apart from that, I am out of this debate.
• guidedlight 4y ago
  Under Australia's "No Jab, No Pay" laws, families cannot receive government taxation benefits for their unvaccinated children. In addition, some states require an up to date vaccination record to be enrolled in pre-school, kindergarten, and in some states, primary school. Interestingly, it was News Limited (parent company of Fox News) that championed these laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Jab,_No_Pay
  • roenxi 4y ago
    I have very mixed feelings about this policy. I don't want my government taking my money in taxes, then deploying it as welfare conditional on unrelated policies. Particularly because once the have this leverage they'll make more widespread use of it. Some (all, in fact) of the anti-vaxxers I know are extremely upstanding small businesspeople. I can imagine in the next pandemic that (1) the government will tax them heavily pre-pandemic (2) government shuts their business down by force and (3) refuses to support them unless they comply with a vaccination policy that they don't agree with. That seems a logical but perverse destination for this sort of policy that is both unfair and at odds with basic concepts of property, freedom and charity.
    • fidgewidge 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • rscho 4y ago
        You can't delete public health and expect unchanged levels of care individually. Health at the individual level very much depends on public health policies. Don't believe me? Have fun watching your newborn die from whooping cough!
        • fidgewidge 4y ago
          Yes, it would have effects on people's health but those effects would be both positive and negative. They'd both have to be summed together, but even then, health isn't everything. A healthy society run by totalitarians is still a deeply unpleasant society to live in. Whooping cough vaccines and vaccines in general would still exist without public health. The difference is that it would be an individual decision to buy them, based on whether they believe it helps themselves and others, or not. It wouldn't be a government decision.
• chaostheory 4y ago
  This is one of the many results of the continued breakdown of trust in public institutions. It will get worse, until there is radical change for better and worse. We’re at the 4th Turning
• animitronix 4y ago
  People are dumb, tonight at 11