7 ms·

To Protect His Son, a Father Asks School to Bar Unvaccinated Children

108 points by dean 12y ago

pstuart 12y ago
Mockery and ridicule are powerful tools. This is a good application for them.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Mockery and ridicule do not change people's minds. People who chose not to vaccinate their children only retreat further from vaccination if you use mockery or ridicule. If your aim is to protect children by increasing the numbers of vaccinated children it's important not to use mockery or ridicule. Those are the wrong tools.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > If your aim is to protect children by increasing the numbers of vaccinated children it's important not to use mockery or ridicule. Those are the wrong tools. When education fails, when facts fail, when logic and reason fail, you're left with mockery and/or ridicule.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Or force.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - jobposter1234 12y ago
      I understand the urge, believe me. But now I'm trying to be a less sarcastic person, because the way I see it, mockery / ridicule is tantamount to giving up. Totally cool with it. It's fun, and gives you a smug feeling that is unfortunately also fun. But I don't let myself think I'm doing anything other than throwing in the towel in trying to help this other inhabitant of our rock. Once I frame it that way to myself, I find myself either continuing to try or completely ignoring the other person.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    People who choose not to vaccinate their children are by and large beyond the reach of reason, in much the same way the typical religious person is. I wouldn't advocate mockery and ridicule because it is as equally wasted as reason is on these people. Instead they should simply be ignored to the extent possible, and when not possible as in the case of the subject of this article they should be quarantined so the rest of us don't suffer from their ignorance.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      The parents might be unreachable. But the children grow up and they, and then their children, might be reachable. Those later generations are easier to vaccinate if they haven't been subjected to years of mocking.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    I think Child Protective Services would be a good tool.
  - mayneack 12y ago
    I'm curious what the basis is for your statement? Is mockery the best method for changing peoples' behavior here? Probably not, but I'm not convinced that it's counter productive like you assert.
    - pstuart 12y ago
      I prefer facts and reason. When those don't work, what's left that doesn't involve force?
      - spdustin 12y ago
        Law, and injunctive measures.
        pstuart 12y ago
        Both of those are meaningless without force to back them up.
        spdustin 12y ago
        An injunction would be enforced by whatever means the judge deems necessary to ensure compliance, and anyone who violates it would be in contempt of court, which could result in arrest.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      EDIT: did anyone persuade you to run Linux by using words like "Micro$haft"? Did anyone persuade you that some Apple functionality was sub-optimal by calling you a "fanboi"? /EDIT There are broadly speaking three groups of people. i) those who get vaccinations ii) those who are unsure iii) those who are anti vaccination People sometimes assume that the people in group ii and in group iii and are deluded idiots who ignore all the evidence. Let's look at a real example of mass non-vaccination -- the MMR Autism hoax. This involved a real but corrupt scientist who wrote a scientific paper but used faked data and published that paper in a respected medical journal, although they later withdrew it. That's not people believing in Unicorns! That's people thinking there's some scientific reason not to get that vaccination. Newspapers with their terrible reporting of science fed that fear. When the paper was retracted by the journal people don't know if that's because it's true but there's a technicality, or if it's false. At the point people were not aware of Andrew Wakefield's criminal corrupt behaviour. Now try putting yourself in their position. Remember that Wakefield is still a scientist at that point; that although the paper is retracted you didn't know about the faked data. You have a bunch of your friends worried about whether they should get that vaccine or not, or whether they should get single vaccines instead of MMR. There are starting to be conflicting stories in the newspapers. And then, a group starts a website and members of that group start calling you a fucking idiot for even considering not vaccinating your child. They compare you to flat earthers and Yeti-watchers and alien abduction kooks. You know you're not like that, so already you've started to reject what they're saying. Some of your friends are sympathetic to you, reinforcing your doubts with phrases like "maybe there's nothing to it, but look at Bob - he was fine, he got the vaccine, and now he's Autistic" or "maybe there isn't anything to it but measles isn't that bad and do you really want to risk Autism" (and remember weak anecdotal evidence is rife on HN; and at least on HN user has suggested that measles isn't that serious). I believe that mockery here pushes people away from information about vaccination and towards misinformation. This example is tricky because of "hindsight bias". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias This is the best document about the crook Andrew Wakefield - http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html You might say that if you focus the mocking on group iii that people in group ii would want to avoid them. I think that people in group ii would feel themselves to be the target. Also don't forget that people are not rational even when they claim to be. There are a bunch of areas where the science is very much clearer than in the early days of MMR (climate change) and you still have denialists who trot out arguments created by shills paid by a few large companies - the same shills that were used by the tobacco industry using the same tactics that delayed smoking controls for so long.
  - TulliusCicero 12y ago
    They can, in fact, change people's minds over the long run. Although more at the population level rather than for specific individuals who already hold ridiculous beliefs. " Once upon a time, there was a racist tree. Seriously, you are going to hate this tree. High on a hill overlooking the town, the racist tree grew where the grass was half clover. Children would visit during the sunlit hours and ask for apples, and the racist tree would shake its branches and drop the delicious red fruit that gleamed without being polished. The children ate many of the racist tree's apples and played games beneath the shade of its racist branches. One day the children brought Sam, a boy who had just moved to town, to play around the racist tree. "Let Sam have an apple," asked a little girl. "I don't think so. He's black," said the tree. This shocked the children and they spoke to the tree angrily, but it would not shake its branches to give Sam an apple, and it called him a nigger. "I can't believe the racist tree is such a racist," said one child. The children momentarily reflected that perhaps this kind of behavior was how the racist tree got its name. It was decided that if the tree was going to deny apples to Sam then nobody would take its apples. The children stopped visiting the racist tree. The racist tree grew quite lonely. After many solitary weeks it saw a child flying a kite across the clover field. "Can I offer you some apples?" asked the tree eagerly. "Fuck off, you goddamn Nazi," said the child. The racist tree was upset, because while it was very racist, it did not personally subscribe to Hitler's fascist ideology. The racist tree decided that it would have to give apples to black children, not because it was tolerant, but because otherwise it would face ostracism from white children. And so, social progress was made. "
    - DanBC 12y ago
      A baffling parable. People who don't vaccinate are not social excluded - they tend to huddle in hotspots of unvaccination. By ostrasizing them you just make their views stronger - you cut them off from facts and let them stew in made up nonsense.
  - diafygi 12y ago
    I always liked the quote, "You can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into." Emotional influences like skepticism, fear, frustration, and community seem to be the main drivers for not vaccinating your kids. It may be that the best way to combat that sentiment is through emotions. Maybe it takes tactics similar to anti abortion groups? Should we be standing in communities with big posters of dead kids?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Emotions probably are the right way to go. Interesting that you picked abortion as an example. Those placards of gruesome images - do they change anyone's opinion? Or do they strengthen existing viewpoints? The people who are anti-abortion see the images and can't understand how anyone could want an abortion afterwards. People who are pro-choice see the placards and think the pro-life people are viciously anti-woman. There is a group in the middle who might be swayed, but those people can be reached with calm language. In this analogy the placard-wielders are the "anti-vaxxers". I guess I'm trying to say that mockery and ridicule are using emotion to try to change behaviours, but they create the wrong emotions and are counter-productive. We want people to feel welcomed, understood, supported, etc, while we're trying to change their mind.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
iLoch 12y ago
I think Penn and Teller[1] did a good job of explaining vaccinations in layman's terms (though I doubt anyone here actually needs an explanation of how or why vaccinations work.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo
joezydeco 12y ago
New York has set such a policy in place and it's been upheld through multiple trials and appeals. Perhaps once it's settled in the higher courts it will become standard policy in a lot of other places. Once can hope. http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/01/federal-appeals-court-upholds-new-york-vaccination-requirement.php http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/01/federal-appeals-court-u...
- symkat 12y ago
  It seems to me like New York's current law is the same as California. From the article you linked: The state law provides two exemptions from the mandate, ... the second for "children whose parent, parents, or guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required. The NPR article seems to discuss a father specifically attacking the personal belief exemption in California, so I don't see how the NY court's ruling would change that?
  - pbreit 12y ago
    I highly doubt people in Marin are doing it on religious grounds.
    - andyh2 12y ago
      Can confirm, I grew up near the area described in the article. USC has some 2010 data [1] on religious beliefs in Marin. None of the popular belief systems are known for discouraging immunization. Anecdotally, Marin has quite a large alternative medicine following which may explain the high opt-out rate. [1] http://crcc.usc.edu/resources/demographics/marin.html http://crcc.usc.edu/resources/demographics/marin.html
      - mc32 12y ago
        It's astounding to me that the anti-vaccine movement is so strong in Marin of all paces, good percentage educated overall, good tertiary education and pretty high income. But, as they say, people will believe despite evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One can excuse religious people on the basis that their belief is based in faith rather than interpreting the data their way. What happens in Marin, among other places, is that people believe despite data showing otherwise. In other words, people in Marin aren't saying, well, but I have faith that vaccines are bad, no they're saying we believe data says vaccines are bad. It's incomprehensible.
pzxc 12y ago
Some people view their right to not vaccinate, not circumcise, have a home birth of their son and then home-school him, to be an essential religious freedom protected by the first amendment, no different than their right to be a conscientious objector of military conscription. This is a far more complex issue than it appears. Don't dismiss it derisively, as if only an idiot could disagree with you. (Not speaking to anyone in particular) (Also not saying I support this position) Edit... ...I guess this is the last time I try to express an unpopular opinion in comments. Ironic that it's an opinion I don't even hold. Groupthink yay rah rah rah!! :)
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  Only one of those three behaviors affects other people.
- bronson 12y ago
  Your decisions on circumcision and home birth do not affect my infant child's ability to live. Your decision on vaccination does.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - falcolas 12y ago
      <soapbox> The line regarding circumcision should be drawn at "genital mutilation". </soapbox>
  - threatofrain 12y ago
    Actually, as long as your child is normal, unlike the child in this article who cannot be vaccinated, then your child should be fine. This was only a case because one child had a medical reason to not be medicated, but in consequence, you know, that child could also get other people sick, and heaven forbid there are two special exceptions in one school.
    - 12y ago
WhitneyLand 12y ago
In the name of science and our wellbeing, please direct anyone you know who has good faith concerns to the NOVA episode Calling The Shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xm9mZ9j-oQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xm9mZ9j-oQ It's very accessible, and doesn't simply dismiss those who are anti-vaccine. Of course as with many NOVA episodes this one is fascinating regardless of your viewpoint.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  It seems odd to use polio as the example of a vaccine success story, while leaving out the recent resurgence of polio that's been caused by Obama using vaccines as part of his secret assassination program. Also not mentioned, the fact that government vaccination programs in Africa are thought to be one of the key elements behind HIV becoming a global epidemic. Or the fact that vaccine makers are frequently indemnified from safety lawsuits. I'm not saying that vaccines are a net negative, but the idea that all the problems with vaccines are somehow magically explained away by 'science' seems disingenuous. This program does mention that vaccines aren't perfect, merely better than the alternative, and yet doesn't even get into any of the real problems. edit: Even strictly in terms of the science, this doesn't address any of the major open questions. E.g. all of the research I've seen suggests that while getting a flu vaccine makes you less likely to die in the current year, it actually reduces your longterm immunity. (Since flu vaccines only give immunity for a few months, whereas getting the actual flu can confer some resistance for decades.) So what does the risk/benefit look like over the course of a lifetime? Obviously if you're 90 then longterm resistance is irrelevant, but what if you're, say, 20 and in good health?
  - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
    This is really hard to take. I think you should seek medical attention and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Do you not find the fact that you "know" about this alleged "secret assassination program" even partially contradictory?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
haiguy 12y ago
Do any of you religiously stay up to date on your boosters to stay fully immune to these diseases? Do you advocate shutting down the borders, prosecuting people to the fullest extent of the law that are found illegally in this country, and overall taking every effort to prevent illegal immigrants into the country where we can't control their movements amongst the population and have no history of their medical conditions, what diseases they are carrying, and their vaccination status? A few percentage of unvaccinated children are not the hysterical public health threat that some of you make them out to be. In general you always have that percentage not vaccinated always. If third world diseases are popping up again in this country, maybe we should be looking at the unregulated flow of immigrants, and not generally shitting all over affluent, intelligent individuals with healthy children.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  There's a big difference between 9% and 1%. A difference called "life and death".
- ta75757 12y ago
  illegal immigration is... well... illegal and legal immigration has vaccination requirements
- PeterisP 12y ago
  The very real concept of herd immunity means that a small percentage of the population can be vulnerable, but the "herd" is still immune because when the disease is introduced, then doesn't get enough chances to spread and dies out with minimal impact. All the reasons you list usually account for something like 1-2% of population, and this is enough to have everyone be safe from measles and such. However, in the OP case, "His son attends Reed Elementary in Tiburon, a school with a 7 percent personal belief exemption rate" and that seems to be representative for that part of California. The gap - some 5% of kids - is the result of deliberate, intentional decisions that can be changed. If most of those intentionally unvaccinated kids would get vaccinated, we could have effective herd immunity for all the kids even if people don't "religiously stay up to date on your boosters" and the borders aren't shut down. Attempting to do the impossible (zero chance of measles brought across border) is not productive, but attempting to vaccinate kids is possible to protect those who can't be vaccinated, such as the kids on cancer chemotherapy or immunosuppresants after organ transplants.
gojomo 12y ago
Rather than penalizing the parents brave enough to shun modern medicine, let's reward them: a free trip to Disneyland for all their families, at the same time, as soon as possible. In fact, let's give them a full (checks Wikipedia) 21 days isolated inside "the happiest place on Earth".
smuss77 12y ago
If it was my son and he couldn't be vaccinated for a few months I'd simply hold him out of school until the vaccinations could be administered. I feel for the child and his family, it's a horrible thing that happened to them, but talk about solving a simple problem with an activist response. This is how we end up with a ridiculous number of laws and regulations. If we should legislate that every kid in a public school is vaccinated, why would we stop there? Why not legislate every kid that enters a public library be vaccinated? Why not any public place?
- analog31 12y ago
  Holding a kid out of school can be a pretty serious hardship for a family, and a setback for the kid's education. At the very least, the school should provide the kid with alternative care.
- zdean 12y ago
  And furthermore, if the concern is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and should be excluded from school, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this child (who is also unvaccinated) is also putting others at risk (albeit the motivation for not vaccinating is different)?
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Public health is inherently a community thing, cause contagious diseases are transmitted socially, that's just how it works. If everyone who can be vaccinated is, then those who can't are much safer.
- maxlybbert 12y ago
  The thing that bothers me isn't the need to vaccinate, but the fact that the list of vaccinations continues to get longer. Well, it isn't the length of the list; it's simply that I'm not worried about all of the diseases on the list. My main disagreement is chicken pox. Yes, I understand that there are serious chicken pox cases, but they're incredibly rare. Whoever made the decision to include the chicken pox vaccine on the list weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children, and decided to require the vaccine. That's a rational decision, but I would prefer if I were allowed to weigh benefits and risks myself.
hackaflocka 12y ago
Is it not better for overall herd immunity for nature to take its own course (i.e., let people with poor immunity die off). I mean, if herd immunity is the argument here, then why not go the whole hog?
- shirro 12y ago
  We tried that approach for millenia but sadly young people with poorly developed immune systems and old or sick people with compromised immune systems kept dying and we decided as a society to do something about it because some of us have kids and parents we love. Then a bunch of selfish ignorant hippies decided, based on their limited experience of living in a society protected by vaccination, that disease was a problem for poor foreign people and they didn't need it. While an outbreak might kill off the DNA of these people and their offspring and improve the gene pool it might also do some collateral damage. There are some legitimate reasons people have not been vaccinated and as vaccination simply strengthens the immune response it is more effective for some people than others. You would hate to run into a coughing wheezing infected family of alternative medicine believers on the week you took a shot depressing your immune system to fight your crippling auto-immune disease or protect your transplanted organ from rejection regardless of your vaccination status.
  - plink 12y ago
    There's more to alternative medicine than spoiled hippie-attitude. There's a canonized philosophy behind it with a pantheon of pseudo-thinkers who are assiduously studied in accredited university-like mills where one can become lettered toward a lucrative profession.
- devnonymous 12y ago
  If you read the article you'll realize that the reliance on herd immunity wasn't due to 'natural' poor immunity. The kid was recovering from treatment and that's what caused the 'poor immunity' -- but I guess it is easier to ignore such little details and advocate death for anyone who isn't fortunate enough to be as healthy as you are ....at this moment in time.
chrisau 12y ago
One thing confuses me. Why are parents of vaccinated kids so terrified of unvaccinated kids?? Does vaccination work or not? If my kids are vaccinated, doesn't that mean they won't catch the disease if they encounter it? Or, at the worst, get a mild dose. If vaccination works, why do we care that a small minority aren't vaccinated?
- ossreality 12y ago
  God, this is just like "If gay people don't have kids how are there gay people?" Do people that ask this really think they're a secret genius? Do they not know how to Google? The article even links out to "herd immunity".
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > If vaccination works, why do we care that a small minority aren't vaccinated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity By choosing not to be vaccinated, you put those at risk who cannot receive a vaccination for legitimate reasons.
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  I don't mean this in a mean way. However, I don't think you understand the science here at even an elementary level. It is this sort of attitude that only serves to bolster the position of those essentially against science. It's not about encountering a "mild dose." Here is a link to a simple explanation. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/27/mixing-unvaccinated-children-with-unvacc/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/27/mixing-unvaccin... From the linke: "Here’s the simple answer: Vaccines are not 100% effective. Nothing in medicine is. They may be 99% effective, 95% effective, 90% effective, or even less. By medical standards, any intervention that’s over 90% effective is a pretty darned good intervention, and most vaccines are at least pretty darned good, especially given how rare serious reactions are. But they are not 100% effective, and it is almost as foolish for parents who vaccinate their children to believe that vaccines will be 100% effective in protecting their children as it is for antivaccinationists to believe that vaccines do more harm than good. At the very least, it’s naive. Also, there are children who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated and who thus rely on herd immunity. The larger the population of unvaccinated children, the weaker the herd immunity, and if the percentage of vaccinated children falls below a certain point herd immunity basically collapses." The science here is so clear. A key point is that children that, in rare cases, cannot be vaccinated for other health reasons can not longer rely on herd immunity because such as what you are advocating for have taken up the madness pitchforks along with Jenny McCarthy to destroy herd immunity.
chrisau 12y ago
One thing confuses me. Why are parents of vaccinated kids so terrified of unvaccinated kids?? Does vaccination work or not? If my kids are vaccinated, doesn't that mean they won't catch the disease if they encounter it? Or, at the worst, get a mild dose. If vaccination works, why do we care that a small minority aren't vaccinated?
Meekro 12y ago
This isn't a new concept, but it's definitely a good idea. I started public school in Texas around 1992, and they required me to have all the standard vaccinations as a condition of enrollment. Looks like they're still doing this: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/school/ http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/school/
pistle 12y ago
If schools, as the primary concern, were to be lofted into a position of being "disease free" we should see an interesting dynamic in the tragedy of severe infections, but maybe also in what most people consider milder infections, like cold and flu. When your coworkers are sick, they are often are far more considerate than children can be. Full vaccination, with only exceptions for medical needs like in the article, would be a forgone conclusion if schools also required any child showing signs of mild illness to be kept out of the general population, likely at home. People can't deny their children the care and proximity necessary to comfort when the child is ill. This means that children, who are disinclined or too naive to understand how to minimize illness are sent to mix with many other children every day. Every night, they come home and can carry an infection into an entire house. If society were to shift its thinking on rhinovirus, flu, and other "common" illnesses you could likely see a large decline in those. With stronger herd illness-prevention standards of thought and behavior, you could, over time, increase the well-being and productivity of society. We could learn something from the manners of Japanese and other Asian societies that consider it selfish and inconsiderate to not wear masks and take inordinate precaution in helping not get the people around them sick when they are functional, but not well. If that were the standard for common illness, then more severe illnesses with moderate to strong vaccines would be more effective (better compliance) and this situation would be less contentious. Asking the school to be the legal wedge is, sadly, a last ditch effort to do something in an extreme case that should be something that individuals take responsibility for. It shouldn't come to this. Vaccinate responsibly and level-up your herd protection game. shrug "Kids just get sick all the time. Can't do anything about it." is a horrible cop-out, selfish, lazy, and potentially dangerous to tragic in scale. I've offered to pay hourly coworkers to go home and NOT stay at work. If I miss a day or few of work being miserable, it's more valuable to my company/employers than the money "handed out." Pay for performance and let sick people rest... or force them to. Sick kids and adults perform poorly and can take down others with them.
- spdustin 12y ago
  My kids' school does require parents to keep kids home if they're vomiting, have a fever, with the additional guidance if "seems sick" which some teachers/administration members use to include excessive coughing and sneezing. There may be some loophole that makes that unenforceable, but I've been asked to get my kids when a fever had returned after we believed they had recovered.
dustin999 12y ago
Here's a great idea: move. Here's another great idea: homeschool. If everyone is forced to get vaccinations, then I also think we should ban wifi. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576848/I-used-sick-time-Dozens-Americans-claim-allergic-electromagnetic-signals-settle-small-West-Virginia-town-WiFi-banned.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576848/I-used-sick-...
- Veratyr 12y ago
  Allowing people to participate in schools without vaccinations causes proven harm. Being in the presence of a Wi-Fi network does not. There's a pretty large difference.
Shivetya 12y ago
I do not understand how anyone can be excused from this requirement short of a valid medical reason. How in this day is it allowed?
fubarbaz 12y ago
The big issue with forced vaccination is overlooking toxic ingredients in the vaccines themselves, which big pharma has an incentive to use as adjuvants because they are cheap, cheap, cheap, and their lobbyists have granted them immunity from being sued. Stuff like mercury, aluminum, etc. Show us where the mercury free, aluminum free vaccines are and the issue goes away. Everything else is just politico-theater propaganda. That and wtf's the use of flu shots if they give you last year's influenza strain which will do nothing for this year's?

108 points by dean 12y ago

pstuart 12y ago

Mockery and ridicule are powerful tools. This is a good application for them.

DanBC 12y ago
Mockery and ridicule do not change people's minds. People who chose not to vaccinate their children only retreat further from vaccination if you use mockery or ridicule. If your aim is to protect children by increasing the numbers of vaccinated children it's important not to use mockery or ridicule. Those are the wrong tools.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > If your aim is to protect children by increasing the numbers of vaccinated children it's important not to use mockery or ridicule. Those are the wrong tools. When education fails, when facts fail, when logic and reason fail, you're left with mockery and/or ridicule.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Or force.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - jobposter1234 12y ago
    I understand the urge, believe me. But now I'm trying to be a less sarcastic person, because the way I see it, mockery / ridicule is tantamount to giving up. Totally cool with it. It's fun, and gives you a smug feeling that is unfortunately also fun. But I don't let myself think I'm doing anything other than throwing in the towel in trying to help this other inhabitant of our rock. Once I frame it that way to myself, I find myself either continuing to try or completely ignoring the other person.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  People who choose not to vaccinate their children are by and large beyond the reach of reason, in much the same way the typical religious person is. I wouldn't advocate mockery and ridicule because it is as equally wasted as reason is on these people. Instead they should simply be ignored to the extent possible, and when not possible as in the case of the subject of this article they should be quarantined so the rest of us don't suffer from their ignorance.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    The parents might be unreachable. But the children grow up and they, and then their children, might be reachable. Those later generations are easier to vaccinate if they haven't been subjected to years of mocking.
- philwelch 12y ago
  I think Child Protective Services would be a good tool.
- mayneack 12y ago
  I'm curious what the basis is for your statement? Is mockery the best method for changing peoples' behavior here? Probably not, but I'm not convinced that it's counter productive like you assert.
  - pstuart 12y ago
    I prefer facts and reason. When those don't work, what's left that doesn't involve force?
    - spdustin 12y ago
      Law, and injunctive measures.
      - pstuart 12y ago
        Both of those are meaningless without force to back them up.
        spdustin 12y ago
        An injunction would be enforced by whatever means the judge deems necessary to ensure compliance, and anyone who violates it would be in contempt of court, which could result in arrest.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    EDIT: did anyone persuade you to run Linux by using words like "Micro$haft"? Did anyone persuade you that some Apple functionality was sub-optimal by calling you a "fanboi"? /EDIT There are broadly speaking three groups of people. i) those who get vaccinations ii) those who are unsure iii) those who are anti vaccination People sometimes assume that the people in group ii and in group iii and are deluded idiots who ignore all the evidence. Let's look at a real example of mass non-vaccination -- the MMR Autism hoax. This involved a real but corrupt scientist who wrote a scientific paper but used faked data and published that paper in a respected medical journal, although they later withdrew it. That's not people believing in Unicorns! That's people thinking there's some scientific reason not to get that vaccination. Newspapers with their terrible reporting of science fed that fear. When the paper was retracted by the journal people don't know if that's because it's true but there's a technicality, or if it's false. At the point people were not aware of Andrew Wakefield's criminal corrupt behaviour. Now try putting yourself in their position. Remember that Wakefield is still a scientist at that point; that although the paper is retracted you didn't know about the faked data. You have a bunch of your friends worried about whether they should get that vaccine or not, or whether they should get single vaccines instead of MMR. There are starting to be conflicting stories in the newspapers. And then, a group starts a website and members of that group start calling you a fucking idiot for even considering not vaccinating your child. They compare you to flat earthers and Yeti-watchers and alien abduction kooks. You know you're not like that, so already you've started to reject what they're saying. Some of your friends are sympathetic to you, reinforcing your doubts with phrases like "maybe there's nothing to it, but look at Bob - he was fine, he got the vaccine, and now he's Autistic" or "maybe there isn't anything to it but measles isn't that bad and do you really want to risk Autism" (and remember weak anecdotal evidence is rife on HN; and at least on HN user has suggested that measles isn't that serious). I believe that mockery here pushes people away from information about vaccination and towards misinformation. This example is tricky because of "hindsight bias". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias This is the best document about the crook Andrew Wakefield - http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html You might say that if you focus the mocking on group iii that people in group ii would want to avoid them. I think that people in group ii would feel themselves to be the target. Also don't forget that people are not rational even when they claim to be. There are a bunch of areas where the science is very much clearer than in the early days of MMR (climate change) and you still have denialists who trot out arguments created by shills paid by a few large companies - the same shills that were used by the tobacco industry using the same tactics that delayed smoking controls for so long.
- TulliusCicero 12y ago
  They can, in fact, change people's minds over the long run. Although more at the population level rather than for specific individuals who already hold ridiculous beliefs. " Once upon a time, there was a racist tree. Seriously, you are going to hate this tree. High on a hill overlooking the town, the racist tree grew where the grass was half clover. Children would visit during the sunlit hours and ask for apples, and the racist tree would shake its branches and drop the delicious red fruit that gleamed without being polished. The children ate many of the racist tree's apples and played games beneath the shade of its racist branches. One day the children brought Sam, a boy who had just moved to town, to play around the racist tree. "Let Sam have an apple," asked a little girl. "I don't think so. He's black," said the tree. This shocked the children and they spoke to the tree angrily, but it would not shake its branches to give Sam an apple, and it called him a nigger. "I can't believe the racist tree is such a racist," said one child. The children momentarily reflected that perhaps this kind of behavior was how the racist tree got its name. It was decided that if the tree was going to deny apples to Sam then nobody would take its apples. The children stopped visiting the racist tree. The racist tree grew quite lonely. After many solitary weeks it saw a child flying a kite across the clover field. "Can I offer you some apples?" asked the tree eagerly. "Fuck off, you goddamn Nazi," said the child. The racist tree was upset, because while it was very racist, it did not personally subscribe to Hitler's fascist ideology. The racist tree decided that it would have to give apples to black children, not because it was tolerant, but because otherwise it would face ostracism from white children. And so, social progress was made. "
  - DanBC 12y ago
    A baffling parable. People who don't vaccinate are not social excluded - they tend to huddle in hotspots of unvaccination. By ostrasizing them you just make their views stronger - you cut them off from facts and let them stew in made up nonsense.
- diafygi 12y ago
  I always liked the quote, "You can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into." Emotional influences like skepticism, fear, frustration, and community seem to be the main drivers for not vaccinating your kids. It may be that the best way to combat that sentiment is through emotions. Maybe it takes tactics similar to anti abortion groups? Should we be standing in communities with big posters of dead kids?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Emotions probably are the right way to go. Interesting that you picked abortion as an example. Those placards of gruesome images - do they change anyone's opinion? Or do they strengthen existing viewpoints? The people who are anti-abortion see the images and can't understand how anyone could want an abortion afterwards. People who are pro-choice see the placards and think the pro-life people are viciously anti-woman. There is a group in the middle who might be swayed, but those people can be reached with calm language. In this analogy the placard-wielders are the "anti-vaxxers". I guess I'm trying to say that mockery and ridicule are using emotion to try to change behaviours, but they create the wrong emotions and are counter-productive. We want people to feel welcomed, understood, supported, etc, while we're trying to change their mind.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

iLoch 12y ago

I think Penn and Teller[1] did a good job of explaining vaccinations in layman's terms (though I doubt anyone here actually needs an explanation of how or why vaccinations work.) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

joezydeco 12y ago

New York has set such a policy in place and it's been upheld through multiple trials and appeals. Perhaps once it's settled in the higher courts it will become standard policy in a lot of other places. Once can hope. http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/01/federal-appeals-court-upholds-new-york-vaccination-requirement.php http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/01/federal-appeals-court-u...

symkat 12y ago
It seems to me like New York's current law is the same as California. From the article you linked: The state law provides two exemptions from the mandate, ... the second for "children whose parent, parents, or guardian hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices herein required. The NPR article seems to discuss a father specifically attacking the personal belief exemption in California, so I don't see how the NY court's ruling would change that?
- pbreit 12y ago
  I highly doubt people in Marin are doing it on religious grounds.
  - andyh2 12y ago
    Can confirm, I grew up near the area described in the article. USC has some 2010 data [1] on religious beliefs in Marin. None of the popular belief systems are known for discouraging immunization. Anecdotally, Marin has quite a large alternative medicine following which may explain the high opt-out rate. [1] http://crcc.usc.edu/resources/demographics/marin.html http://crcc.usc.edu/resources/demographics/marin.html
    - mc32 12y ago
      It's astounding to me that the anti-vaccine movement is so strong in Marin of all paces, good percentage educated overall, good tertiary education and pretty high income. But, as they say, people will believe despite evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary. One can excuse religious people on the basis that their belief is based in faith rather than interpreting the data their way. What happens in Marin, among other places, is that people believe despite data showing otherwise. In other words, people in Marin aren't saying, well, but I have faith that vaccines are bad, no they're saying we believe data says vaccines are bad. It's incomprehensible.

pzxc 12y ago

Some people view their right to not vaccinate, not circumcise, have a home birth of their son and then home-school him, to be an essential religious freedom protected by the first amendment, no different than their right to be a conscientious objector of military conscription. This is a far more complex issue than it appears. Don't dismiss it derisively, as if only an idiot could disagree with you. (Not speaking to anyone in particular) (Also not saying I support this position) Edit... ...I guess this is the last time I try to express an unpopular opinion in comments. Ironic that it's an opinion I don't even hold. Groupthink yay rah rah rah!! :)

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Only one of those three behaviors affects other people.
bronson 12y ago
Your decisions on circumcision and home birth do not affect my infant child's ability to live. Your decision on vaccination does.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - falcolas 12y ago
    <soapbox> The line regarding circumcision should be drawn at "genital mutilation". </soapbox>
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Actually, as long as your child is normal, unlike the child in this article who cannot be vaccinated, then your child should be fine. This was only a case because one child had a medical reason to not be medicated, but in consequence, you know, that child could also get other people sick, and heaven forbid there are two special exceptions in one school.
  - 12y ago

WhitneyLand 12y ago

In the name of science and our wellbeing, please direct anyone you know who has good faith concerns to the NOVA episode Calling The Shots: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xm9mZ9j-oQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xm9mZ9j-oQ It's very accessible, and doesn't simply dismiss those who are anti-vaccine. Of course as with many NOVA episodes this one is fascinating regardless of your viewpoint.

Alex3917 12y ago
It seems odd to use polio as the example of a vaccine success story, while leaving out the recent resurgence of polio that's been caused by Obama using vaccines as part of his secret assassination program. Also not mentioned, the fact that government vaccination programs in Africa are thought to be one of the key elements behind HIV becoming a global epidemic. Or the fact that vaccine makers are frequently indemnified from safety lawsuits. I'm not saying that vaccines are a net negative, but the idea that all the problems with vaccines are somehow magically explained away by 'science' seems disingenuous. This program does mention that vaccines aren't perfect, merely better than the alternative, and yet doesn't even get into any of the real problems. edit: Even strictly in terms of the science, this doesn't address any of the major open questions. E.g. all of the research I've seen suggests that while getting a flu vaccine makes you less likely to die in the current year, it actually reduces your longterm immunity. (Since flu vaccines only give immunity for a few months, whereas getting the actual flu can confer some resistance for decades.) So what does the risk/benefit look like over the course of a lifetime? Obviously if you're 90 then longterm resistance is irrelevant, but what if you're, say, 20 and in good health?
- dinkumthinkum 12y ago
  This is really hard to take. I think you should seek medical attention and I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Do you not find the fact that you "know" about this alleged "secret assassination program" even partially contradictory?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

haiguy 12y ago

Do any of you religiously stay up to date on your boosters to stay fully immune to these diseases? Do you advocate shutting down the borders, prosecuting people to the fullest extent of the law that are found illegally in this country, and overall taking every effort to prevent illegal immigrants into the country where we can't control their movements amongst the population and have no history of their medical conditions, what diseases they are carrying, and their vaccination status? A few percentage of unvaccinated children are not the hysterical public health threat that some of you make them out to be. In general you always have that percentage not vaccinated always. If third world diseases are popping up again in this country, maybe we should be looking at the unregulated flow of immigrants, and not generally shitting all over affluent, intelligent individuals with healthy children.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
There's a big difference between 9% and 1%. A difference called "life and death".
ta75757 12y ago
illegal immigration is... well... illegal and legal immigration has vaccination requirements
PeterisP 12y ago
The very real concept of herd immunity means that a small percentage of the population can be vulnerable, but the "herd" is still immune because when the disease is introduced, then doesn't get enough chances to spread and dies out with minimal impact. All the reasons you list usually account for something like 1-2% of population, and this is enough to have everyone be safe from measles and such. However, in the OP case, "His son attends Reed Elementary in Tiburon, a school with a 7 percent personal belief exemption rate" and that seems to be representative for that part of California. The gap - some 5% of kids - is the result of deliberate, intentional decisions that can be changed. If most of those intentionally unvaccinated kids would get vaccinated, we could have effective herd immunity for all the kids even if people don't "religiously stay up to date on your boosters" and the borders aren't shut down. Attempting to do the impossible (zero chance of measles brought across border) is not productive, but attempting to vaccinate kids is possible to protect those who can't be vaccinated, such as the kids on cancer chemotherapy or immunosuppresants after organ transplants.

gojomo 12y ago

Rather than penalizing the parents brave enough to shun modern medicine, let's reward them: a free trip to Disneyland for all their families, at the same time, as soon as possible. In fact, let's give them a full (checks Wikipedia) 21 days isolated inside "the happiest place on Earth".

smuss77 12y ago

If it was my son and he couldn't be vaccinated for a few months I'd simply hold him out of school until the vaccinations could be administered. I feel for the child and his family, it's a horrible thing that happened to them, but talk about solving a simple problem with an activist response. This is how we end up with a ridiculous number of laws and regulations. If we should legislate that every kid in a public school is vaccinated, why would we stop there? Why not legislate every kid that enters a public library be vaccinated? Why not any public place?

analog31 12y ago
Holding a kid out of school can be a pretty serious hardship for a family, and a setback for the kid's education. At the very least, the school should provide the kid with alternative care.
zdean 12y ago
And furthermore, if the concern is that unvaccinated children are putting others at risk and should be excluded from school, then wouldn't it stand to reason that this child (who is also unvaccinated) is also putting others at risk (albeit the motivation for not vaccinating is different)?
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity Public health is inherently a community thing, cause contagious diseases are transmitted socially, that's just how it works. If everyone who can be vaccinated is, then those who can't are much safer.
maxlybbert 12y ago
The thing that bothers me isn't the need to vaccinate, but the fact that the list of vaccinations continues to get longer. Well, it isn't the length of the list; it's simply that I'm not worried about all of the diseases on the list. My main disagreement is chicken pox. Yes, I understand that there are serious chicken pox cases, but they're incredibly rare. Whoever made the decision to include the chicken pox vaccine on the list weighed a very rare risk for unvaccinated children against even smaller risks for vaccinated children, and decided to require the vaccine. That's a rational decision, but I would prefer if I were allowed to weigh benefits and risks myself.

hackaflocka 12y ago

Is it not better for overall herd immunity for nature to take its own course (i.e., let people with poor immunity die off). I mean, if herd immunity is the argument here, then why not go the whole hog?

shirro 12y ago
We tried that approach for millenia but sadly young people with poorly developed immune systems and old or sick people with compromised immune systems kept dying and we decided as a society to do something about it because some of us have kids and parents we love. Then a bunch of selfish ignorant hippies decided, based on their limited experience of living in a society protected by vaccination, that disease was a problem for poor foreign people and they didn't need it. While an outbreak might kill off the DNA of these people and their offspring and improve the gene pool it might also do some collateral damage. There are some legitimate reasons people have not been vaccinated and as vaccination simply strengthens the immune response it is more effective for some people than others. You would hate to run into a coughing wheezing infected family of alternative medicine believers on the week you took a shot depressing your immune system to fight your crippling auto-immune disease or protect your transplanted organ from rejection regardless of your vaccination status.
- plink 12y ago
  There's more to alternative medicine than spoiled hippie-attitude. There's a canonized philosophy behind it with a pantheon of pseudo-thinkers who are assiduously studied in accredited university-like mills where one can become lettered toward a lucrative profession.
devnonymous 12y ago
If you read the article you'll realize that the reliance on herd immunity wasn't due to 'natural' poor immunity. The kid was recovering from treatment and that's what caused the 'poor immunity' -- but I guess it is easier to ignore such little details and advocate death for anyone who isn't fortunate enough to be as healthy as you are ....at this moment in time.

chrisau 12y ago

One thing confuses me. Why are parents of vaccinated kids so terrified of unvaccinated kids?? Does vaccination work or not? If my kids are vaccinated, doesn't that mean they won't catch the disease if they encounter it? Or, at the worst, get a mild dose. If vaccination works, why do we care that a small minority aren't vaccinated?

ossreality 12y ago
God, this is just like "If gay people don't have kids how are there gay people?" Do people that ask this really think they're a secret genius? Do they not know how to Google? The article even links out to "herd immunity".
toomuchtodo 12y ago
> If vaccination works, why do we care that a small minority aren't vaccinated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity By choosing not to be vaccinated, you put those at risk who cannot receive a vaccination for legitimate reasons.
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
I don't mean this in a mean way. However, I don't think you understand the science here at even an elementary level. It is this sort of attitude that only serves to bolster the position of those essentially against science. It's not about encountering a "mild dose." Here is a link to a simple explanation. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/27/mixing-unvaccinated-children-with-unvacc/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/27/mixing-unvaccin... From the linke: "Here’s the simple answer: Vaccines are not 100% effective. Nothing in medicine is. They may be 99% effective, 95% effective, 90% effective, or even less. By medical standards, any intervention that’s over 90% effective is a pretty darned good intervention, and most vaccines are at least pretty darned good, especially given how rare serious reactions are. But they are not 100% effective, and it is almost as foolish for parents who vaccinate their children to believe that vaccines will be 100% effective in protecting their children as it is for antivaccinationists to believe that vaccines do more harm than good. At the very least, it’s naive. Also, there are children who for health reasons cannot be vaccinated and who thus rely on herd immunity. The larger the population of unvaccinated children, the weaker the herd immunity, and if the percentage of vaccinated children falls below a certain point herd immunity basically collapses." The science here is so clear. A key point is that children that, in rare cases, cannot be vaccinated for other health reasons can not longer rely on herd immunity because such as what you are advocating for have taken up the madness pitchforks along with Jenny McCarthy to destroy herd immunity.

chrisau 12y ago

Meekro 12y ago

This isn't a new concept, but it's definitely a good idea. I started public school in Texas around 1992, and they required me to have all the standard vaccinations as a condition of enrollment. Looks like they're still doing this: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/school/ http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/school/

pistle 12y ago

If schools, as the primary concern, were to be lofted into a position of being "disease free" we should see an interesting dynamic in the tragedy of severe infections, but maybe also in what most people consider milder infections, like cold and flu. When your coworkers are sick, they are often are far more considerate than children can be. Full vaccination, with only exceptions for medical needs like in the article, would be a forgone conclusion if schools also required any child showing signs of mild illness to be kept out of the general population, likely at home. People can't deny their children the care and proximity necessary to comfort when the child is ill. This means that children, who are disinclined or too naive to understand how to minimize illness are sent to mix with many other children every day. Every night, they come home and can carry an infection into an entire house. If society were to shift its thinking on rhinovirus, flu, and other "common" illnesses you could likely see a large decline in those. With stronger herd illness-prevention standards of thought and behavior, you could, over time, increase the well-being and productivity of society. We could learn something from the manners of Japanese and other Asian societies that consider it selfish and inconsiderate to not wear masks and take inordinate precaution in helping not get the people around them sick when they are functional, but not well. If that were the standard for common illness, then more severe illnesses with moderate to strong vaccines would be more effective (better compliance) and this situation would be less contentious. Asking the school to be the legal wedge is, sadly, a last ditch effort to do something in an extreme case that should be something that individuals take responsibility for. It shouldn't come to this. Vaccinate responsibly and level-up your herd protection game. shrug "Kids just get sick all the time. Can't do anything about it." is a horrible cop-out, selfish, lazy, and potentially dangerous to tragic in scale. I've offered to pay hourly coworkers to go home and NOT stay at work. If I miss a day or few of work being miserable, it's more valuable to my company/employers than the money "handed out." Pay for performance and let sick people rest... or force them to. Sick kids and adults perform poorly and can take down others with them.

spdustin 12y ago
My kids' school does require parents to keep kids home if they're vomiting, have a fever, with the additional guidance if "seems sick" which some teachers/administration members use to include excessive coughing and sneezing. There may be some loophole that makes that unenforceable, but I've been asked to get my kids when a fever had returned after we believed they had recovered.

dustin999 12y ago

Here's a great idea: move. Here's another great idea: homeschool. If everyone is forced to get vaccinations, then I also think we should ban wifi. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576848/I-used-sick-time-Dozens-Americans-claim-allergic-electromagnetic-signals-settle-small-West-Virginia-town-WiFi-banned.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576848/I-used-sick-...

Veratyr 12y ago
Allowing people to participate in schools without vaccinations causes proven harm. Being in the presence of a Wi-Fi network does not. There's a pretty large difference.

Shivetya 12y ago

I do not understand how anyone can be excused from this requirement short of a valid medical reason. How in this day is it allowed?

fubarbaz 12y ago

The big issue with forced vaccination is overlooking toxic ingredients in the vaccines themselves, which big pharma has an incentive to use as adjuvants because they are cheap, cheap, cheap, and their lobbyists have granted them immunity from being sued. Stuff like mercury, aluminum, etc. Show us where the mercury free, aluminum free vaccines are and the issue goes away. Everything else is just politico-theater propaganda. That and wtf's the use of flu shots if they give you last year's influenza strain which will do nothing for this year's?