3 ms·
Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example
by rlpb 11y ago
Permitting a small number of exemptions does not compromise hive immunity. Permitting a large number of exceptions does. The article states an objective example of where hive immunity was compromised due to a lack of vaccination. So there is sound scientific reasoning for disallowing religious exemption for public health reasons.
In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered").
It might even be reasonable to permit a small quota of religious objections, so that the total number of exceptions does not compromise hive immunity. But then how would it be decided which children would not be permitted in this group?
The other option would be to simply ban children not vaccinated for religious reasons from the ability to spread disease by excluding them from schools. This seems to be the proposition made already though:
> "I am concerned about opportunities for equal education," because unvaccinated kindergarteners would require home schooling, Bates said.
- jawns 11y ago> In terms of priorities, it seems reasonable for medical exceptions (eg. "this child is allergic to the vaccination so is more likely to die if it is administered") to come before religious ones ("my child won't suffer from an increased risk of harm [than other children receiving the vaccination] but I don't want the vaccine to be administered"). It's true that a child immunized against a religious objection won't be physically harmed, but I think that many people who have been forced to do things against their religious objections will tell you that the emotional harm of being forced to violate their religious beliefs is substantial. (Which is why there have been numerous cases throughout history of people who have died rather than violate their faith.) I know comparing physical harm to emotional harm is hard to do, but I think it's worth pointing out that the "what's the harm?" argument requires a more nuanced understanding of what both sides feel is at stake than is typically considered.