I thought this was an interesting approach taken by Italy. Personally, I think the arguments in favour of vaccinating children are incontrovertible, and the only arguments against are unfounded and based on "facebook research." You may or may not agree of course. There is an argument that the state is not a parent, and can't make decisions for them, and in some ways I have some sympathy for this argument. There is at least a debate to be had. Maybe. What is beyond debate is that exposing those too young or unable to be vaccinated to diseases with life threatening consequences is tantamount to assault. So if a child cannot attend school carrying a potentially deadly weapon, why should they attend potentially carrying a deadly disease? Ultimately then, parents can take the (in my view stupid) decision not to vaccinate their kids, but they must then deal with the consequences of that, which include their child not being brought into contact with vulnerable others at school. 'No vaccine, no school' in Italy
Except that by not vaccinating their children, they are endangering the lives of others. Even if it did just affect those children whose parents choose not to vaccinate, we have lots of laws preventing parents from harming their children that are not protested. The state literally plays parent if people endanger their children enough. Herd Immunity: How does it work? — Oxford Vaccine Group
A good article on anti-vaxxers: Why anti-vaxxers aren’t just killing their own kids — they’re putting others in danger, too
I can certainly agree with the concept. I think it is to easy for the antivax movement to rise without and scientific proof, or in fact any tangible proof. In the UK, all children have TB vaccination in school, so the same should apply to primary for the protection of everyone. Don't like it, then maybe home schooling is the other option, but given that the parent who buys into the anti Vax rubbish, I feel for what else may be educated during that time at home.
In Australia they do this, which I agree with! "Family assistance payments linked to immunisation Families’ eligibility to receive family assistance payments, such as Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Subsidy, is linked to their child’s immunisation status. Only families who fully immunise their children, are on a recognised immunisation catch-up schedule, or have an approved medical exemption can receive those family assistance payments. Vaccination objection will no longer be a valid exemption. " Department of Health | Immunisation
Trouble is, plenty of well-off parents buy into anti-vax conspiracy theories too. Now I have a child, I feel even more strongly about this. I see not vaccinating your child as being akin to letting them take a knife to school. I should be legally allowed to pre-emptively strike the parents! I think it's getting easier for these people to buy into the conspiracies as those who had to live with these preventable diseases die out. When you know people who have lost the use of a limb because of polio, or had to spend a couple of years in a sanatorium because they had TB, I think it's harder to ignore the potential gravity of the situation.
All the people I know that are anti-vax are essentially middle class with an ideological agenda and a self belief that they know better than the doctors and epidemiologists that actually study infectious diseases.
I think it crosses class divides. Youtube conspiracy videos are popular on sink estates too. Flat earth, climate change denial, anti-vaxxers.
Sometimes parents are not the people who should make best interest decisions for their child(ren). There persists a ridiculous notion that you are automatically equipped with the knowledge and wisdom to make all the right choices simply through the act of siring offspring. I'm yet to see an anti-vaxxer argument that isn't full of logical fallacies and biases. In such cases I fully support the State enforcing vaccination programmes to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.
What's happened is that vaccine's have become too successful. In effect we have been vaccinated against the effects of rampant infectious diseases as well as the diseases themselves. We don't see kiddies crippled by polio or rendered disabled or even killed by measles. So people have convinced themselves they just aren't that bad and never were. They then mix up a generally valid idea (kids are "healthier" with some exposure to dirt and germs) with the idea that they should then be exposed to diseases in the same way. They equate diseases with dirt. And once they have made the decision not to vaccinate they have to defend that decision because to admit it was a stupid decision is to admit falability as a parent and admit to having made a decision that could be injurious to their child. Which is a bitter pill to swallow (a pun!).
Freedom to make decisions for your family should not endanger others. One should not be allowed to endanger larger society. If you decide not to vaccinate when you can, you should have to consider the larger consequences of society in that decision, not just your child. That should absolutely mean having to have limitations of interactions with society. School, work, anywhere really. Go live in some anti-vax commune that is self contained. Now I did not see in the article, but I am assuming that this law does not include people who can't vaccinate for valid health reasons. I would be against punishing people who CAN'T vaccinate. And the law should only apply to contagious diseases. And I mean contagious in the air or contacting the same surfaces. For example: Tetanus isn't contagious, is it? If I am right, that should not be included in the law.
Absolutely. Herd immunity would protect these people. Anti-vaxxers are punishing those who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons!
100%. You don't see kids in an iron lung anymore because we were so successful at vaccinations. In the next few years those things will be on the rise again and it just sucks that it's going to cost lives before people realise how important vaccinations are.
Mitch summed up the entire issue with the term "Facebook Research". Can I use that from now on any time I mean "not research" when somebody tells me they "researched" something and I can retort with "you mean, Facebook research"? To me, research literally means you read a lot of books and materials published by actual researchers, not a lot of posts by somebody you think is really smart like a celebrity or some parent. Flat Earther people think other Flat Earther people are really smart, but they're really not. Isn't that the same basic problem? Somehow the web has made everything think they are a genius smarter than all of NASA combined.
Re tetanus. Treatment of unvaccinated Oregon boy with tetanus cost nearly $1m, CDC says It should be viewed as child abuse to not provide basic essentials healthcare such as standard vaccinations.
I think I must have missed something. When my kids were little (Texas, 1980's and 90's), we had to produce proof of vaccination in order to register them for school. No vaccinations, no school. I must have missed when this changed.
The US, as far as I know, has always (within my lifetime, ~37 years) required vaccinations to be up to date to register for school, including private schools (though that may be up to the school, for private ones; not sure if it is mandatory by law), or some medical exemption. There is always going to be a balance between individual freedom & societal intrusion. Even looking back at, say, medieval times, a band of criminals living in a woods would have implicit rules amongst themselves. Not the most functional society, but each individual couldn't really just do whatever they want, except maybe the leader (though that may lead to someone overthrowing them). Someone taking a literal interpretation of "freedom to make decisions should not endanger others", all sorts of things may be suddenly prohibited. E.g., you can't punish your child because it may turn them into an angry person who commits violence against others to lash out in response (to pick a ridiculous example). But I agree in general with the concept that the freedom to choose what you want to do in terms of yourself or your children needs to be balanced against potential harm you cause to others. I think vaccination should be mandatory unless there is a medical reason it would be more harmful than helpful for that individual. However, I can see arguments against a total 100% mandate. I like the model of "you can't use these public help things nor go to public school nor <much else interacting with the public> unless you vaccinate".
