Should childhood vaccines be mandatory?

Yes, unless the child has a known medical problem that would be contra indicative for the vaccine.

What vaccines are we talking about here? There seems to be a movement to make everything mandatory that is not forbidden, as long as it comes from a big pharma corporation. A lot of people feel that those corporations can not be trusted without some careful checking, and they seem to have very good reasons for their lack of trust. Then there are a lot of people who would pass laws to force everybody to trust. Nobody tolerates churches trying to do that. Why corporations?

Many states in the United States already have laws which mandate vaccinations for certain conditions.

Absolutely.

I hate the idea of any “mandatory” medical intervention, as it starts to smack more and more of a population pharmaceutically managed into compliance.

That said, I am a staunch supporter of vaccines and vaccination, my kids had all their shots.
I’m not sure how to address the dissemination of persuasive information. Mocking and shaming are not effective strategies, and I really don’t know what would be.

Mixed feelings here but in the end I don’t think they should be mandatory except for possibly a select few. That view could change though.

I like the idea of vaccines for major diseases being mandatory. Measles, mumps, rubella, stuff like that.

There was one that the doctor asked if I wanted for my daughter when she was about 5, and it was for some virus that caused diarrhea, and I said no.

From a standpoint of the major illnesses also causing our insurance rates to go up, too, if a child needs tens of thousands of dollars worth of treatment for an illness that could have been prevented with a vaccine, we all pay when everyone gets sick.

I like that kids are not allowed in public schools without vaccines.

Who will determine which vaccines are mandatory and will the timing of the vaccines be mandated? We are such a knee-jerk, reactive society. Every year we are subjected to fear mongering of different diseases. Last year was Ebola and this year is Zika.
I am not saying these are not real threats, but again, who will determine which vaccines will become mandatory?
We seem to not even be having a conversation about the ingredients in vaccines. Like most of the issues in this country, it’s broken down into for and against, instead of an open minded, broad conversation.
Of course vaccines are important. Of course they stop the spread of diseases.
But why has it become shunned upon to question the effects of injecting formaldehyde, Mercury, and any other ingredients that are put into vaccines?

In my state, you had to have a vaccine certification record to register for kindergarten so certain vaccines were mandatory. The same was true for many camps and most colleges.

I don’t know if any of this has changed with the anti-vaxxers.

Vaccines were mandatory when I was a kid. If you didn’t get your boosters you could not go to seventh grade. Nurses even came to the school to administer the vaccines.

No one caught “teh autizms” in that cafeteria, and none of us got tetanus or meningitis.

I’m so glad there was a polio vaccine that I had to take. I can’t imagine how many more people would’ve had polio.

I am talking about vaccines for vaccine preventable illness. Nothing controversial. Measles mumps rubella polio diptheria hepatitis b tetanus. stuff like that. I am not talking flu, hpv, and other voluntary vaccines

I guess I didn’t really answer the question. Yes I do think those vaccines should be mandatory. I can’t imagine kids today having to go through mumps, measles, polio. It would be devastating.

I suppose they are mandatory in many parts of the world.. diseases like polio can be prevented by vaccination which can be life damaging if that occurs..so yes they should be.

I’d be okay with it. I’m generally not for government mandates for these sorts of things but vaccines are incredibly safe and by not getting them, the anti-vaxxers are putting everybody at severe risk.

I’m still a little leary of making them mandatory. I don’t think gov’t should have that power BUT, nothing is stopping just about every public group where people congregate from making them mandatory by policy. Summer camps, public pools private schools etc.. it can be made “mandatory” without having Gov’t cross a dangerous line.
I have my shots and will continue to get them but i can’t say I believe vaccines carry zero risk. I just happen to think the benefits of not getting hep outweigh the risks by a huge margin. Vaccines are not like other drugs where the nnt is a little on the sketchy side. They work better and better by virtue of group participation. The ant-vaccine crowd often don’t get sick because the rest of us take them.

No, but we should relocate them to Kansas and not allow them to leave until they vaccinate themselves. I think having a state that’s teeming with preventable disease would be an excellent reminder for the Jenny McCarthys of the world of why we should vaccinate our kids, and what happens when we loose herd immunity. Also I think it would be useful to show that Autism has the same rate of prevalence in that population.

I choose Kansas because it’s already a cesspool as a direct result of libertarian, small government policies.

We seem to not even be having a conversation about the ingredients in vaccines

The ingredients and efficacy of vaccines is discussed in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

It’s not a secret.

Well, it’s kind of a secret to anti-vaxxers, because they think willful ignorance is equal to real-world evidence.

Yeah….ingredients have been talked about plenty. It’s just not an issue.

I think vaccines should be mandatory. The only one that should be a little more lenient is the flu vaccine. But if you are a healthcare worker, the flu vaccine should be mandatory (and it already is).

Also the mandatory vaccines should only be for diseases that are common in that area… If that makes sense. So for example, unless there is a rabies outbreak, the vaccine should not be required. (And I don’t believe it is required as of right now.)

I know a lot of people talk about big pharma just trying to profit off vaccines, and they have a point. But honestly, I feel they would be making more with the treatment of these diseases rather than preventing them all together.

Yes.

Yes with the caveat that any and all possible or probable side effects be made known via handouts to parents as well as the ingredients in the vaccines in writing. In other words, complete disclosure. My grandson had awful side effects as a toddler.
I had measles, mumps and chicken pox. Quite uncomfortable for me but no doctors’ visits or hospitalizations . The diseases “went through” the school district. You just waited them out.

For the most part, yes. Unless there is a medical condition that compromises the person health risks. I have a friend with MS that does not get the Tetanus vaccine because of her health issues. I forget what the issue is but it could be problematic.

Now, as far as pets go, it has been proven that many animal vaccines provide life long immunity. I will not be giving my 7 and 10 year old cats any more rabies vaccines. They only go outside supervised for short periods of time, never after dark and after years of vaccinating I feel they are purr-fectly covered, forever.

No. Strongly encouraged and lots of education around the benefits but the ultimate decision should be with the parents

@Coloma Your friend’s problem might’ve been immunosuppression. Autoimmune diseases like MS and Crohn’s are often treated with drugs that compromise the immune system, and then you can’t get the vaccines that are live (such as the nasal spray version of the flu vaccine).

Situations like these would definitely have to be exempt from the law. But, situations like these are a reason why the law should exist! People who can’t get vaccinated are relying on herd immunity, which anti-vaxxers threaten.

@Mariah Yes, agreed. I thought it had something to do with the immune issues but wasn’t sure.

@stanley and if the parents refuse should their kids be allowed to go to school and put other kids at risk?

@Rarebear: Do you think the government should have control of our medical decisions?

@canidmajor with the subject of vaccines absolutely.

@canidmajor Do you think the government should have the authority to quarantine people?

I think if there are issues that affect other peoples’ health directly such as herd immunization or public smoking, the government or other public entities have a right to legislate.

@Rarebear I don’t share that opinion but whatever we can do to get people to take them outside of force and Gov’t mandate should be done. Have to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps some legislation that makes non vaccinators liable for damages if they spread disease and are not vaccinated. There are probably a lot of ways to get people to take them without using direct force.

Who said anything about direct force? I think parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids should not be allowed to send their kids to school.

@janbb I agree with no smoking in crowded public places but if someone merely steps out somewhere, relatively secluded, in the fresh air, not a confined space, to have a smoke I think that the person concerned can simply walk away. I do not agree with making entire cities smoke free or housing like large apartment complexes. If that’s the case with government then we should ban cars and buses and diesel powered vehicles and fireplaces and bonfires too. One good whiff of bus exhaust is like inhaling 40 cigarettes. haha

I have smoked and quit and smoked and quit a couple times and always promised myslef I would not become a militant non-smoker.

@Coloma i agree; i was referring to crowded public places or enclosed places.

@Rarebear: I don’t believe that everything is a slippery slope, but I think this definitely is. Employing sanctions when parents refuse is one thing, mandating medical procedures is another. A reckless endangerment of others is different from choosing not to undergo a procedure. It would be nice if all medical personnel would take a close look at every case, but that’s not how it necessarily works. Try to get your kids vaccinated with one vaccine at a time and see how the system treats you. Or even if they listen, which is the biggest bugaboo.

Like I said up there, I was happy to get my kids vaccinated, I am grateful that we have vaccines, but to be forced into it galls me.

I think it’s too slippery also and I kind of hate that I’m siding that way.

I was happy to get my kids vaccinated, I am grateful that we have vaccines, but to be forced into it galls me.

There’s also a law prohibiting killing your kids and burying them in them in the backyard. Don’t let anybody tell you what to do! That’s socialism!!

There were 1 – 2 deaths per thousand children due to lack of vaccinations in the 1950’s.

I am in favor of mandatory vaccinations, or in lieu of that barring unvaccinated children from attending public schools.

Absolutely NOT!!! It is an indisputable scientific fact that vaccines can, have and do cause harm. If they did not, then the VICP would not have paid over 3 BILLION dollars to vaccine injured children to date. If a medical procedure carries with it risk, then there must be personal choice. If you believe otherwise, then YOU are the enemy of free man the world over. It is never right to mandate a medical procedure onto a person’s child for the safety of another. Mandatory vaccines are a direct violation of the Nuremburg code, the AMA’s policy of informed consent, and a violation of fundamental human rights. Vaccines are not tested against the golden standard of science; the double blind placebo study. Vaccines are not tested for adverse effects for more then a couple of weeks. Many vaccines contain aborted fetal cells. Many vaccines contain formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a admitted carcinogen according to the EPA. Vaccines that contain formaldehyde are not tested for carcinogenic properties. So here you have a vaccine containing a known carcinogen that is not tested to see if it causes cancer in those receiving it? Huh? I like how so many of you think you have the right to mandate medical procedures onto other people’s kids and have no skin in the game. For those that support mandating vaccines: Will you come to my home and help me change the diapers of my vaccine injured daughter when she is 5? Will you come over to my home and help to change her diaper when she is 10? How about when she is 15? Will you, the people that support mandatory vaccines onto my child against my wishes, help me hold my 33 year old vaccine injured daughter so I can change her diapers? No, I didn’t think so. Cowards all of you

@jasonpilnt Nope, sorry, but the extremely FEW children that have adverse reactions to a vaccine are the extremely few. A very few people also die from getting their teeth cleaned. Should periodontal health be annexed too?
Vaccination is about the greater good and while not infallible, if a million kids are protected and 3 have a bad reaction that ends up in disability or death, oh well. What do you propose, that your little Typhoid Mary be allowed to spread preventable disease because YOU are the real coward?

Willing to risk not only your childs health but that of many others?
Get your head out of the paranoia cloud my friend and do the right thing for your children.
Would you prefer risking watching your child die, become disfigured, crippled or mentally destroyed from all manner of modern day, preventable diseases?
If your child were bitten by a rabid animal would you let her die a hideous death of get her the rabies vaccines?

@jasonpilnt My heart goes out to you. She was one of the few out of millions of children who had no reaction. Vaccines have been improved considerably since the early 1980’s. I stand by my comment.

P. S. My taxes pay for the help that is available to you through the public agencies.

No anti-vaccination movement has succeeded because courts hold that states have a compelling interest in preventing the spread of disease. Do what you want with your children, withing the constraints of the law, and the law does not allow you to endanger others..

No, I don’t think they should be mandatory. Instead, we should have a carrot and stick approach that still preserves people’s individual freedoms. The carrot? All basic vaccines are provided free of charge to the recipient provided they are received on schedule. Alternatively, children with anti-vaccine parents can receive them for free when they achieve the age of majority and no longer need the permission of a parent.

The stick? If they aren’t willing to participate in public safety measures, they don’t have to be allowed into (certain) public spaces. So unvaccinated children can be prohibited from attending public schools (and their parents must abide by all laws concerning the education of children, meaning that they must either homeschool their children or send them to a private school that accepts unvaccinated children).

Exceptions should of course be made for children who have valid medical reasons for not receiving the vaccines.

@jasonpilnt Please take your tinfoil hat elsewhere. I agree that personal freedom is important, but the argument you give in favor of it is terrible. VICP payouts are easily explained: the US is a litigious society, and juries aren’t made up of medical experts. So they may find in favor of a plaintiff even when there is not a legitimate case.

The aborted fetal cells line, by the way, is false. While some vaccines contain cells that were derived from aborted fetus cells, no vaccines contain the actual cells of aborted fetuses. But really, it doesn’t matter. Abortion isn’t immoral, and aborted fetus cells aren’t dangerous. So objecting to vaccines on that basis is nonsensical.

Meanwhile, the formaldehyde worry just reveals your scientific illiteracy. The dose makes the poison, and the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is minuscule. You get more formaldehyde in your system from breathing the air in an industrialized nation than you do from all the vaccines the average person gets in their entire life combined.

But the truly bizarre part of your rant is the ending. Not only are you imagining injuries way out of line with what has actually been observed (or even alleged!), but the underlying logic of your objection is that you would rather your child be dead than even run the risk of maybe suffering some sort of injury due to a vaccination. Where exactly is the moral high ground in holding an attitude of “I’d rather my child be dead than disabled?” Where is the bravery that you chide others for supposedly lacking?

Wow. I didn’t think the conspiracy theorists would come out. This is getting interesting.

@canidmajor A reckless endangerment of others is refusing to vaccinate your child.

@Call_Me_Jay: What an asinine thing to say.

@Rarebear: No, they’re not the same.
Then you narrowed your question parameters. I explained my slippery slope concerns. There are kids being drugged into compliance for the convenience of the schools. These things happen. I offered (granted, rather broadly stated) an idea. I don’t have all the answers, never claimed to.
Your position on these topics has been stated over and over here. My mistake was not noticing who had asked the Q, you’ve changed your avatar. It smacks of a set up.
My mistake.

Children are drugged, in some jurisdictions,on the recommendation of their school administrators or teachers. But only those children already under the control of children and family services agencies can be legally compelled to comply, and it can be challenged.

That is not at all the same situation as mandating vaccination. As I mentioned before, courts have upheld vaccination mandates again and again on the basis of the states compelling interest in assuring public health. People were being vaccinated in the 18th century. The efficacy of vaccination as a public health measure is backed by more than 200 years of data.

There is no such basis for drugging children in schools. There is no slippery slope here of the kind you allege.

@Setanta Just to be clear, what the US courts have upheld are conditional mandates (i.e., laws that say “you must be vaccinated if you want to do x, y, or z”). They have not upheld any sort of unconditional mandate that says you must be vaccinated in order to live in the country legally. This allows people to choose what is more important to them, thereby protecting both personal liberty and public health.

I also know that people can not work in the health care field, nurses, doctors, etc, if they have not had their vaccinations.

@canidmajor Oh for heaven’s sake. They’re not being “drugged into compliance.” They’re not being force fed ADHD medication. They’re preventing illness.

My stance is that if a parent does not want to vaccinate their kids, then they can homeschool them.

@SavoirFaire You are incorrect. The Federal Government recognizes compulsory vaccination programs pursuant to _ Jacobson versus Massachusetts_ (1905) in which the Supremes held that states can compel vaccination for the common good. Lower Federal courts and state courts have upheld specific vaccination programs. In 1988, Congress passed legislation for the United States Court of Federal Claims to administer a no-fault vaccine injury program, often referred to as Vaccine Court.

@Setanta “Compulsory vaccination” doesn’t mean what you think it means—at least not in this case. If you look at the actual decision, the Court held that people could not be forcibly vaccinated. What they upheld against the plaintiff was Massachusetts’ policy of fining those who refused. Jacobson thought it was an abuse of state power to impose negative consequences for refusing to be vaccinated. So as I said, the courts have not upheld any sort of unconditional mandate that says you must be vaccinated in order to live in the country legally. Just conditional mandates (the condition in this case being a fine).

And I know what the VICP is. If you take a look, you’ll see that I discussed it in an earlier answer.

I think you are confused about the use of compulsory in this context. The Jacobson case was about a disease which can be spread by airborne contagion—smallpox. I didn’t say that the state could forcibly vaccinate, but Mr. Justice Harlan affirmed the police power of a state in such a case, and it would not just be “you can’t play football if you don’t comply,” it would be “you cannot send your children to a public school if you don’t comply.” Harlan only exempted people if the state could be shown to apply their public health laws unjustly, oppressively or in a manner resulting in “absurd consequences.” I did not state that the law says that you must be vaccinated or you cannot reside here. That decision largely affirmed earlier rulings that public health law could not be used to target a group or a class of people. I understand that the Court sought to both protect the state’s interests and personal liberty.

@Setanta Let’s look at the context:

(1) You gave an answer stating that the courts have upheld vaccination mandates on the basis of public health.

(2) I presented a clarification, mostly for the benefit of other people following the question, that those mandates do allow forcible vaccination.

(3) You responded in a subsequent answer saying that I was mistaken (based on Jacobson v Massachusetts). As the only claim I had previously made was that vaccination mandates were not unconditional (i.e., they could not result in forcible vaccination on pain of banishment), this must be the claim you were referring to as mistaken (unless you were simply confused about what had come before).

(4) I responded by pointing out that Jacobson v Massachusetts does not allow forcible vaccination, and in fact explicitly prohibits it.

(5) You responded by reinforcing the point that I originally made while continuing to act like I am the one who is confused.

So can we be done with this charade?

@SavoirFaire ” ...that those mandates do allow forcible vaccination.” You meant to say “NOT” didn’t you? I haven’t been following that closely.”

@Setanta ALL the common viruses for which we have vaccines for are air born diseases.

And I agree with @Rarebear. Not vaccinating your child is reckless endangerment.

@Dutchess_III Correct. Thanks for catching that for me! Point (2) should read: “I presented a clarification, mostly for the benefit of other people following the question, that those mandates do not allow forcible vaccination.”

You are missing a point. You said, and i quote: ”. . . what the US courts have upheld are conditional mandates (i.e., laws that say ‘you must be vaccinated if you want to do x, y, or z’ ” But states can tell you both that you cannot send your children to public schools if they have not been vaccinated, and that your children must attend a school which meets the state’s educational standards. If you don’t want your children vaccinated, then you must either enroll them in a private school which meets state standards, or you must educate them at home and be prepared to show that they are being educated to state standards.

I said nothing which remotely resembled a claim that one could be banished for non-compliance. However, health and human services regulation requires that applicants for immigration complete a medical examination,which includes a requirement to show that one has been vaccinated for a list of diseases, and the failure to provide evidence of the vaccination(s) combined with the refusal to be vaccinated will result in the rejection of the application (without prejudice to future application).

The case in Jacobson arose specifically from the state requirement for public education and the state requirement for the vaccination of children. Courts have used both the adjective “compulsory” and the verb “compel” in their rulings, so it seems to me that you are playing a word game about the meaning of the terms. My responses have been conditioned on the use of those words by courts in their rulings on vaccinations.

@Setanta “But states can tell you both that you cannot send your children to public schools if they have not been vaccinated, and that your children must attend a school which meets the state’s educational standards. If you don’t want your children vaccinated, then you must either enroll them in a private school which meets state standards, or you must educate them at home and be prepared to show that they are being educated to state standards.”

The problem is that you don’t realize that’s still a conditional mandate. An unconditional mandate is one that allows forcible vaccination. Everything else is a conditional mandate. This is the third time I have clarified this point. So even if you initially misunderstood the distinction I was drawing in the original answer, I can only hope that three times is enough for you to understand what I was getting at.

“I said nothing which remotely resembled a claim that one could be banished for non-compliance. ”

No, not explicitly. I realize that. My previous point was telling you to follow the dialectic. If I say ”x is true” and you say “no it’s not,” then you have implicitly endorsed not-x regardless of your intentions. This is a basic fact about how language works, and it doesn’t change just because you didn’t understand what I meant when I said ”x is true.” (The implication can be rolled back and/or subsequently abandoned, however, which is what the whole process of clarification and continued discussion is for).

“However, health and human services regulation requires that applicants for immigration complete a medical examination,which includes a requirement to show that one has been vaccinated for a list of diseases, and the failure to provide evidence of the vaccination(s) combined with the refusal to be vaccinated will result in the rejection of the application (without prejudice to future application).”

This has nothing to do with the conversation we have been having unless you twist the context in ways that are obviously illegitimate. In any case, not being allowed in is different from not being allowed stay (the latter being quite obviously what I was talking about), and it is not surprising that citizens have different rights than non-citizens.

“The case in Jacobson arose specifically from the state requirement for public education and the state requirement for the vaccination of children.”

No, it didn’t. You might be thinking of Zucht v King. In Jacobson v Massachusetts, however, the plaintiff was resisting a law that required adults to be vaccinated in order to stop the spread of smallpox.

“Courts have used both the adjective ‘compulsory’ and the verb ‘compel’ in their rulings, so it seems to me that you are playing a word game about the meaning of the terms. My responses have been conditioned on the use of those words by courts in their rulings on vaccinations.”

How, pray tell, am I supposed to be playing word games with words I haven’t been using? You are the one who introduced those terms, and I have only used the word “compulsory” only once—and only to point out that it was not synonymous with the word I was using.

In fact, let’s follow the dialectic once more: I drew a distinction between conditional and unconditional mandates. You introduced the term “compulsory” in your response. I noted that “compulsory” is not the same as “unconditional.” You cited a case that agrees with me. Pretty straightforward, really.

In the end, this entire sidetrack seems based on you having misunderstood the distinction I was drawing between conditional and unconditional mandates. I am perfectly willing to accept that my initial answer might not have been as clear to you as I would have hoped. That’s why I have continued to clarify it. But by the same token, it is not shameful to admit that you misunderstood what I was getting at. This continued attempt to salvage an objection to something I never said is starting to border on farcical.

Me thinks you are on the same page, guys.

@Dutchess_III That’s what I’ve been trying to get him to realize.

Then give me a GA, damn it! ;)

@SavoirFaire Don’t tell me what i don’t realize. Your snotty condescension has become insufferable, especially as it is founded on the blatant straw man fallacy of assuming you have demonstrated that i have ascribed a totalitarian power to the state in this matter, when i have not done so, nor written anything from which that can reasonably be inferred. Do us both a favor, and save your haughty contempt for someone whom you can actually demonstrate to be your intellectual inferior.

The ruling in Jacobson clearly affirms the police power of the states in this matter.

@Dutchess_III Oops! Fixed it!

@Setanta What a strange reply. As @Dutchess_III has noticed, the main thrust of my responses has been that we are actually in agreement. At no point have I said that you “ascribed a totalitarian power to the state in this matter.” What I have said is that by “unconditional mandate” I meant “the ability to forcibly vaccinate,” and that your claim that I was mistaken when I said that the courts have never upheld an unconditional mandate would have the (unintentional) logical consequence of saying that the state could forcibly vaccinate (a logical consequence that, being unintentional, I assumed you would want to explicitly repudiate).

I think we both agree that the state does not have such a power, and that Jacobson does not uphold such a power. Indeed, I posted by original clarification in the hopes that others would not misunderstand you. Since many people see words like “mandate” and think “forcible,” I was trying to make it clear—to other people who might read your response—that the mandates you had mentioned in your previous answer did not rise to the level of forcible vaccination.

You seem to have interpreted my comment as disagreement with your claim, rather than as a clarification for the benefit of others (which is how it was intended). We have then gone several rounds with you insisting that I am mistaken and me trying to point out that we are in agreement (so if I’m mistaken, so are you—but in this case, neither of us are).

Let’s see if we can clear this up, then. Here are the claims I take myself to have made as part of our little sidetrack:

(1) The government does not have the power to forcibly vaccinate people. [I have referred to such a power as an “unconditional mandate.”]
(2) The government does have the power to impose consequences on those who refuse to be vaccinated, such as requiring them to homeschool or pay a fine. [I have referred to such a power as a “conditional mandate.”]
(3) “Compulsory vaccination” is not the same as “forcible vaccination.”
(4) The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson did not give the government the power to forcibly vaccinate people (that is, it did not uphold an unconditional mandate).
(5) The Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobson did recognize the government’s power to impose consequences on those who refuse to be vaccinated, (that is, it upheld a conditional mandate).

These are the substantive points of the discussion. I have also made various points about linguistic practice just to help make the underlying dialectic clear in the hope that we could diagnose what went wrong, but that is a separate issue. Of those five statements, which (if any) do you disagree with? If the answer is “none,” then it seems to me we can be done with this (which would also make the linguistic points functionally irrelevant going forward). If you do disagree with any of them, however, please let me know which and why.

Vaccines are great. Everyone should get them. But forcing people to get them just fosters resentment and resistance. Public health is important, and we should take steps to protect it. But people also have the right to be wrong in a democracy. They have the right to hold abhorrent beliefs. They have the right to vote for people who want to start nuclear wars. They have the right to think that Stephenie Meyer is a good writer or that John Mayer is a good musician.

So my answer is no, they shouldn’t be mandatory. But we should take steps to keep the vaccination rate high. The social psychology/nudge theory stuff that has been advocated by other people is a good start. The main reason most people are vaccinated these days is because it’s the default option. The doctor says “it’s time for your child’s shots!” and parents say, “okey dokey!” But the anti-vax movement proves that we can’t just leave it at that anymore.

Unfortunately, the information campaign being waged against the anti-vaxers isn’t enough either. That’s because it aims the wrong weapons at the wrong targets. There are two parts to the movement: the fearmongers and the fearful. For some reason, the facts are aimed at the fearmongers and the scorn is aimed at the fearful. But that gets the motivations all wrong. The fearmongers don’t give a shit about the truth. They can’t be corrected. And the fearful don’t know who to trust. Scorn just pushes them further away.

The fearmongers need to be ignored, and the fearful need a slow, gentle rehabilitation. But that means the anti-anti-vaxers have to get off their high horse and fucking educate instead of lecture. And if they don’t know the difference, they can visit a kindergarten class and count how many fights break out between the teacher and the students. Instead of aspiring to be dictators who are just so sure we’re absolutely right, maybe we can try bringing people over to our side of their own free will through reasoned and respectful discourse.

Oh wait, this is America. Let’s just bomb them all.

A lot of misinformation here. I read in the comments that the dose makes the poison. How much bee venom does it take to cause an anaphylactic reaction? How much venom is in a black widow spider bite? The poison makes the poison according to the individuals response to it. A lot of you say that you are afraid of the unvaccinated spreading diseases onto others. 1. If you are vaccinated, then why do you worry? 2. It is the recently VACCINATED that spread the very diseases for which they were vaccinated. This is why charge nurses ask visitors of immune compromised patients if they have been recently vaccinated; because it is a well established medical fact that the recently vaccinated shed the very diseases for which they were vaccinated from. I even read above that the US is a litigious society and that is the reason the VICP has paid out over 3 billion dollars to vaccine injured kids. If your child is vaccinated by a vaccine that is on the vaccine schedule, and they are harmed by that vaccine, you can not sue the pharmaceutical company that made that vaccine. You can not sue the nurse that administered it, or the doctor that ordered it. You have to petition a “special master” appointed to a “procedure”, not a court, and appointed by CEO’s from the very pharmaceutical company responsible for the creation of the vaccine that caused your child harm in the first place. And I even read that some of you invoke the “greater good” philosophy. This is a “ends justify the means” mentality. Can anyone please show me when the greater good, ends justify the means philosophy has ever benefited society and resulted in freedom and well being? I am having a hard time finding any examples in written history where the “greater good” philosophy has ended well for any past civilizations. And I also like how the use of aborted fetal cells used to manufacture vaccines is a non issue with some of you. IF the unvaccinated are so dangerous and will cause the death of millions, then where are all the dead Amish children? Where are the piles of dead Amish? Last I saw, the Amish have lower incidents of cancer (probably because they did not get the polio vaccine which contained the carcinogen SV40 in it), and nearly NO autism in their community. Then you invoke the old smallpox mantra that smallpox saved the world and eradicated smallpox when only 10% of the world population of the time was vaccinated for it. Ludicrous. Bottom line is this: Vaccines can, have and do cause harm. If a medical procedure carries with it risk, then there must be personal choice. It is NEVER right to mandate a medical procedure onto another person’s child for the “safety” of another. Never. If you believe otherwise, then you are the enemy of free man everywhere.

@jasonpilnt – My good friend is, next Wednesday, going to have a kidney transplant. He will, for the rest of his life, be on medication that will suppress his immune system, making him susceptible to communicable disease forever.

His wife is a teacher. If some kid comes into class with the measles, her husband will die.

That is why people need to be vaccinated. As many as possible.

My daughter is going off to a private college next month. The Student Health Center requires every incoming freshman to receive the first week of school, if the haven’t already, a meningitis vaccine.

They recognize that meningitis is highly contagious and kills quickly.

@jasonpilnt what do you mean if we are vaccinated we shouldn’t care? That is a hopelessly selfish out look.

@zenvelo Yep, while I was in college it was found that I was due for my chickenpox booster. The student health center alerted me of this and told me I needed to get it in order to stay a student. I was on immunosuppressants at the time and couldn’t get the varicella vaccine as it’s one of the live ones. When I told them this, they said, OK, but if we have an outbreak of chickenpox on campus you’ll be asked to leave for a little while. Luckily it never happened. Would’ve been pretty pissed at anti-vaxxers if their actions had interrupted my education like that.