My points about trying to legislate some kind of vaccination enforcement are:
It will not work.
The slope of trying to make it work is a slippery intrusion. That may be a different debate, but I will happily take up your suggestions for how to actually enforce vaccinations upon the children of incompetent parents.
Since we have agreement that these anti-vaxxers are a plague upon our society, what do we actually do to rid ourselves of this pox?
I myself suggest unleashing polio and possibly even smallpox, if polio doesn’t work, if you really want to frighten the stupid anti vaxxers so badly they switch opinions. You may recall in the early days of the Iraq war there was a bit of biowarfare brouhaha with a plan to vaccinate military frontliners and even a “voluntary” program to vaccinate about a half million healthcare workers, of which I am one (although I already have my smallpox vaccine scar from childhood, and may have some amount of residual immunity).
Most of us just laughed; I didn’t have a single medical colleague who took up the generous offer. I don’t think mandating it would have worked, but hey, maybe you have better ideas on how one actually mandates vaccinations. I don’t think the military personnel were big on getting immunized for anthrax and smallpox, but I don’t remember for sure. The whole war was so idiotic some of the dunderhead stuff is a fog for me.
Anyway, it’s just so stinking hard to get the recalcitrant to get their vaccines.
It is based on the idea that it should be more in the wavelength of people with similar ideas. The point here is that not even conservative magazines like that one are willing to leave the anti-vaxers to continue like if they are not a problem.
But sadly not even Forbes seem to convince you that indeed your prediction was wrong. The approach from the article and the ones taken already (and that should include the proposed solutions by Forbes and already put into action in many locations) will not have the unintended consequences of worsening of the problem like you think.
I think that’s what this thread is about. Sue them. Or at least, try. Even if you lose, they’ve been inconvenienced and scared. Works for me.
I’d also combine that with a strict “medical exemptions certified by an MD or APN” waiver policy for public school and daycare. I think there’s even a contingent of vaccine refusers who would like that. There’s a fair bit of soft doubt in the ranks (like yours truly was) who, while they currently cave to peer pressure and refuse, would gladly get their kids vaccinated if it was A) the easiest way to get them into school and B) something they’re being “forced” into. Make it a pain in the ass to get a waiver, and the lazy and some of the questioning will take the path of least resistance and vaccinate. They’ll bitch about the fascist police state, of course, but they’ll dry their tears over lattes and get distracted by the next Dr. Oz fad diet supplement.
It was working, for many years until some doctors broke bad and started giving bad advice.
It is clear you are not happy to check the plans already mentioned (and they are not just my ideas BTW). It seems that that is the case because they are already being used and they are not to the liking of the anti-vaxers. What it is needed is to keep the legal, liability and society’s pressures (like keeping the un-vaccinated kids out of school) already in place and increase them just a bit.
First, I am wounded by your disdain around how much complete and utter lack of emotional bonds I have to mankind. I assure you my cynicism regarding human behaviour is unbounded.
But hey; thanks for the lead on the Wolfsons. Fascinating. They have a supplement biz, but it doesn’t look like the powers that be let him do anything invasive. Cash only for every patient, which is a nice red flag for quakery. No Medicare. Looks like he had reasonably good training and then Heather turned him. What I wouldn’t give to pick his brain for an hour or two.
I cannot figure out what makes that kind of guy tick.
If your kid doesn’t have his vaccines, he doesn’t go to Public School. The only exemption is medical, your child has a specific, provable, documentable, medical condition that precludes vaccination.
If your religion or ethos demands that you not vaccinate, you will be home schooling or sending your kid to a religious/private school. That way, all the budding disease vectors can hang out together and cause their own self contained outbreaks. Once you get 2/3rds of Andrew Wakefield Grammar School coming down with measles, maybe some anti-vaxxers will rethink their positions. Until then, I’ll be satisfied that they’re at least not attending school with my kid.
Whatever grounds there are for civil liability could already be pursued, as far as I know. I don’t think the fear that a handful will be sued is going to dissuade the masses. In general the anti-vaxxers do not think their kid is going to get a preventable illness. And the overwhelming majority of them are correct.
Into the waiver void will step any number of Wolfsons, although I agree with a policy of preventing the unvaccinated from public schools. It is unlikely that this will do much to prevent outbreaks–what you need to do is stay out of the public arena if you are unvaccinated–but it seems like a fair quid pro quo to me to keep the kid out of school. This approach will almost certainly trigger a raft of lawsuits asking for proof of efficacy.
I don’t think it will change the Baby Precious latte crowd–that is, the educated and wealthy antivaxxers who think my kid should bear the vaccination risk so Baby Precious doesn’t have to. Where there is money there is access to alternative schools, lawyers and general PIA responses to unpopular public policy.
This. If we are going to allow “philosophical” waivers at all (which I wouldn’t), they ought to be subjected to the sort of scrutiny Ol’ Man Bloodnguts at the draft board used to apply to conscientious-objector claimants.
Those four kids also each interact with many people, surfaces and objects outside of the classroom and thus could have independently acquired measles. And some lawyer will surely say, “We live in a sea of trillions of bacteria all the time.”
And to use an even trickier example, if 100 children come down with measles at an amusement park of one million visitors a month, it could be virtually impossible to prove who first started it.
Note the over-the-top suggestion by a commenter that non-vaccinating parents be listed in a public database, like child molesters.
Maybe we should just put recalcitrant antivax parents in the stocks for a day and let people jeer and throw rotten vegetables at them. Embarrassment without the opportunity for martyrdom.
I don’t think you’re getting the point about the standard of proof in a civil action. It isn’t necessary to show that there is no other way the children could have acquired measles. The plaintiffs’ lawyers only need to convince a jury that it’s more likely than not that four classmates who came down with measles at around the same time got it from an infected fifth classmate.
I sort of like the idea of publicly listing non-vaccinating parents, off the top of my head.
It might be difficult to actually execute.
Certainly a public listing of which children don’t have vaccine certificates, along with which children are behavioral problems and the like seems like a reasonable way for me to help protect my child at school.
Just to be clear, you describe anti-vaxxers complaining about anti vaxxers.
You won’t get “an outbreak” among the vaccinated because they are vaccinated, and the failure rate is just not that high.
I think the practical liability case is the immunocompromised child who gets a vaccine-preventable disease. That one is going to be pretty rare, but possible. Getting a preponderance of evidence is also possible if there is just one index antivaxxer kid. Once there is an antivaxxer outbreak, then it’s harder to pin down Measles Mary as the one whose transmission harmed the innocent.
Still, I think maintaining liability is one way to help promote vaccination.
It’s an interesting idea, but as Jackmannii points out, this could lead to a slippery slope. What about the flu? And if that’s the case, can I sue if my coworker doesn’t get a flu shot, gets the flu, and brings it in to work, causing me to get the flu, and asthma, and bronchitis? Or do we only allow parents to sue?
The doc who hired me to my current job did this (he had practiced as a pediatrician). He saw a child die of measles when he was doing his pediatrics rotation.
BTW, Jon Stewart’s pieceabout anti-vaxxers last night was both hilarious and wickedly prescient.
Of course we should apply antivax approaches to adults. Influenza is a huge killer, and it is a big mistake to think we should focus only on children.
I have been assuming when we talk about anti-vaxxers we are including those adults who refuse their influeza vaccines. Influenza is a much larger health problem.
It would be difficult from a liability standpoint to prove who you got it from, but help me out here, pro vaxxers:
We are in favor of mandating influenza vaccination for adults, right?
The basic idea is that if the CDC says vaccination for X is the right thing to do for public health, it should be mandated and enforced across the entire population, right?
I think there’s a world of difference between a vaccination for Measles and a vaccination for Influenza. The flu vaccine is not remotely as effective, and must be developed / administered every year. So far there’s no demonstrated ability of the flu vaccine to create herd immunity that is able to eliminate the spread of flu.
The current state of flu vaccine is one where we can’t eliminate the flu, so it’s more about personal protection than public health.
My reference to the “slippery slope” (beloved of Chief Pedant) was sarcastic.
We can argue about what prudent action should be undertaken on matters of public health, without proclaiming that any restriction on people’s behavior heralds the onset of Fascism.
Just as soon as you get it working at a ~90% effectiveness and reduce the adverse events to something resembling childhood vaccines…and convince the virus to stop mutating so fast so the vaccine stays effective, sure.
Influenza is not considered a candidate for elimination or eradication, because it fails two of the criteria - the virus mutates very quickly and renders the intervention useless, and we don’t have the political commitment to eliminate it. The later we might be able to change, but without changing the former, it won’t work. So influenza is actually much closer to that “personal choice” holy grail in vaccination. I can’t get too het up talking people into that one as it stands now. (Which, I get it, is exactly how you feel about MMR. I just don’t get *why *you feel that way, when it’s so safe and effective and measles *is *a good candidate for eradication.)
No, the basic idea is that *some *vaccines - like the MMR - are not a personal choice, but a public responsibility. CDC guidance for Public Health on influenza does include vaccination efforts, but mostly it consists of early identification and treatment during pandemics. I get my flu shot every year, and gladly give it to anyone who will take it, but you can’t seriously look at a 26% effectiveness rating and honestly swear to your patients that this thing will work for them this year. MMR, you can come pretty damn close to that oath.
Except for this latest (Disneyland) outbreak, we’ve been able to trace the spread from patient to patient in the last decade. Influenza is still so prevalent that you’d have a very difficult time pinpointing Patient Zero in any outbreak, or the specific person who gave it to you. If you can? Sure, take it to court. But I don’t think you’ll win with influenza. It’s just still too common.
upon our society, what do we actually do to rid ourselves of this pox?