For one thing, no vaccine is 100% effective. For another, there are some people with legitimate medical issues that prevent them from being vaccinated. So, we rely on the concept of herd immunity to protect those people:
Posted on 06/10/2015 7:37:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It so happened that I was preparing an introduction to an anthology of the writings of Edmund Burke when I read an article in a recent edition of the New England Journal of Medicine with the title “Social Distancing and the Unvaccinated.” One of Burke’s main contentions, at least according to me, is that politics are, or ought to be, more than the application of abstract first principles to practical affairs: and, as if to prove him right, along came this article.
The question was this: if it is permissible for parents to refuse to have their children immunized against preventable childhood diseases, does the state have the right, through one or other of its agencies, to exclude those children temporarily from school or other social institutions if there is an epidemic developing?
This question can be answered neither by a single abstract principle alone nor by appeal to scientific fact. The matter is complex, and on this occasion arose in the context of an outbreak of measles in California that soon spread and was in part occasioned by a reduction in the rate of immunization against the disease consequent upon the fraudulent activities of Dr Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor who claimed falsely to have discovered a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the development of childhood autism.
In addition, two sets of parents in New York legally challenged the exclusion of their children from school because they were unimmunized against chickenpox after an infected child was found in the school. The article did not make clear whether the exclusion was primarily to protect the unimmunized children themselves or others in the school, or both (no immunization conferring 100 per cent immunity, and the more cases encountered the greater the likelihood of spread).
Scientific considerations are relevant to, but not probative of, any answer. The article, strangely, made no mention of the fact that parents’ rights, which we all accept within quite wide limits, nevertheless may impinge on those of their children, for example that to life itself: in which case parents’ rights have to be, or at any rate are, overridden.
If the parents’ decision not to immunize were one of life or death, either for their or other children, most (but perhaps not all) people would agree that their say in the matter should not count. But in fact it is rarely one of life and death, but rather one of transient illness with very occasional severe complications. Just how great is the risk of the latter is dependent on factors other than the parents’ decision not to immunize: measles is much less serious a disease in rich than in poor countries, for example. Moreover, some questions, for example, how long it is necessary to socially distance (Orwellian phrase) children in order to abrogate the risk of spreading may not be completely answerable in the current state of knowledge.
How many days off school for one child equal the risk of contraction of a mild illness by another? There is no way of answering this question except by the exercise of judgment in particular circumstances. This is precisely what Burke would have predicted: what we decide cannot be determined by appealing to conflicting rights alone, the more fundamental of them prevailing. Sometimes one will prevail, sometimes another; there is no way of making politics a matter of such accurate calculation that no faculty of judgment, with its permanent possibility of error, will ever have to be exercised.
The article focuses on religious objectors to immunization, but they are probably outnumbered by Californian-style cranks, paranoiacs and believers in all you read on the internet.
Parental rights do not extend to endangering other people’s children.
Yes!
Yeah, we can’t have unvaccinated children giving diseases to the vaccinated ones.
What “threat” is an vaccinated child to a child that is already vaccinated?
Yes, of course. However, we should allow unvaccinated “immigrants” through our southern border without hesitation. Its for the children after all.
YES, next...
[continued - got distracted and did not finish the thought]
Vaccinated vs Vaccinated - not a problem
Unvaccinated vs Vaccinated - not a problem
Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated - not a problem
Unvaccinated vs Unvaccinated - possible problem
In the case of Unvacc vs Unvacc, there is a risk. But life is full of risks. If the parents of the school are notified that there is an outbreak of X, and they continue to send there child to school, then the parent is accepting the risk. It is called risk management.
I was not vaccinated against small pox as a child. This was due to a skin condition and the advice of my doctor. The risk of getting small pox was smaller by not vaccinating than by getting the vaccine. The risk was managed.
Wait, only applies to white kids. MINE!
Can someone explain how an unvaccinated child is a danger to a vaccinated child? Exclude the rare exception of a child on chemo or one dealing with some immune deficiency (they have other more acute possibilities of infection to deal with). This is a ginned up controversy to disguise another govt power grab.
Vaccination is one area that a huge number of conservatives believe the government 100% and line their kids up for every needle full of “lifesaving” juice. Heck didn’t we just find out that this same government has been shipping live anthrax all over the US and world...oops!
For one thing, no vaccine is 100% effective. For another, there are some people with legitimate medical issues that prevent them from being vaccinated. So, we rely on the concept of herd immunity to protect those people:
Then you were precisely the type of person that mandatory vaccinations in schools is designed to protect. A (very) small percentage of people cannot be vaccinated for everything. But, because everyone else at school (or nearly everyone else) was vaccinated, your chances of contracting smallpox at school was very small.
Don’t look at it as “forced to stay home from school.” Look at it as “allowed to stay home from school.”
For what it is worth... they don’t vaccinate anymore for Smallpox. They haven’t in some time. My youngest was vaccinated for it but it was done in China. They do vaccinate for chicken pox, measles and mumps.
I am more concerned with them giving diseases to other unvaccinated children.
Those who choose not to vaccinate often homeschool anyway, at least in my neck if the woods.
I think that’s the most likely thing here, too. However, some states have a much higher rate of unvaccinated students in school than others.
This problem can be solved very easily. Just start your own neighborhood schools. Here’s a little secret. The more neighborhood schools there are, the less problem you’ll have with government. Let’s all admit, that the government has become the enemy of the people they were suppose to protect. Unless you cow tow to what this government demands they will make life harder and harder for you. If enough people defy the government, the government will be forced to back down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.