Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

Anecdotal evidence on a website does not trump verified scientific studies with supporting statistical comparisons. That is the first thing people need to learn.What they need to do is talk to some old people who have experience with polio before the vaccine. Ask them about friends who were crippled by the disease. I think that would give them a new persepctive.The number of people killed by Ebola this year? It can't hold a candle to the number of children that were killed by whooping cough in a single year at the turn of the 20th century. And just look at how people are freaking out over Ebola, but won't vaccinate their child against a much graver risk. If I had a bunch of anecdotal stories from crackpots in one hand, and multiple peer reviewed scientific studies in another, guess which hand I would go with?The real question is why anyone ignores the massive amount of science demonstrating that overwhelming benefit of vaccines compared to their risk. That is a study in human psychology since the science behind the vaccines is already settled.

quote:

---

Your statement is misleading because relevant and contradictory material is placed in close proximity to what you addressed

---

No, it wasn't - and the idea that you provided material contradicting a quote you were using to try to support your case is obviously absurd. So there's another example of your misrepresentation.

quote:

---

It is factually inaccurate because the quoted material was not the Supreme Courts statement of the case as you stated, but instead was their summary of one parties statement of the case.

---

I will grant that someone who failed to read in context (which would be ill-advised, since I did not reproduce the quote) might have misunderstood. However, since it was the Supreme Court's understanding of the plaintiff's case, and the quote was selected by you, I hardly think that such a misunderstanding would be greatly damaging to your case.If the only error you can find is a bit of loose phrasing that might be misunderstood by people who are unaware of the preceding post then why bother ?

Rob Schneider proves he knows as much about the Constitution as he does science. I never thought he was particularly funny, but now he shows he isn't particularly smart.
'Freedom of speech' violated? Anti-vaxxer Rob Schneider quotes George Washington after State Farm ads pulled – twitchy.comThe actual Washington quote is.

quote:

---

"For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter."

---

Washington quote

Well, here is something to help tie him into the topicRob Schneider - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Schneider is also an outspoken critic of vaccination practices, even going so far as to liken California Bill AB 2109, which would require the informed consent of parents before opting for a philosophical exemption to vaccinations, to the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany

---

I agree. Not particularly smart.

Measles is in the news. The disease is easily controlled with vaccination to a herd immunity levelabout 90% (Wikipedia). Nationally, the vaccination percentages seem to be adequate, but such is not always the case locally. And the tendency for non-vaccinators to live in clusters makes matters worse (Source).The disease tends not to be deadly, except in the very young, who can't yet be vaccinated:

quote:

---

"Measles Hits Chicago-Area Daycare Center" from Huffington Post:

​

Five babies at a suburban Chicago daycare center have been diagnosed with measles, adding to a growing outbreak of the disease across the United States, Illinois health officials said on Thursday.

---

Perhaps feeling irked about being cited as an excuse by parents who won't vaccinate their children, an autism group, Autism Speaks, released a statement urging vaccination:

quote:

---

"Autism Speaks Urges Parents to Vaccinate Children" from ABC News:

​

Rob Ring, chief science officer of Autism Speaks, released a statement today stressing that vaccines do not cause autism, and parents should vaccinate.

​

"Over the last two decades, extensive research has asked whether there is any link between childhood vaccinations and autism," he said in the statement. "The results of this research are clear: Vaccines do not cause autism. We urge that all children be fully vaccinated."

---

The case for mandatory vaccination is now being made in many spheres.Will babies dying from easily-prevented diseases finally snap some sense into people? Edited by Jon, : Bad links.Edited by Jon, : Bad links... again.

Whether or not mandatory vaccination policy is necessary, the events in the news highlight the point that our current policy of allowing BS excuses to allow exemptions is wrong. A few states make it way too convenient for people who choose not to immunize. There is no constitutional reason forcing states to allow religious exemptions, or any other non-medically based exemptions.

We have not vaccinated our 2 children due to the fact that their mother is convinced that vaccination caused severe problems for her niece. She was/is absolutely convinced about it and so I let it slide at the time thinking that the risks were minimal in a country so heavily vaccinated as Canada. It has been a point of contention for a decade.I remain convinced that vaccinations work and are the only reason that my children can enjoy the benefits of herd immunity without the minimal risk presented by the vaccine itself. It is a hard sell to convince a mother not to be selfish with regard to her children.In support of her position she makes the point that if and we take the measles cases in the US from 2001 — 2014 (maybe 2000 cases) and an annual birth rate of about 4 million and vaccinated everyone then you would cause about 12 cases of encephalitis by vaccinating for every one caused by the disease itself.She accepts that the case number would be different if we didn't vaccinate nearly everyone but the reality is that we do and so her approach provides the maximum benefit for her children.

Those stats are fine, but perhaps what's needed is a sensitivity analysis to show how the numbers change when relatively small numbers of people decide to avoid getting shots. At the risk of being judgmental, I find this kind of attitude incompatible with progressive thought and a functioning democracy. Completely understandable though, when it's your kids. Just keep them out of Disney world if you aren't going to vaccinate.

You are basing the measles infection rate on a mostly vaccinated population. Shouldn't you be looking at the infection rate among the unvaccinated in your comparison?

It is a strange attitude from someone who is otherwise both (mostly) rational and very socially minded. Many of our discussions have ended with her saying 'I know your right but I don't want to do it.' Reason is of limited use against irrational fears.I would disagree that her position is incompatible with a functioning democracy as the purpose of such is to allow for descent. I would be against making vaccinations compulsory for that reason even though I am completely in favour of convincing people to get them.I have been working on replacing her fear of causing harm with a fear of not preventing it. Getting her to read this thread is part of it and so I appreciate your comments.

Yes and that comparison makes it obvious that as a society we should be vaccinating for measles. The comparison to a vaccinated population is valid for someone living within one.

Not really.You are trying to evaluate having a child in the unvaccinated subpopulation. So you need to use the statistics relevant to that subpopulation.

I agree that dissent is compatible and valued in a democracy, but we are not really talking about a conventional dissent here. We are instead talking about recognizing the value and shared risk of vaccinations, but then opting out of the risk pool while trying to grab onto the advantage generated by the rest of us.In my opinion, freedom requires that you have that choice, but everybody who takes it adds risk to the rest of us. We really need to reserve the 'free ride' spots for true medical necessities.

You guys are talking apples and oranges. What is suggested is that instead of using the rates for the general population within the heavily immunized community, you should instead use the rate of infection for unimmunzied kids within the heavily immunized society.Of course that number may not be available.

I know right. Even worse than refusing the science of it. The dissonance is appreciated but our situation essentially involves a phobia. I am not sure how to deal with that other than carefully. I have considered just having them done but I always revert to trying to get their mothers consent. Our Dr, surprisingly, has counseled me to do this.As far as I can tell there is no rational argument to be made against vaccination but the idea of forcing it on people doesn't feel right. Don't we have the right to be wrong and isn't this the cost of self-determination? More education is my best guess.