Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?

I stand accused of eloquence, by which I take it my rhetoric, while not empty, exceeds its contents.So let me be plainer.We aren't debating whether everyone should be compelled to accept every vaccination we can possibly devise--at least I'm not, and I'm not sure why you do.I'm not aware of any currently recommended childhood vaccines that can be considered trivial. There's not much profit for Big Pharm in vaccine development; governmental encouragement, funding and/or liability protection is often needed to move them along. We are discussing the possibility of mandatory vaccines because their acceptance is slipping below herd immunity levels. As recent events show, that rapidly translates into outbreaks; if the trend continues, outbreaks will grow, and people will die. My, that's not just a slippery slope, it's downright friction-free. By that standard, we would be frozen in place, too terrified of what our future selves might make of our discoveries: Should we have eschewed antibiotics due to the unknowns of complexity and futurity? As it turns out, they are abused: prescribed for inappropriate maladies, generally at the insistence of parents motivated, like vaccine deniers, by an amalgam of ignorance and concern; used as growth enhancers by industrial agriculture, thereby creating antibiotic-resistant microbes.Now we educate parents and are at least starting to regulate antibiotic use in agriculture. Yes, antibiotics made the future more complex, but they continue to save countless lives. If it was a bargain with the devil of unforeseen consequences, it was a good deal.No, the introduction of species from one ecological niche to another is not a good comparison. Vaccines address species already freely roaming the world; we merely introduce inactive bits of them to forewarn immune systems already residing in the same niche. Well, it's true we don't know what causes autism--nor do we yet know whether rates are actually increasing rather than children being more closely screened with new diagnostic criteria. If exposure to the proteins of vaccine-targeted organisms causes autism, then one would think past rates of autism would be quite high, especially in the eras of epidemics. There seems to be no evidence for this notion. The one somewhat plausible target--thimerosal--was removed from vaccines; autism rates continued to rise.And, yes, our environment (including our bodies) is mighty polluted. When what little regulatory framework was put in place in the 20th century, thousands of chemicals were grandfathered from scrutiny: hey, nobody's complained yet, they must be okay. The introduction of new chemicals is a slipshod affair. In fact, if I had to hazard a guess about autism, I'd guess that autism, like schizophrenia, is likely caused by a combination of genetic susceptibility in the presence of some biological stressor, with chemical pollution a strong--but not our only--candidate.For example, one correlation with schizophrenia is a pregnancy complicated by influenza--another case where near-universal vaccination might reduce horrific tolls. Another correlation with schizophrenia is having an older father--I'm sure some autism researchers look at those demographics, too.Life is complex, good intentions pave the road to hell, etc. Sure. We might get it wrong. OK.But we know some things. We know vaccines save millions of lives every year. We know vaccination rates below herd-immunity levels threaten the lives of not just those refusing vaccines but others as well. We know there is no evidence that autism correlates with vaccines.As I noted before, I hold liberty dear: a fave T shirt said, "You are entering a liberated zone." But the notion of absolute individual sovereignty fails the test of modernityand logic: the notion that within my skin is a sovereign nation appeals, romantically, but it is falsified by knowledge. A quaint portrait of the limits of liberty places the end of your right to swing your fist at precisely the tip of my nose.But we know that skin is not the limit of our interaction. We breathe, sweat, shed, piss, ooze and defecate particles of our internal states into the world and into each other. Your right to harbor diseases in the presence of efficacious prevention ends not at my skin, but within the limits of your own, and you can't keep them there. No one would argue that a flea-ridden plaque victim should have rights to daily kindergarten attendance, yet increasing numbers of parents argue their children have the right to shed infectious diseases anywhere at any time, as chance allows. They lack evidence and are armed with only fear and ignorance.Btw, I don't propose quarantines of the non-vaccinated only when disease strikes--whether detected through a diagnostic toilet (your other reply) or not. Parents of non-vaccinated children have weaponized their kids. If they want to live that way, they cannot live among us. In a social species, that's where the logic of total personal sovereignty leads: if you cannot accept our public health compact, go form your own public.Arguments from ignorance can seem weighty, because our ignorance is infinite and towers over all our endeavors--but knowledge proves a better guide. I'm not swayed by the frightened person, tearing at his hair, crying out, "Who knows? Who knows?" We know some things. When vaccine critics can offer knowledge in support of their position, rather than fear and ignorance, I'm all ears.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : Human fallibility.

We could call those metaphysical doubts, maybe, or epistemological doubt: I understand those. I share them about many things, but my feelings change with calculations of risks and consequences.For example, I support the mandatory labeling of GMO foods, in large part because I don't want to give the same agribusiness concerns that have turned our food into tasteless pap that is bad for us the power to tell us what to eat, shut up and like it, any more than I want to give the state the power of execution.But another part of my position on GMOs is the same skeptical response to claims of mastery over complex systems that you describe. In this case, the downside risk of that skepticism is low: GMOs may prove an unalloyed boon, but any delay in their adoption will do no great harm.The risk assessment of vaccine refusal is totally different: rapid and increasingly widespread disease, misery and death; nor do vaccines have any qualitative baggage. I see no reason for the metaphysical doubts, no advantage to indulging them, and a terrible and certain down side. Do you mean you disagree with the numbers?Do you claim that same personal sovereignty ace on other issues? Could you find yourself justified in defying vaccination and/or quarantine laws? Rebuke? Moi?

Not a quote from my post, so keep your fuck. As I said, I'm sympathetic to liberty arguments against almost everything mandatory: I require compelling societal reasons. In my view, the protection of children's lives qualifies as compelling.Similarly, I would not allow parents to pray their child to death in the face of an eminently treatable illness. Nor would I accept the substitution of leeches for antibiotics in such a case simply because, in their liberty-loving little hearts, the parents think that best.As I noted before, vaccine resisters, if their numbers continue to grow, will provoke a public response far harsher to liberty than any fines or restrictions on movement: just as soon as the bodies start piling up.The case of Typhoid Mary is instructive. She stoutly defended her right to continue working as a cook, even after several families who employed her developed typhoid. After being forcibly quarantined, she promised not to work as a cook, but soon returned to that job and promptly infected more people. She insisted she was in perfect health; she did admit she saw no reason to wash her hands while working.She spent the last few decades of her life in quarantine, after her fierce defense of her liberty killed a number of people and sickened many.I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I'm using it to illustrate what happens when reason and evidence cannot sway a "stubborn liberty" that threatens society.To the best of my knowledge, the recent outbreaks tied to vaccine refusal haven't resulted in any deaths here in the U.S. Soon enough, they will, and the public and institutional response will blow liberty concerns away like fog. Using the principles of individual liberty and civil disobedience to argue for the right to endanger public health cheapens those principles and puts them at risk when they are next used to protest and resist authentic threats to liberty.Defying the law is like sounding a trumpet: "Look here! Look here! This is madness!" In that way, civil disobedience is powerful and honorable. But reality must take precedence over a defiance which can marshal neither evidence nor reason for its insistence on a freedom to harm. I don't think you reasoned yourself into your position.

quote:

---

Nearly 9 million U.S. children are not fully vaccinated against measles and risk getting infected, researchers say in a new report. And unvaccinated U.S. travelers could carry the virus back home with them to infect others.

​

Two reports released this week measure the gaps in measles vaccine coverage and show how an outbreak like the Disneyland outbreak, in which around 150 people got infected, can happen.

​

"If the virus is introduced, there is the potential for large outbreaks," said Robert Bednarczyk of Emory University, who led the work on the study.

​

"This is because there are clusters of unvaccinated children in some communities, which could allow a large outbreak to occur with spread to similar communities."

​

Bednarczyk and colleagues used the National Immunization Survey to calculate that 12.5 percent of all U.S. children, or 8.7 million kids, are either unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated against measles. Almost a quarter of kids 3 years old or younger are undervaccinated, they found.

​

...

​

Measles was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, but a few imported cases come in every year. These can spread if people are not fully immunized. Globally, there are around 20 million cases and more than 145,000 children die of measles every year.

​

More than half the known U.S. importations of measles come not from foreign visitors, but from unvaccinated or undervaccinated U.S. travelers bringing the virus back, she said.
...

​

CDC
"Measles is one of the most contagious diseases in the world and even brief exposure can lead to infection," Hyle added.

---

An effective measles vaccination rate in the U.S. of 87.5 %; a highly contagious disease for which the herd immunity threshold is 92-95%.Wait for it.

Your subtitle is exactly what I had in mind.I started this thread in September 2014 based on a newspaper report about alarmingly low immunization rates in California; the California Disney measles outbreak was reported a few months later in December 2014. Sometimes the predictive power of science feels grim in the hand.Like then, we know what we have now: inadequate levels of immunity. Nationally.Everything else is just timing.