UK lost measles free status

[Stressedout10]

So due to all the anti Vaxers the WHO have stripped us of our measles free status.
What next ?

I am glad status has been taken away maybe it make anti backers not feel so secure.

I think the vaccine question is more akin to organ donation than anything.
People refuse to donate their organs, causing other perfectly innocent people to die. There isn’t even any risk to the organ donor, because they’re dead already.
People refuse to vaccinate, causing other perfectly innocent people to have a higher risk of dying. Vaccines have minimal risk to the person (it’s in the millionths).

Yet, we do not force people to donate organs when they die.

But what we did do is switch from opting in to donate organs to opting out if you don’t want to. We should do that in UK. The vaccines should be done in school and parents have to opt out in writing if they do not want it done. Switching from opting in to opting out will increase compliance because a chunk of people are simply too lazy to take any action one way or the other.

Well that’s exactly my point, they present a risk to the immunocompromised without necessarily being at a high level of risk themselves. The chances are that their healthy child is in less danger due to everyone else contributing to herd immunity. If they get the disease they are statistically more likely to fully recover. It’s the most vulnerable who stand to lose their lives when herd immunity is reduced.

I see. But they are still not benefiting from the immunity of others. They are just not as much at risk.

‘I see. But they are still not benefiting from the immunity of others. They are just not as much at risk.’

Yes they are. If vaccination coverage is high enough then there is less chance of the disease circulating meaning less chance for an unvaccinated person to catch it. I.e. benefitting from herd immunity without contributing to it.

If vaccination coverage is high enough then there is less chance of the disease circulating meaning less chance for an unvaccinated person to catch it. I.e. benefitting from herd immunity without contributing to it.

I didn’t see it that way but yes, I suppose they are. But again, if everyone else suddenly decided not to immunise, that would be their right.

hercule but if our own fear of harm is based on ignorance, should we really have the right to risk real harm to others?

Say I do some bizarre pseudo scientific research into nutrition, studying children from countries where famine and malnutrition cause death and lasting complications. And with my dubious research skills I notice none of those children ate kp salted peanuts every lunchtime. So in my fuckwittery I draw the conclusion that salted peanuts at lunch are essential to nutrition and life. Would I really have any right morally, and should I have any right legally, to insist my child can eat them regardless of the real, medical risk to the classmate with a serious peanut allergy?

"But they are still not benefiting from the immunity of others. They are just not as much at risk."

Risk of death. Just so you know the risk to others that you are being so casual about. Your foolishness is putting me at risk of death. Thanks.

@isadora2007

Because the vaccine isn't designed to fully protect you from measles. Measles doesn't kill its the complications arising from measles that kills. Its those complications that the vaccine is designed to stop happening.

As my childs paediatrician explained to me.

my kids only had one mmr jab due their age.. You have to have two mmr jabs to get the full benefit of the mmr jab.

Risk of death. Just so you know the risk to others that you are being so casual about. Your foolishness is putting me at risk of death. Thanks.

Well, actually, it isn’t. My child is vaccinated. But if I thought a vaccine presented a significant risk, then, yes, it would be.

Would I really have any right morally, and should I have any right legally, to insist my child can eat them regardless of the real, medical risk to the classmate with a serious peanut allergy?

No, but then I wouldn’t have the right to send my child to school with measles either. You have to differentiate between an unvaccinated child and a sick child. One is an indirect threat because they might contract it, but they are only doing what they are entitled to do in refusing medical treatment. The other is an actual threat, and of course I don’t think they should be allowed to wander round at school.

This would be more like suggesting we all permanently swore off nuts.

Obviously as a parent I will make decisions for my child that are in their best interests.

I’m surprised anybody would do otherwise.

But again, if everyone else suddenly decided not to immunise, that would be their right.

It shouldn't be. People shouldn't have the right to endanger the lives of other people because of their own completely unfounded and easily disprovable beliefs.

And if we are wary of making laws to inhibit that right because we worry that it would compromise the right to bodily autonomy, then we should inhibit it in other ways - by making it so financially and socially prohibitive to be an antivaxxer that the cost is too high to them. I want to force antivaxxers into vaccinating their kids by ensuring that if they don't, the financial burden is weighty, the social cost (to them, not their children) is vast, and the inconvenience enormous.

The trouble is, antivaxxers are people who don't see the danger to the lives of their own children and those of other people as a sufficient incentive to compromise their beliefs, so it's difficult to impose any sanction which will make a difference. But I think a lot of people stop standing on their soap bucket when they face financial penalties for it, so that's the route I would go down. That and mandatory, science-based parenting courses that must be completed every six months for as long as the kids remain unvaccinated.

. I want to force antivaxxers into vaccinating their kids by ensuring that if they don't, the financial burden is weighty, the social cost (to them, not their children) is vast, and the inconvenience enormous.

You have no right to coerce people into accepting medical treatment.

We should do that in UK. The vaccines should be done in school and parents have to opt out in writing if they do not want it done. Switching from opting in to opting out will increase compliance because a chunk of people are simply too lazy to take any action one way or the other

Agree. I had my rubella vaccine in school anyway when I was 12. DS had his meningitis jab in school and I think the girls also have their HPV vaccine in school? But I guess people will say 4/5 is too late for MMR and the others. But it would be a solution as a catch-up.

Switching from opting in to opting out will increase compliance because a chunk of people are simply too lazy to take any action one way or the other

People don’t choose not to vaccinate their children on a whim. This would make a negligible difference.

I don't like paying taxes. It harms my bank balance and my freedom to spend my hard earned money as I wish. Can I opt out of that too?

I don't like paying taxes. It harms my bank balance and my freedom to spend my hard earned money as I wish. Can I opt out of that too?

Why do you think this is the same?

Because it's as much about social responsibility as my personal liability.

I’m not sure that’s true. If their child is going to present a risk to the immuno-compromised, it will be because they haven’t reaped the benefits, won’t it?

Sophistry!

*I know, I know - you've had your kid "done" and you're playing Devil's Advocate

@noseynelly - I really would look into that if I were you. Merck who have the patent for it, stopped manufacture in 2009. So I don't know what vaccine your son had but it's very unlikely to be the mumps vaccine

You have no right to coerce people into accepting medical treatment.

We aren't talking about people who have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. We are talking about children, who lack that capacity and rely on other people to make the decision for them.

And if a parent wants to make choices for their child which risks their life, health and well-being, I have no problem with the state introducing measures that mean that if that parent choses to do so, they will face penalties.

I will always prioritise the right of a child to not get deadly diseases over the right of a parent to make choices which harm their children.

I want to force antivaxxers into vaccinating their kids by ensuring that if they don't, the financial burden is weighty, the social cost (to them, not their children) is vast, and the inconvenience enormous

Get your own children vaccinated and keep your nose out of other parents' decisions.

Get your own children vaccinated and keep your nose out of other parents' decisions.

And while we're at it let's get rid of social services. After all, it's a parent's decision whether they feed, clothe and shelter their child and everyone else should just keep their nose out of other parents' decisions.

Because it's as much about social responsibility as my personal liability.

There is an element of social responsibility in it, but it is overridden by the law, underpinned by the clear ethical case for bodily autonomy. Taking medicine incurs risk. You can’t force someone to accept that risk without compromising their liberty.