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 ?

Bellini, would you think that only people who pay tax should be able to access services funded by the state? You can't reasonably deny the children of anti vaxers their right to state education etc because their parents haven't opted in to what the state prefers. And anti vaxers pay tax too so doubly unfair to prohibit them from using services they are paying for.

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

Playing Devil’s Advocate means arguing a case you don’t really believe in. I do believe in it. I chose to vaccinate my child, and believe I had the right to choose not to.

To someone who can’t have immunisations, the loss of herd immunity is an actual threat. You could change it to a sensible y6 eating peanuts on the second sitting with the allergic child in reception on the first sitting. That would only be an indirect threat.

But regardless the theory is the same, the presumption an imaginary threat should take precedence over a real threat.

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

I disagree. I was unhappy about MMR because my son was too small at 15 months old to tell me if he felt unwell after it. I'd have been much happier if it had been done in his first term at school when he was nearly 5. He did have the MMR at infant school. I think a lot of people would be happier about it at 3 or 5. However, as I said in my post further up, the rates in the UK are recovering anyway, a lot of the measles cases have been caused by external factors, not least, as I also said, the crash in immunisation rates in the Ukraine due to the war, although they have also recovered to a great extent.

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.

But the parent gets to make that choice as the law stands. We do have bodily autonomy and, while a child can’t make the choice for themselves, the choice belongs to their parents. The State doesn’t make choices for children.

I know someone who says her DC don’t need vaccinated because they were breast fed 🙄

I chose to vaccinate my child, and believe I had the right to choose not to Absolutely.

But regardless the theory is the same, the presumption an imaginary threat should take precedence over a real threat

You don’t get to tell people that their healthcare concerns are imaginary. They get to tell you what they will or will not accept.

It's not about what the state prefers, it's about what is good for society. Like driving when drunk. Or, less dramatically, pissing in people's gardens - for those who think there are no victims in failure to vaccinate.

It's not about what the state prefers, it's about what is good for society. Like driving when drunk. Or, less dramatically, pissing in people's gardens - for those who think there are no victims in failure to vaccinate

There seems to be no point in arguing with someone with such a starkly utilitarian outlook.

Just answer me this: if the Government told you you had to put a substance in your child’s body that you believed might seriously harm them, would you do it just because you were told to?

Parents are in charge of making decisions for their own children and it would be very dangerous to go down the route of the state overriding that as it sees fit. What happens when the state wants to teach your child things that you don't agree with? It's a parent's responsibility to assess risk and make choices accordingly. Sometimes those choices won't be in line with the majority but our children are ours and not property of the state!
Your PR should not be dependent on the opinions of whoever is in govt at any given time. The state should only intervene in cases of abuse - not vaccinating a child is not abusive.

But I don't believe it will seriously harm them. Because I am not a flat earther.

Except in rare cases it has, bellini

According to WHO measles is now endemic in France, Germany and Italy. The origin of most of the UK outbreaks has been people contracting it abroad and bringing it home. Very difficult to keep it out of the UK under these circs if, as recent University outbreaks seem to indicate, the vaccine wears off.

This will only now be coming to light as pre-vaccines most adults would be immune due to frequent exposure top-ups.

However exposing immunocompromised people like me to measles because herd immunity has been ruined- that's an actual risk.

Sorry I'm talking about mumps, not measles! So I guess your child isn't vaccinated against mumps then

But I don't believe it will seriously harm them. Because I am not a flat earther.

That isn’t what I asked you.

@continuallychargingmyphone children die in car crashes on a much larger scale. Should we all keep kids away from and out of cars.

I would be interested to know (and sorry if it has been posted because ihaven't had time to read it all) how much though is actually due to people not being vaccinated deliberately and how much is due to immigration and people not havin been vaccinated in their home country before coming over? do immigrants get vaccinated when they arrive? I have no idea how that works. could it include adults who have caught measles and this has made a little outbreak into a bigger one? not sure if I have made that clear. or if children have been born abroad and come over here past the age of immunisations here?

one of mine had measles as a baby before old enough for MMR but mine have been vaccinated for everything so far.

You would do something you thought would harm your child, on the off chance that, by not doing it, harm would indirectly come to someone else’s? I salute your belief that you would, but I am not sure it would pass the test of actuality.

But that is based on a belief that vaccine will (not might) harm your child. What is your evidence for that?

Your use of the terms "off-chance" and "indirectly" is highly selective and misleading. The fact is that if your unvaccinated child catches measles, there will be a period when they are infectious before you can take any steps to quarantine them. Unless you live like hermits, there is actually rather a strong chance that, during that period, your child will spread the infection directly to, for instance, young babies who have not yet been vaccinated and other immuno-compromised people.

As for not passing the "test of actuality": given the high take-up of vaccinations, obviously you are mistaken.

But the parent gets to make that choice as the law stands. We do have bodily autonomy and, while a child can’t make the choice for themselves, the choice belongs to their parents. The State doesn’t make choices for children.

The state makes choices for children all the time. There are a hundred different ways in which the law mandates that parents must make certain decisions for their children.

I accept that you consider the principle of bodily autonomy to be of the highest order. But what we are actually discussing here is someone else's bodily autonomy. I therefore don't believe the principle of bodily autonomy is compromised by a legal requirement to vaccinate children. Furthermore, as I have said, it doesn't need to become illegal to vaccinate children. We just need to introduce sanctions for those who chose not to do so. For parents who really, truly believe that vaccinations are harmful, they can pay the price for that. We don't need to facilitate their harmful treatment of their children by making the process sanction-free.

Yes and no bellini

Of course, I don’t keep my children out of cars. But I used appropriate car seats that were of a high standard, adhere to speed limits, don’t drive when tired etc. Risk management if you like.

Vaccinations carry a risk. So do diseases. As a parent, my job is to decide which is the greater risk. In the overwhelming number of cases that is the disease, hence they are vaccinated for most offered.

As for not passing the "test of actuality": given the high take-up of vaccinations, obviously you are mistaken.

I am asking whether you would actually do something you thought would harm you child. I don’t need evidence that the MMR does; I don’t think it does.

I accept that you consider the principle of bodily autonomy to be of the highest order. But what we are actually discussing here is someone else's bodily autonomy

No, no, no. You can’t protect yourself by forcing medical interventions on others. That isn’t autonomy. If someone is harmed because I exercised my right to decide what I put in my body, that is tragic, but autonomy is the right to make decisions about things that affect you, in your own sphere. Not to extend your own sphere to everyone else and tell them they have to do things that protect you.

The State doesn’t make choices for children.

Clearly it does, hence the requirement for children to receive full time education and the entire child protection system.