Or are compulsory vaccines the best political policy the Tories have ever come up with?

[HollyGoLoudly1]

In the news today, Tory health secretary is investigating compulsory vaccinations for school children.

Before I don my hard hat, for background I have a close family member who is immunocompromised. He has had multiple hospital admissions over the years for simple viruses and other illnesses that most of us wouldn't even need to stay off work for. If he catches something like measles it could be fatal.

To be honest, even disregarding this family member, I am very, very pro-vaccine and would support this policy no matter what. Even if it is from the Tories (who I definitely do not support).

puts on hard hat

Those countries with better vaccination rates have health care systems and political ideologies that I wouldn't want to adopt so their tactics are meaningless to me.

iolaus
**
Also is this all vaccines and whenever they suggest extra should be given

When there was a measles outbreak in south wales my youngest was in the age group who they recommended had an extra dose (basically he had had the first but wasn't old enough for the second) - then I found out that he would need a third at the same time as the second should have been because 'they are spaced that far apart for a reason to ensure effectiveness' - so in which case why have the extra in the middle?

I'm a HCP. I went on an immunisation study day update last week
To answer your question about that extra MMR dose, during an outbreak, it's because a booster ( in the absence of two doses appropriately, distanced) confers a short term immunity and therefore protection in an outbreak. ( it lasts 6 months). BUT, if not appropriately distanced 2 doses do not confer immunity, therefore the need for the 2nd dose at 3 years +.

Equally, if one was to take their baby abroad to a country, ( or even on a plane, say), you can get the MMR from 6 months of age, but they would still need their 13 month and 3 year doses.
Does that make sense?
Sorry bold fail, am on phone.

‘You are not being forced to refrain from a harmful action, but to undergo a potentially harmful treatment’

The potential for harm to an individual from vaccination is tiny compared to the risk to others when preventable diseases take hold. Believing anything else is based on misinformation and I don’t see why immunocompromised people should be put in danger in order to protect such people’s perceived rights.

All laws restrict your freedom of choice to a certain extent but they are necessary for a safe society.

The drop in vaccine take up has gone hand in hand with cuts in community healthcare.

Its then a bit rich to then have compulsory vaccination programmes.

Tiny is a subjective assessment. You have to consider the severity of the outcome first. There are plenty of things I won't do as a mother because although I may have done them before and the vast majority of people engage without incident, the potential outcome if it were to go badly is too severe.

Whereas someone else who is equally as intelligent and responsible as myself might focus on the fact that it rarely goes badly.

The potential for harm to an individual from vaccination is tiny compared to the risk to others when preventable diseases take hold. Believing anything else is based on misinformation and I don’t see why immunocompromised people should be put in danger in order to protect such people’s perceived rights.

You need to separate the issue of protecting immunocompromised people from my right to make decisions about my healthcare (and by extension, to make those decisions for my children). They are separate issues.

1. Do immunocompromised people have the right to insist that I accept healthcare interventions to protect them?

2. Do I have the right to make the decision about whether I (and by extension, my child) would prefer the risks of vaccination to the risk of catching a common illness?

I would argue the answers are very obvious for both. It’s only when you (inappropriately) start putting the moral responsibility on my children to protect other children using their bodies that you see the unethical arguments for compulsion start to stack up.

So, bottom line: it is heartbreaking that some children cannot be vaccinated against common diseases. It isn’t my child’s responsibility.

AndNoneForGretchenWieners

I do support the idea in principle, but it does worry me that people who lead chaotic lives or are abusive to their children are more likely to ignore immunisation programmes, and their children would then be denied an education, which could also mean they don't have a safe place to escape to during the day. A lot more needs to be done before this could be implemented.

This in spades ^^

Education should be a right every child has no matter what, not wielded as a tool. Just for the record I am pro vaccine but I am also pro-education and pro-choice.

Those countries with better vaccination rates have health care systems and political ideologies that I wouldn't want to adopt so their tactics are meaningless to me.

All of them? Sweden through to China and all in between?

And my bottom line is: it is heartbreaking that some children can't be vaccinated and I'm happy for us to assume the relatively small risk of adverse reaction to contribute towards herd immunity.

Just different schools of thought philosophically speaking.

‘Tiny is a subjective assessment.’

No it isn’t. It is a quantifiable amount. 1 per million of those vaccinated will experience a serious adverse event. That’s highly preferable to the 1 per 1000 who will die from measles.

ChilledBee

You need to change that to YOU are happy to assume the risk. You don’t get to decide how much risk MY child needs to assume. That’s my job.

‘You need to separate the issue of protecting immunocompromised people from my right to make decisions about my healthcare’

I can’t do that when your choice to not vaccinate might kill an immunocompromised person.

@JassyRadlett

Yes, mostly. I know that people think Scandinavia is a utopia but there's history there that affects politics today. I think the only reason this has even been considered as much as it has right now is because you can get away with it in this progressively right wing climate. Before it would have crossed too far into limiting personal autonomy to be aired with any real conviction.

JenniR29

So your basic assumptions about my bodily sovereignty are unethical ones, and that places us in conflict. Oh well.

What have they actually tried though? Because in going through the system with my kids I haven't seen a single change. Other than HCP's getting more snotty with people for being dubious.

There are lots of patient information leaflets.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/796664/Immunisations_for_Preschool_children_A5_2019_.pdf

I am pro vaccine, but I don't think the tories should open the door of people not having autonomy over their own bodies.
The only school aged vaccines as far as I'm aware are when they're a teenager, in which case they should have control over their bodies.
Again, pro-vaccine but I don't think this is the way forward.

I can’t do that when your choice to not vaccinate might kill an immunocompromised person

And your forcing my child to be vaccinated might leave them with a life long disability.

In the end, that's the conflict. And I've said on here a million times that one can virtue signal about social responsibility all one likes, but in the end, if your child is the one with nasty side effects, nobody is going to help you.

However, it really should not be this difficult to get the facts to people. As others have said stop patronising those who are nervous and telling them they are stupid and irresponsible etc. What it needs to straight forward facts, for example:

These are the side effects of rubella. They occur in x% of cases.

These are the side effects of the rubella vaccine. They occur in y% of cases.

The x number should be quite high and the y figure quite low, and that should be the decider.

You won't persuade people by the herd immunity argument (and there are far fewer immune-suppressed people than MNer claim - eg my mum is 80 but just because she is elderly does not make her immune suppressed, she isn't, and my father wasn't, either). You will persuade people about the risks for their own children.

There are lots of patient information leaflets.

There has always been the odd leaflet. You said they'd tried - that's not trying. That's continuing with the same failing tactic and wondering why it fails (especially in a time where parents have less access to services).

Massive subject and very controversial. We are not the only country in Europe considering this for obvious reasons. I heard part of the discussion. Immunocompromised children would be exempt ( and protected by the herd immunity) and there would be allowance for "conscientious objectors" ( Very controversial) The bulk of the families they aim to picj up are those who havent bothered ar havent got round to it, and just havent done it for no good reason

Its apparently about 1 in 5000 for UK.

@seaweedandmarchingbands

By "us", I meant me and my children. Not everyone.

I totally agree with you, I think it should definitely be compulsory!

It will never happen.

ChilledBee

Oh right, sorry. And I made the same decision. My child is vaccinated. I think the risk is minimal.