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

They will have to find doctors willing to do this and whilst some will, it will account for a relatively small proportion and won't effect herd immunity.
If there is a demand, there will be a supply. Given that anti-vaxxers tend to be on the wealthy side, there will be medical practitioners willing to accept extra income. Just like with FGM, gender-selective abortions, or sex-change hormones.

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

It’s not just Sweden though is it? You’re dismissing dozens of countries with a huge range of healthcare and political systems. It struck me as rather a sweeping statement.

From the leaflet posted:

How do we know that vaccines are safe?

Before a vaccine is allowed to be used, its safety and effectiveness have to be thoroughly tested. After they have been licensed, the safety of vaccines continues to be monitored. Any rare side effects that are discovered can then be assessed further. All medicines can cause side effects, but vaccines are among the very safest. Research from around the world shows that immunisation is the safest way to protect your child’s health.

Safe is subjective. You need to say what could happen and I determine the safety. Not someone else.

Are some children allergic to vaccines?
^Very rarely, children can have an allergic reaction soon after immunisation. This may be a rash or itching affecting part or all of the body. The doctor or nurse giving the vaccine will know how to treat this. It is not a reason to withhold further immunisations. Even more rarely, children can have a severe reaction, within a few minutes of the immunisation, which causes breathing difficulties and can cause the child to collapse. This is called an anaphylactic reaction and occurs in only about one in a million immunisations. The people who give immunisations are trained to deal with anaphylactic reactions and children
recover completely with prompt treatment.^

What every single child recovers without incident? From ana anaphylactic reaction? Wow.

And you decide if any other symptoms of allergic reaction contraindicated further vaccination? Strange. I thought the person vaccinated/their legal guardian should decide if those side effects are worth the small contribution one person makes to herd immunity.

jasjas1973
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.

I wish I could upvote comments.
As for chaotic homes, I know women who have to work 3 or more jobs, and have trouble getting a Dr's appointment to fit in with their insane and irregular hours.

I don't think any other country has a comparable health care system to us. Even countries where the Average Joe gets better treatment than us in the UK often doesn't do very much for Far Less Than Average Joe. Our system treats everyone. At least the HCPs do anyway despite the Givernment trying to turn them into border control officers too.

They’d be better off approaching this whole situation from a different perspective.

Compulsory vaccinations and talk of herd immunity aren’t helping.
Whinging over the UK losing its measles free status isn’t helping.

What the government need to do is admit there is a problem and that confidence in vaccinations is low. They need to fund a lagger scale research study into the safety and efficiacy of vaccinations with government and independent experts and then present the information.

Hers immunity talk is alienating those in the anti vax community and causing resentment as they (like most of us I suppose if we are honest) have our own children’s interests first. They need to be informed that vaccines are safe and in the best of interest of their child. Herd immunity recovery will then come with time as confidence grows.

The measles free status thing just sounds likes embarrassment over losing some kind of award, the government need to do something proactive to regain that status.
A lot of parents feel threatened and will just withdraw with the current approach all you will end up with are home education forest schools full of unvaxxed children then a mass health crisis when those communities have outbreaks. They want to see new research and I think it’s time that was actually done.

*larger not lagger

It’s not just Sweden though is it? You’re dismissing dozens of countries with a huge range of healthcare and political systems. It struck me as rather a sweeping statement.
You must take regional thing into consideration. Different illnesses are more prevalent across different countries.
My personal opinion - not all the vaccines are necessary. Hep B or polio - yes. Annual flu shots? No, thank you. Meningitis B vaccine would be necessary - but for some reason, its pricey and not mandatory.

Ok. I find that quite a complacent view - we’re better than everyone else despite worse outcome on vaccination rates, and that all differing modes of universal healthcare can’t compare to ours - but accept we are in different places on that.

Safe is subjective. You need to say what could happen and I determine the safety. Not someone else.

Well then you need to look at further information. They provide links to organisations that will provide further information. If you can't be bothered or will still be unconvinced then I think you have demonstrated why providing information will not work with some people and the only thing to be done is prevent them from putting others in danger.

And yes, the vaccine damage scheme needs to be overhand doctors need to be told to stop the very aggressive denial of vaccine side effects. They readily discuss side effects for any other medications yest with vaccines you just can’t mention it and are told bluntly no it wasn’t the vaccine over and over this attitude causes defensive behaviour.

At the end of the day it’s like any other medication/treatment
Some will react badly to it
It could have side effects

Confidence needs to be restored.

*overhauled
I’m sore my phone has a mind of its own

woodchuck99

They are not ‘putting’ others in dangers. The danger is naturally occurring. There is no intent, other than to protect themselves from what they perceive to be a greater risk. They have the right to do that.

They are not ‘putting’ others in dangers. The danger is naturally occurring. There is no intent, other than to protect themselves from what they perceive to be a greater risk. They have the right to do that.

They are if the refusal to vaccinate leads to loss of herd community. They have the right to refuse the vaccination. They don't have the right to expose other people to an increased risk of getting disease.

They are if the refusal to vaccinate leads to loss of herd community. They have the right to refuse the vaccination. They don't have the right to expose other people to an increased risk of getting disease

They have the right to walk around in the world without being coerced into medical treatment, so, yes, they do.

They have the right to walk around in the world without being coerced into medical treatment, so, yes, they do.

What do you mean by "walk the world"?! You can't walk anywhere you want anyway.

Also what do you mean by "the right". People don't have the right to do whatever they want in this country. They have to follow the rules and if those state that people can't do something or go somewhere without a valid vaccination certificate then you choose to be vaccinated or not do the activity.

What do you mean by "walk the world"?! You can't walk anywhere you want anyway.

Go about their ordinary business. The park. The shops. School. Hospital. Because they are free people, not slaves, and the natural condition of their bodies isn’t a crime against others.

I am sick of this “herd immunity” argument. I sympathise with people whose bodies can’t tolerate illness. Fully. But it doesn’t make them lords over the rest of us.

woodchuck99

Laws have to be rooted in ethics. The long-time ethical consensus in the Western world is one of medical autonomy. For excellent reasons. I don’t want to see that overturned, you evidently do. We are in disagreement.

Think it's one of the only good ideas the tories have had. Well done them.

I’m pro-vaccine but something about this policy makes me uneasy.

First, children have an absolute right to education irrespective of their parents’ choices. We shouldn’t link a child’s rights to an adult’s choices.

Second, it seems to me that it risks disconnecting children who are potentially already vulnerable further from society.

Third, I think it will help these anti-vaxxers to see themselves as martyrs and moral crusaders. It will give them a ‘cause’, something to rally round.

Laws have to be rooted in ethics. The long-time ethical consensus in the Western world is one of medical autonomy. For excellent reasons. I don’t want to see that overturned, you evidently do. We are in disagreement.

I was making the point that you can't do whatever you want anyway. If the law states that you can or can't do something that's it. Not all laws are based on ethics so that is a naive statement. Regardless, I don't want to see the law changed to remove "medical autonomy" from individuals but that's not what is being suggested. People can still choose not to vaccinate.They just won't be able to use certain public services as a result.

Go about their ordinary business. The park. The shops. School. Hospital. Because they are free people, not slaves, and the natural condition of their bodies isn’t a crime against others.

Of those, the only place you can walk freely is the park and even then not if it is closed. You can't visit schools or shops or hospitals unless they choose to let you in.

I don't want to see the law changed to remove "medical autonomy" from individuals but that's not what is being suggested. People can still choose not to vaccinate.They just won't be able to use certain public services as a result.

So you want to coerce them. Goodbye autonomy over our own bodies. There is no ethical basis for what you are suggesting; you just don’t care.

I would 100% supper this policy. Call me selfish but I have a severely immunocompromised child that has spent far too long in hospital suffering because of shitty decisions from other people, those that don't immunise their kids and those that send their kids to school or go to work when they're sick.