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

I don’t think the argument for bodily autonomy holds up here - the children have no choice one way or the other. The question is whether parents should have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their children.

People would vote out any party that wants to make decisions about what their child (or them) should be exposed to and when.

That would depend on what the decisions were wouldn't it? I wouldn't vote out a party that made vaccinations compulsory for those attending state nurseries and schools for example.

ChilledBee, I don’t (and haven’t) made absolute statements about eliminating risk. It’s incorrect to suggest so.

My argument is about reasonable and practicable reduction of risk. If we are going to be defeatist and say ‘people get colds anyway and die so we shouldn’t bother about them getting measles or whooping cough’ then yeah, sure, let’s just tell the kids whose immune systems are weakened that it’s all or nothing. We can’t eliminate the risk to them so we’re not going to bother trying to reduce it.

There are degrees of being immunocompromised and there are diseases which are of greater risk to the immunocompromised than others. We should be straining every nerve to make education as safe as we can for those kids.

I want to reduce the risk to those people. I also want to reduce the risk to healthy children who have been vaccinated because we all know vaccines aren’t 100% effective. And in a conflict of rights I come down in the space that those who don’t have a choice should have priority. It’s not an easy one, and I don’t feel great about it. But ethically I think that’s the least bad option.

The Human Rights Act would put a stop to any such proposal. This would not in my opinion prevent there being a requirement to be vaccinated to hold certain jobs, access to some premises, for a child to go on a school trip, or for it to be a condition of say joining the Brownies or Cubs.

‘the reality is that most people with measles stay at home’

Measles has an asymptomatic incubation period where you can infect people without knowing you have it.

The Human Rights Act would put a stop to any such proposal.

Considering it is already in place in many countries, obviously not!

We can still "bother" to reduce risk with health promotion around vaccines. We just can't ban children from schools based on whether or not they are vaccinated. Banning vaccines will make sceptics more sceptical.

Banning unvaccinated kids from school*

NRTFT, but this has been the law in the US since 1922 when the Supreme Court ruled that the government had a compelling interest in protecting the health of children and school staff:

www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/government-regulation

States set the specific rules but all allow waivers for medical reasons. As we've had more problems with disease outbreaks states have been removing other exemptions, like religious exemptions. If people really don't want to do it they can home school, which local school districts provide support for.

New York recently removed the religious exemption after a massive measles outbreak earlier this year. California did the same a few years ago. I think it's a perfectly reasonable balance between public heath needs and medical autonomy.

I am pro vaccine but I wouldn't support this.

Anti-vaxxers genuinely believe that vaccinations are very harmful. The right way to correct this is to teach them that this is not the case. It would take more than a few information leaflets, posters etc and I don't know the right way that it should be done but someone needs to be tasked with finding out.

Anti-vaxxers genuinely believe that vaccinations are very harmful. The right way to correct this is to teach them that this is not the case. It would take more than a few information leaflets, posters etc and I don't know the right way that it should be done but someone needs to be tasked with finding out.

There is already a lot of research about vaccine hesitancy. It's considered one of the top 10 global health threats.

The Many Faces of Vaccine Hesitancy

A lot of it comes down to how people assess different types of evidence, risks and basic human psychology. It also requires people accepting a tiny risk rather than just letting others assume the risk and free riding on the benefits.

This is worth a read:

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/childhood-inoculation-rates-are-falling-but-are-anti-vaccine-campaigns-really-to-blame-anti-vaxxers-measles-medicine-health

Made me slightly rethink my blanket condemnation of those who do not vaccinate. Only slightly, I still hate that Arnica group with a burning passion!

Out of curiosity - what’s it like trying to get a vaccine appointment where folks live?

Here it’s a pita. It’s a Thursday from 11-1 and 2.30-4.30. You also don’t get a choice of appointment time, when you ring and ask for it they tell you when. If it doesn’t suit you have to ring back again. So if you can’t do Thursdays easily (if it’s sign on day for example)!it’s a nightmare.

It’s the same with the flu vaccine. DH pays for it each year because they do one clinic
a week, during a couple of hours of a set day, and if you can’t go during that time there’s no leeway.

@MissConductUS

But that doesn't really help us get to a solution.

How about instead of compulsory vaccination, we start with a compulsory information session where parents can put forward their worries and they can be discussed openly and honestly.

Anti vaccination organisations should be allowed to be represented so the session can't be accussed of being propoganda. Along with scientists etc.

Dutch Reformed Church objects to vaccinations.
Is reason why there are regular mini-epidemics in the Netherlands.
Not related to abortion, something else to do with autonomy.

Some Amish & related groups, JWs historically, Christian Scientists and some Jewish groups also tended to decline. Romany are never given the chance is big reason for repeat outbreaks in Eastern Europe every yr.

Anti vaccination organisations should be allowed to be represented so the session can't be accussed of being propoganda. Along with scientists etc.

I think that very few healthcare professionals or scientists would sign up for a session with antivaxxers. Regardless who on earth would pay for all those people to attend what would amount to 1000s of meetings which probably wouldn't get anywhere anyway.

We just can't ban children from schools based on whether or not they are vaccinated. Banning vaccines will make sceptics more sceptical.

That hasn't happened in countries where they have introduced this. The sceptics presumably get their children vaccinated and stop being sceptical once its not an issue for them anymore.

Yes. If people want to access free education, they need to ensure their children are not a danger to others.

Anti vaccination organisations should be allowed to be represented so the session can't be accussed of being propoganda. Along with scientists etc.

They should be discussing this and any other medical issues with their GP or Pediatrician. Doctors are quite willing to discuss the risks. There is already too much misinformation about vaccination circulating without encouraging it.

@Woodchuck

They homeschool

Not a fan of the Tories, but this is a great idea that needs to be put into action..it's for the greater good.

To me, anti vaxxers are very similar to flat earthers. Sorry.

Lots of posters on here talking about making exceptions for children who ‘genuinely can’t’ have vaccinations.

But do we know, for definite, who these children are? I don’t recall any genetic or immunological tests being done on my Dd before her eight week jabs - or indeed any other of the vaccinations she has had - to ensure the vaccinations would be safe for her. It was a case of looking at the risks for the population as a whole, and hoping that meant her personal risk was commensurately tiny. In no way was there any tailored consideration of risk, based on any evidence personal to her.

Given how concerns about actual reactions to vaccinations are often poo-pooed by HCPs, according to posters on here, I can see why some parents would be hesitant.

Lots of posters on here talking about making exceptions for children who ‘genuinely can’t’ have vaccinations.

But do we know, for definite, who these children are?

We do know, based on their medical history, like immune system disorders, chemotherapy, egg allergies, etc. The contraindications are well defined and your HCP will know if your child has one.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/contraindications.html

But we don’t know that for eight weekers, do we? Which is when the vaccinations start.