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

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

They would only need to have the vaccinations before starting nursery or school.

My children have had seizures post immunisations. That doesn't mean I'm anti them, but I do way up pro and cons.

If it's about protecting the herd, which seems to be the main argument here, what next; forced blood "donations"?

No, I don't think prophylactic treatment (which is not free of risk) should be forced on anyone by the state; it's abhorrent and fascist. Don't people understand the concept of informed consent?

There is a lot of science fanboyism around vaccination. It's tribal virtue signalling. And the use of the term "anti-vaxxer" is used (in a similar way to "terf") to dismiss people as a homogeneous group of scientifically-illiterate Andrew Wakefield groupies. Regardless of the details of their opinion.

There are valid safety concerns, and not just about established risks.

E.g. vaccine safety trials don't use proper control substances (such as saline). They use either the carrier fluid of the same vaccine being tested, or another vaccine already on the market for the same disease (which will have the same or a similar carrier fluid in). So at no point is the safety of the carrier fluid being tested, only the antigen. That's bad science.

Especially when various carrier fluid ingredients are already known or theorised to be harmful.

And the way disease is recorded is neither consistent, nor accurate. E.g. ILI (influenza-like illnesses) made up 5 out of 6 cases of what was supposed to be flu (never mind which strain of flu, which is also relevant!) in one study. Similar applies to other diseases, i.e. when tested, it isn't always what was diagnosed. So how can one claim anything about the efficacy of vaccines, based on reduced prevalence, if a lot of the cases which were assumed to be e.g. measles, actually weren't?

I'm also concerned about the lack of informed consent that seems to be standard (though apparently people on this thread are fine with that, since they want to remove consent entirely anyway). E.g. vaccines are routinely given (especially in schools) without the parent having been given the Patient Information Leaflet (which says you are supposed to read it first) in advance.

It might be the lowest common denominator way to prevent disease in a population of varying status (nutrition, living conditions, pollution exposure etc). But that's a rather blunt instrument way of doing it, if there are other ways of preventing disease (or at least significant sequelae, which is the important bit) that have no downsides and other benefits.

Regardless of whether you think its a good idea in theory (personally, I think it’s a dreadful approach) it’s a staggeringly un Tory thing to do.

The Tory party were once about the autonomy of the individual and as non interventionist state as possible.

Now they seem to care about nothing other than making the mega rich richer.

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

The vaccines given to infants aren't live/attenuated virus formulations, so immune system status, which is at the base of most of the contraindications, isn't a concern. They've also been extensively tested and given to millions of children. If you had raised these concerns with your HCP that would have been explained to you.

I’m pro vaccination and anti compulsory vaccinations. I’m pro voting and anti compulsory voting.

It might be the lowest common denominator way to prevent disease in a population of varying status (nutrition, living conditions, pollution exposure etc). But that's a rather blunt instrument way of doing it, if there are other ways of preventing disease (or at least significant sequelae, which is the important bit) that have no downsides and other benefits.

What are these other approaches for preventing the spread of highly contagious airborne diseases like Pertussis and Measles that have no downsides and other benefits?

If you had raised these concerns with your HCP that would have been explained to you.

You miss the point. My own child is vaccinated. And I am well-educated enough to be able to weigh up the pros and cons to not need to hear a standard party line from a nurse to sway me in my decision making.

My point is that when parents decide whether to vaccinate, they do not have access to full/perfect information with regard to the individualised risk to their own child.. All that is available is the very broad-brush headline figures across populations of millions. Nobody tests your child’s genome to see if they are at particular risk for complications or adverse reactions to each particular vaccine. For example, I expect that most of the nearly 2,000 people who developed narcolepsy after having a particular brand of the swine flu vaccine had previously had other vaccinations without incident. Yet something about their genetics made them susceptible to damage caused by their immune response to the vaccine, in this particular instance. In similar vein, Leslie et al (2017) note an increased onset of certain neuropsychiatric disorders following various vaccines in a subset of individuals. They conclude that this warrants further investigation.

It could well be the case that a small proportion of the population is more genetically susceptible to vaccine damage than the rest. Currently, the science is just not there to prove or disprove this, or accurately identify which particular subset(s) may be vulnerable.

As somebody with a medical condition that affects approximately one in three hundred people, I can assure you that being told something is over 99% not likely to happen is a lot less reassuring than it used to be. That less than 1% chance (which I appreciate is way less than 1% at a population level for vaccination) has already happened. I’m now much less complacent about small risks than I was before.

Like I said, my own child is vaccinated. I took the small risk, on the basis that the vast majority of the population would be fine, and catching the diseases would likely be far worse, and crossed my fingers. Though I was wary given we have several auto-immune diseases in the family. But I can understand why others hesitate. And it is plain wrong to present the issue as though all the evidence is there, and we have full knowledge of who is at risk, because we simply don’t have that full knowledge right now. We can only present information on risk at a population level.

My point is that when parents decide whether to vaccinate, they do not have access to full/perfect information with regard to the individualised risk to their own child.

I don't think that this type of certainty regarding individual outcomes is currently possible so you have to make the decision based on whether or not on balance the child is better off with or without the immunization. Even if there were known genetic risk factors for adverse reactions doing that type of testing for millions of children would probably be considered a poor use of limited funding given the low level of population level risk.

‘Especially when various carrier fluid ingredients are already known or theorised to be harmful.’

Citations needed for this please.

You have no idea whether the vaccine you give your child will cause an immediate and severe allergic reaction. Even the 2nd dose of MMR could when the first one didn't.

My children are fully vaccinated and I will argue for vaccines and against scare mongering. But I think taking this stance will actually harden people against vaccines who are that way inclined. In London MMR rates are a little above 80% (which shocked me) so we would deny 20% of children to go to school because of their parents (stupid) choices?

So I’m a microbiology lecturer and spend a lot of time discussing the benefits of vaccinations with people. The biggest issue is the huge amount of misinformation on the internet that’s presented as fact I.e there’s no double blind placebo trials, there’s no appropriate controls etc. Adverse reactions could happen to a vaccine or to a strawberry. However, the rates of adverse reaction are much lower than the rates of contracting a life threatening infectious disease will be once we see herd immunity become abolished.

If it's about protecting the herd, which seems to be the main argument here, what next; forced blood "donations"?

Who do you think "the herd" are? It is anyone who is unvaccinated (or for who the vaccination was not fully effective) and that includes people who have decided not to give their children the vaccination
They aren't going to be forced. They just won't be able to attend state schools and that is as much for their own protection as anyone elses. You talk about the risk of vaccination but you don't seem to get the fact that there is a risk with not being vaccinated too and that will be a lot greater without the herd immunity which you are very selfishly relying on at the moment. If it is lost though do you think your children will thank you? Having had mumps (I am old!) which is probably the least severe of the diseases they vaccinate against, I very much doubt it.

Like I said, my own child is vaccinated. I took the small risk, on the basis that the vast majority of the population would be fine, and catching the diseases would likely be far worse, and crossed my fingers. Though I was wary given we have several auto-immune diseases in the family. But I can understand why others hesitate. And it is plain wrong to present the issue as though all the evidence is there, and we have full knowledge of who is at risk, because we simply don’t have that full knowledge right now. We can only present information on risk at a population level

Agree completely with this from start to finish.

You have no idea whether the vaccine you give your child will cause an immediate and severe allergic reaction. Even the 2nd dose of MMR could when the first one didn't.

We do know that the chances of an allergic reaction (which is treatable) are much rarer than the chances of serious disease in an unvaccinated person if herd immunity is lost though.

Yes but you're weighing up the chances of one's child having a potentially fatal reaction against the chance of someone else (a stranger) contracting the illness your child has got. Although myself and many others have gone on the side of the stranger, it is weird to put your child at risk for the good of a stranger who could more easily be killed by the cold they get from your child or someone else's.

And as hubby says, there is an evolutionary argument here which maybe isn't compassionate but it is how it works in other mammals.

In London MMR rates are a little above 80% (which shocked me) so we would deny 20% of children to go to school because of their parents (stupid) choices?

Considering the amount of children in independent schools in London, I bet a large proportion won't be effected anyway unless the independent school follows the ruling. Most of the rest will vaccinate as they have done in other countries which have introduced this. They will have to homeschool otherwise.

Yes but you're weighing up the chances of one's child having a potentially fatal reaction against the chance of someone else (a stranger) contracting the illness your child has got. Although myself and many others have gone on the side of the stranger, it is weird to put your child at risk for the good of a stranger who could more easily be killed by the cold they get from your child or someone else's.

Why do you think that the risk of disease will only be in other children?!! All unvaccinated children are at risk of serious life threatening disease if herd immunity is lost and the risk will be a lot higher than the risk of allergy.

And as hubby says, there is an evolutionary argument here which maybe isn't compassionate but it is how it works in other mammals.

Apart from the fact that is a really nasty comment, the same could be said for children who suffer severe allergic reactions to injections.

First forced vaccines, then forced birth control, then maybe forced sterilisation, ‘it’s for the good of the planet don’t you know’.

What about forced removal of 10% of kids from birth to train them up for the army or forced splitting of wealth and assets so no one is in poverty?

Children are the responsibility of their parents. I don’t the the government should be allowed to overstep this boundary regardless of views on vaccinations.

First forced vaccines, then forced birth control, then maybe forced sterilisation, ‘it’s for the good of the planet don’t you know’.

a) it's not forced as parents can home educate or send to an independent school
b) it's for the good of all unvaccinated children including those of antivaxxers.
c) so shall we stop making education compulsory for children anyway? I'm sure there are parents who wouldn't bother sending their children to school if they didn't have to and we don't want to overstep boundaries.

it's not forced as parents can home educate or send to an independent school

Only a select few have the money for independent school or the means to home educate.

Only a select few have the money for independent school or the means to home educate.

They have the option though and they obviously manage it other countries which have this in place.

The impact of mandates in European countries has been assessed by the EU-funded ASSET project which found no clear link between vaccine uptake and mandatory vaccination. The report, which has been cited by the European Commission in response to questions from Members of the European Parliament states: ‘The enforcement of mandatory vaccinations does not appear to be relevant in determining childhood immunisation rate in the analysed countries. Those [countries] where a vaccination is mandatory do not usually reach better coverage than neighbour or similar countries where there is no legal obligation.’

ASSET experts have also argued that while mandatory vaccination might fix a short-term problem, it is not a long-term solution. Better organisation of health systems and strong communication strategies may prove more effective. ‘Mandatory vaccinations for both healthcare workers and the public can obtain a rapid improvement in immunisation rates, but in the end, have high costs, especially in term of litigation,’ says Dr Darina O’Flanagan, previous Director of Health Protection Surveillance Centre Ireland and a member of the Advisory Forum of the European Centre for Disease Control 2005-2016.

This is echoed by the EU Commissioner with responsibility for health, Dr Vytenis Andriukaitis ‘The legitimate goal of achieving the highest possible immunisation rates can be attained through less stringent policies, and most Member States prefer the adoption of ‘recommendation policies’ or else a mix of obligation/recommendation policies,’ according to EU Commissioner.