Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Unvaccinated children shouldn't be allowed in mainstream childcare or school

146 replies

ApronSprings · Yesterday 21:42

To think children shouldn't be allowed in nurseries or schools if their parents refuse to vaccinate them..

I'm excluding children who medically can't have them for some reason, and this will be too rare to cause a problem, and they deserve the benefit of herd immunity.

But I'm growing tired of the nutcase conspiracy theorists who failed GCSE science but think they've somehow found something missed by experts.

The only argument against this is that it keeps them home with their quack parents and reduces the opportunity for them to be exposed to normal people. But I don't think we should risk other people's lives for it if their parents aren't willing to do the same.

OP posts:
ReplacingTheFilter · Today 00:11

Bunnyofhope · Today 00:08

I'd be fine with this happening. The parents would still have to educate their child and provide alternative child care arrangements. They would be willing to do this I'm sure, if they believed in their cause and if it all started to get a bit inconvenient, they could get the children vaccinated and access state provision.

It also makes the right to choose a privilege of the wealthy enough. Those inclined to home educate and not use preschool won't do so anyway. They also have the means to do that already, so it won't make any difference there.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · Today 00:12

Forgedsnak · Yesterday 23:45

@BePeachNewt ffs it’s a figure of speech to get across the idea of parental responsibility. I’m not trying to sell them on Vinted. If anyone is enslaved I think it’s me!

There are real cases in history where vaccines and other medicines have caused real harm to people. Not very often but it does happen, so as a parent, I am very happy with having the freedom to make an informed decision about anything that gets injected into my children.

You might see it as just a figure of speech. I see it as a fundamental misrepresentation of what parental responsibility means.

"Belongs to" denotes ownership. Ownership is about rights. Parental responsibility is - self evidently - about responsibilities.

Parents do not have absolute rights over their children. Where there is abuse or neglect etc, the state can intervene.

The children's rights should be considered as paramount. There are, of course, valid debates about what is in the children's best interests and who should make the final decision. But we should be clear that children do not actually belong to their parents, they are people in their own right. And they have rights which may sometimes need to take precedence over the preferences of their parents.

Scamworried · Today 00:19

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · Today 00:12

You might see it as just a figure of speech. I see it as a fundamental misrepresentation of what parental responsibility means.

"Belongs to" denotes ownership. Ownership is about rights. Parental responsibility is - self evidently - about responsibilities.

Parents do not have absolute rights over their children. Where there is abuse or neglect etc, the state can intervene.

The children's rights should be considered as paramount. There are, of course, valid debates about what is in the children's best interests and who should make the final decision. But we should be clear that children do not actually belong to their parents, they are people in their own right. And they have rights which may sometimes need to take precedence over the preferences of their parents.

It is a danger move to give the government power to make decisions that would normally be parental.
Imagine how that could be misused. D
Would you be happy with the government insisting vegetarian households must cook meat and make sure their children eat it? Or that girls must wear pink clothes have waist length hair in 2 braids and wear head coverings outside of the home. Boys must have short hair but not shorter than a grade 8 at the sides. They must only wear blue.

Removing parental choice is a downward slope and no one wants where that heads

Skippydoodle · Today 00:20

Alwaystired23 · Yesterday 21:58

Wouldn't the vaccinated children be protected?

This. Ah, but then we can’t bash the naysayers 🤣🤣

Greenmouldycheese · Today 00:26

You would punish children for their parents decisions? Do you have chikdren of your own? I struggle to understand how a parent could want to punish an innocent child.

The bitterness that some people have on here always shocks me.

HumphreyCushionintheHouse · Today 00:28

Alwaystired23 · Yesterday 21:58

Wouldn't the vaccinated children be protected?

The vaccines do work, but they don’t guarantee 100% protection. So some vaccinated children may pick up the disease. Also, some children and adults with chronic conditions can’t be vaccinated and rely on herd immunity. My little boy was one such child.

BePeachNewt · Today 00:36

Forgedsnak · Yesterday 23:45

@BePeachNewt ffs it’s a figure of speech to get across the idea of parental responsibility. I’m not trying to sell them on Vinted. If anyone is enslaved I think it’s me!

There are real cases in history where vaccines and other medicines have caused real harm to people. Not very often but it does happen, so as a parent, I am very happy with having the freedom to make an informed decision about anything that gets injected into my children.

Linguistic choices are telling. No human belongs to another and the fact that you use that language with regards to your children is highly revealing, no matter what you say.

The risk of vaccine injury from any approved vaccine is so minuscule as to be statistically insignificant. The risk of severe harm from contracting any of the diseases that vaccines seek to prevent is anything but statistically insignificant.

Take measles - approximately two people out of every million who receive the measles vaccine suffer serious harm or injury. By contrast, one out of every five unvaccinated people who contract measles suffer serious illness requiring hospitalisation. One in twenty develop pneumonia. One in a thousand die.

You are not making an ‘informed decision.’ You are actually just being incredibly selfish, relying on other, more responsible parents to protect your child by vaccinating their own children - hopefully in sufficient numbers to generate herd immunity and prevent the harmful pathogens your child has no protection against from circulating.

As more and more parents, like yourself, make the selfish (and statistically illiterate) decision not to vaccinate your children, there will be more and more outbreaks of measles, mumps, polio etc and children like yours will suffer serious harm on a regular basis (like the 50% of children who didn’t reach adulthood before modern medicine). I imagine your evaluation of that 2 in a million risk will look rather different at that point.

whattheflipperdipper · Today 00:37

I have a friend that doesn’t believe in western medicine. She opts for an alternative. She is vegan and kids are veggies and they are literally always sick with something. I don’t comment on her beliefs or get drawn into her chat about it. I don’t agree with her either. What annoys me is the superior attitude but I just choose to ignore it. Her choice I guess.

BePeachNewt · Today 00:44

LivelyGreyShark · Yesterday 23:36

I think there's a huge difference between encouraging vaccination and denying a child access to education because of a decision made by their parents.

Vaccines are an important public health measure, but they're not 100% effective, and vaccination status alone doesn't tell you whether a child is infectious or poses a risk to others. There are also children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, and families with genuine concerns who deserve respectful discussion rather than being dismissed as idiots.

We already have public health procedures for managing infectious disease outbreaks, including temporary exclusion where necessary. That's very different from a blanket ban on otherwise healthy children attending school.

And surely we should consider the consequences for the children themselves? Denying them education, friendships and social development because of their parents' decisions seems an extraordinarily disproportionate response.

You can strongly support vaccination without supporting the exclusion of children from mainstream education. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

I don’t think they’re idiots - well, not all of them. First and foremost, I think they’re selfish. They are free riders, relying on the majority of parents to vaccinate their children so that their own unvaccinated children are protected via herd immunity.

Derbee · Today 00:45

curious79 · Yesterday 22:38

Amazing how parents of vaccinated children are still so worried about their children catching diseases (that they’ve been vaccinated against) from unvaccinated children. Do you see the irony?

This is the kind of stupidity that is rife amongst antivaxers. People aren’t concerned about their vaccinated children catching diseases. People are concerned about arseholes not vaccinating their children, and those who are immunocompromised and unable to be vaccinated no longer being protected by herd immunity, because ignorant selfish parents have made their child a risk.

Likewise, adults who have immunity waning as they age (against mumps for example) are at risk of totally preventable diseases because children are being offered as disease incubators by their parents who will not vaccinate them, when they can.

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · Today 00:47

Scamworried · Today 00:19

It is a danger move to give the government power to make decisions that would normally be parental.
Imagine how that could be misused. D
Would you be happy with the government insisting vegetarian households must cook meat and make sure their children eat it? Or that girls must wear pink clothes have waist length hair in 2 braids and wear head coverings outside of the home. Boys must have short hair but not shorter than a grade 8 at the sides. They must only wear blue.

Removing parental choice is a downward slope and no one wants where that heads

Of course, it will always be a balancing act, and nobody is advocating that parental choice should be removed where this is not strictly necessary.

But I still think it's important for us to be clear that children are not the possessions of their parents, and that they have rights which may sometimes trump parental choice.

Newname26 · Today 00:47

Worriedallthetime123 · Yesterday 23:20

I know it’s not the point of the thread but that statistic around home births is only for first time mums, for second time it’s 12% not 50%.

I read it on a coroners inquest into a homebirth death.
In the time between the death and the inquest, they had 34 requests, approved 29 and of those 29 50% ended up with transfer to hospital.

GrumpyPanda · Today 00:47

Alwaystired23 · Yesterday 21:58

Wouldn't the vaccinated children be protected?

No vaccine is fool-proof, and some illnesses are incredibly contagious. In the case of measles, herd immunity only works if at least 95 percent of a community are vaccinated. Some can't be because they're immunocompromised or too young so the loonies with a belief exemption end up endangering the entire community as has been happening in America over the last two years.

BePeachNewt · Today 00:48

ReplacingTheFilter · Yesterday 23:11

I had mumps twice (once on each side), as did my husband and all my peers. It was just considered routine for us.

Yes, it was considered routine. As was mumps-induced hearing loss.

BePeachNewt · Today 00:53

curious79 · Yesterday 22:38

Amazing how parents of vaccinated children are still so worried about their children catching diseases (that they’ve been vaccinated against) from unvaccinated children. Do you see the irony?

It takes a special kind of idiocy to speak with such confidence about things you know nothing about.

I’m not worried about my vaccinated kids catching diseases from your unvaccinated superspreaders. I’m worried about babies too young to have received their vaccines and immunocompromised folks - cancer patients, transplant recipients etc.

When vaccination rates remain above 95%, herd immunity kicks in ensuring that these diseases cannot circulate and thus babies who have not yet been vaccinated, immunocompromised people and the unvaccinated children of idiots like yourself remain protected. But when it drops below 95%, the pathogens can find enough hosts to circulate, placing everyone who doesn’t have antibodies and a functioning immune system at risk.

Secretseverywhere · Today 00:54

Other countries do this and it seems to work fine. The only thing I would say that there has to be a system where children can catch up. I moved to a country which had mandatory vaccines and DS hadn’t had one as it wasnt on the vaccine schedule in U.K. at that time but is now. He couldn’t have it late and was a right faff getting exemption so he could go to nursery.

Goldencoast2 · Today 01:10

ApronSprings · Yesterday 21:53

The alternative is that we punish children (with their lives) for other people's parent's choices.

This is exactly right. Placing the burden here also has the potential benefit of persuading parents who may not be quite that committed to actually vaccinate their kids. If there are no negative consequences of not doing so, they’ll never do it.

SpiderInMyShoe · Today 01:20

@Forgedsnak

There are real cases in history where vaccines and other medicines have caused real harm to people. Not very often but it does happen, so as a parent, I am very happy with having the freedom to make an informed decision about anything that gets injected into my children.

There are real cases in history where diseases have caused widespread harm and death to people. It happens often on a micro level and occasionally on a macro (pandemic) level, where millions across the globe are killed. As a parent, I am very happy there are vaccinations available against these diseases, to protect not only my children but children who are young, sick or vulnerable. As an immunocompromised person myself, I am also grateful for the choices people around me make.

Nowstrong · Today 01:39

I find this an interesting subject, so looked it up. I live in France :
In France, the vaccines required for a child to attend school depend on the child's date of birth. The rules below reflect the official French government guidance in force in October 2026.
Mandatory vaccines for school attendance
Children born before 1 January 2018
Only the following vaccinations are generally mandatory for school admission:
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Polio
Children born between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022
The following vaccinations are mandatory:
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Polio
Whooping cough (pertussis)
Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)
Hepatitis B
Pneumococcal infections
Meningococcal C
Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)
Children born on or after 1 January 2023
The mandatory vaccinations are:
Diphtheria
Tetanus
Polio
Whooping cough
Hib
Hepatitis B
Pneumococcal infections
Meningococcal groups A, B, C, W and Y
Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)
These requirements are subject to recognized medical contraindications.

Nearly50omg · Today 01:52

Alwaystired23 · Yesterday 21:58

Wouldn't the vaccinated children be protected?

No because the vaccines aren’t a cure and don’t actually protect the single child from anything. Hence the whole “herd”
immunity

LimeSqueezer · Today 01:58

Children who are a danger to others get excluded from schools, even when it is through no fault of their own, such as SEN (which can occasionally result from parental choices, like heavy drinking during pregnancy). These children are excluded because the other children have rights, too. Parental preferences do not trump the rights of other children to a safe education, and vaccinated children pose a lethal danger to their classmates.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page