I don’t think the right question is “should vaccines be optional?” I think it’s “to what extent should public and private institutions be expected to accommodate people who, for no other reason than ignorance, choose to opt out of the collective responsibility to public health?”
Am I allowed, as a business owner, to pass on an antivax candidate? Am I, as a school administrator, permitted to keep an unvaccinated child from my school system?
Vaccines were always optional in the sense nobody ties you down and makes you take them, and certainly all requirements have exceptions for people with, i.e, immune system issues.
To clarify, this is about forcing schools to default admit kids who aren't vaccinated, instead of having a waiver process. All these vaccines are already optional and have been for decades, and schools currently make judgement calls on a case by case basis about admitting kids who don't have them (due to medical or religious reasons, and taking into account current population disease burden). The article body clarifies this, but the headline is buying into a framing that is not honest.
I have a hot take that MAHA is a modern eugenics movement; that prioritizes access to the Free Market as a provider of good health and relies on Darwinian outcomes for the population at large. Everything's about avoiding autism ("feeblemindedness" anyone?), perceived physical weakness (never mind the gender-related overtones), and collective responsibility (maybe your Mom didn't eat enough of the new food pyramid, so now you're more likely to get polio, or something). There are some rather profane conclusions to be made from this belief system.
A former academic supervisor mused it could be good for a society to see the return of diseases causing lifelong disfigurement and disability just to remind people to get vaccinated.
Personally I don't think it needs to go that far, and it's a situation entirely preventable.
What's next, recommending school cafeteria employees be free not to wash their hands after taking a shit? Recommending schools not be forced to have bathroom faucets at all? Getting rid of regulations about how many rats are allowed to live in the kitchen? Where do we draw the line at what's a freedom that must not be violated?
Let it be a choice, with the mandate that if you opt out and later contract it there will be no state funded assistance down the road. Your choice shouldn't be a burden on the system.
I think forcing people to get vaccines that they dont want, even if they object for bad reasons, is also wrong. If Trump came out tomorrow and said "everyone is going to be forced to get this new vaccine RFK made in his basement" all the pro-vaccine people would be horrified. Well thats how the anti-vaxers feel about Covid shots, rightfully or wrongly.
That being said, of course the net effects of this will be more disease, and internationally probably harsher Visa restrictions on Americans.
The title seems pretty click-bait. If you read the article the argument isn't that vaccines don't work or that not vaccinating may increase disease and deaths. It's that our personal freedoms should still win. The example the Dr. gives with alcoholism seems quite relevant, many more people have negative health outcomes due to alcohol consumption:
"Alcohol is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, with harms related to both acute and chronic effects of alcohol contributing to about 4.3 million emergency department visits and more than 178,000 deaths in the U.S. each year."
While it's true that there are different externalities here (e.g. you're increasing other people's risk by not vaccinating and losing the herd effect) there are also externalities to alcohol consumption (e.g. drunken drivers).
The question is where does that line go between freedom and health factors and other externalities. We should be able to have this discussion without political tribalism.
> "What we are doing is returning individual autonomy to the first order — not public health but individual autonomy to the first order,” he added.
From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, I would have thought, and hoped, public health is their priority.
Individual autonomy is for the politicians to decide on, isn't it?
Medical professionals advise on medical matters, politicians decide based on the societal implications.
Medical professionals aren't elected, and I don't want their personal politics (on individual autonomy or abortion or anything else) infecting their medical advice.
What it sounds like to me is politicians getting the advisors to do both jobs because the politicians want to put their hands in the air and say 'I'm just following the advice'. If the outcome is unpopular then the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are the bad guys, not the politician(s).
Vaccines for easily transmitted serious diseases are loosely like seat belts in cars. You use them not only to protect yourself but also the others. Also in order to have any meaningful effect, they must be used from a large majority of population, therefore both are mandatory in the developed world (it seems vaccines not any more).
14 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 35.2 ms ] threadAm I allowed, as a business owner, to pass on an antivax candidate? Am I, as a school administrator, permitted to keep an unvaccinated child from my school system?
Vaccines were always optional in the sense nobody ties you down and makes you take them, and certainly all requirements have exceptions for people with, i.e, immune system issues.
Personally I don't think it needs to go that far, and it's a situation entirely preventable.
Polio is starting to slowly become a thing, so we will probably need to start producing more Iron Lungs if we follow the new flat-earth CDC.
Even the article proves these "advisors" have no clue on how vaccines work.
That being said, of course the net effects of this will be more disease, and internationally probably harsher Visa restrictions on Americans.
I’m waiting for the next crazy denial, like that dinosaurs didn’t exist or that the earth is the center of the universe… just give it a few years
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/health-professionals-communities/c...
Should we ban alcohol?
While it's true that there are different externalities here (e.g. you're increasing other people's risk by not vaccinating and losing the herd effect) there are also externalities to alcohol consumption (e.g. drunken drivers).
The question is where does that line go between freedom and health factors and other externalities. We should be able to have this discussion without political tribalism.
From the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, I would have thought, and hoped, public health is their priority.
Individual autonomy is for the politicians to decide on, isn't it?
Medical professionals advise on medical matters, politicians decide based on the societal implications.
Medical professionals aren't elected, and I don't want their personal politics (on individual autonomy or abortion or anything else) infecting their medical advice.
What it sounds like to me is politicians getting the advisors to do both jobs because the politicians want to put their hands in the air and say 'I'm just following the advice'. If the outcome is unpopular then the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are the bad guys, not the politician(s).
Good job guys, in the meantime I will check if ironlung.io or ironlung.ai are available to buy... I might have a business idea