Just last week a person infected with measles spent several hours in Terminal 2 at LAX, and several more at The Grove and the LA Farmer's Market. Measles is no joke, something like 90% of people exposed to a measles carrier will come down with it if they're not immunized. Germany is on the right track, I think their only mistake is not making this fine operate on a sliding scale.
I wonder if and how much a fine of, say, €5 would work. It wouldn't be the first case where a small nudge would be enough to make a change, and it would surely be a lot less controversial.
> Parental financial incentives have often been cited as a possible approach to encourage uptake of vaccinations. In fact, evidence appears to be limited, according to an NIHR systematic review, and not sufficient to show effectiveness. The review did find limited evidence that incentives might not work as well as quasi-mandatory schemes, such as preventing children from starting school until vaccinations are complete.
The rich/poor gap in the vaccine debate is pretty shocking. Not just these legal fines (cheap if you're rich), but the "alternative vaccine schedule" that some (very few) doctors recommend is also expensive and not covered by commoner insurance.
There is a concept called herd immunity. When enough people have taken vaccination against a disease it stops spreading because if cannot infect more people. If people then stop taking vaccines herd immunity does not work.
I hope this will get shut down at the constitutional court. No matter how you stand towards vaccinations. You can not force sovereign citizens to undergo any medical treatment in a free country. What is next? Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here.
It could also backfire to force the people to do it. Maybe there are people who refuse the vaccinations now because they are not allowed to choose on their own anymore.
That's just cruel, it takes away choice of people about their own bodies.
I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. That would still leave you with the choice of living away from other humans and taking care of your children at home without endangering anyone _and_ without taking away the right to control what happens to your body. In the end most people would choose to just get vaccinated.
I especially wonder what happens to people that just pay the fine, are their children still allowed to go to public schools? If yes you didn't really solve the problem, you just created another tax.
Is it tho?
In comparison it is certainly reducing your freedom, that you are not allowed to set fire to the flat you own. Not at last because your flat might be in a house where other people have theirs.
Vaccination is seen very similar around here. Yes, you have a right to be in control of your own body. But so should be everybody else.
The state has to find a solution that values your personal freedom and balances it with the rights other people have.
Keep in mind this might also protect children from parents. You are not allowed to neglect your kids, and the state could take them away from you if you repeatedly neglect them. Not vaccinating your kid against a illness with that high of a mortality rate is a form of neglect.
You are forced to buckle your kida up in the car with a seatbelt. There is a huge chance this might save their life. There is a tiny chance it might kill them (trapped in a burning car etc). Yet it is mandatory for you to buckle them up.
Because thats what prevents thousands of dead kids each year.
> it takes away choice of people about their own bodies.
It takes away choice of parents about their children's bodies. That's not quite the same.
> you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules:
That's way to much punishment for the kids who don't really have a choice in this, and I'm not sure how it's less authoritarian to basically completely exclude kids from society for a decision their parents made.
We also really do not want private schools specializing in unvaccinated children...
> just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc.
So, just because exposing these kids to preventable disease is not enough, your solution is to rob them of public education, and let them be "educated" by anti-vaxx parents?
At some point, the right of a child to not get sick and get a normal education (i.e., a chance to lead a normal life) must trump the right of a parent to shove random crap on their children.
Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands?
I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well.
There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.
This is like saying it takes away my responsibility to beat the crap out of my children whenever I feel like it.
Supplying reasonable and preventive healthcare to a child is a parental responsibility, full stop. Now of course every treatment should be weighed fairly based on the treatment itself, but the evidence for vaccinations hugely outweighs the evidence to the contrary.
This is not about personal choice, as child cannot be considered to be able to make those types of decisions, it is about proper parenting. Not only this, but these decisions impact on other children as well.
I live in a third world country where decisions to vaccinate children aren't based on pseudo science, but rather on economic barriers. When there are outbreaks it can be devastating including outcomes such as death.
> just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc.
I think fining someone to relieve them of the right of choice to vaccination also isn't as bad as taking away the child's right to it's own freedom. Locking away a child is not a right I want to give out in exchange for the right of non-vaccination.
Here's a good rule of thumb: if you are a mentally competent adult and are forced to do something, this something is not in YOUR best interests.
A propos: the "herd immunity" line of argumentation is totally red herring, since the Western rate of immunization is way above of what is needed for herd immunity to be effective (defined as driving pathogen reproduction rate below one - note that reproduction rate is NOT the same as infection rate). So is the "recklessness" line of argumentation, since the chances of actually getting infected and suffering serious consequences of that are rather small. It's way more reckless to cross a street once a day.
We should have the "Say No to Totalitarians" day. A free society can tolerate some amount of foolishness - both because not doing so implies reduction of humans to livestock, and because fools sometimes turn out to be right.
[+] [-] mullingitover|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vinnl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|6 years ago|reply
> Parental financial incentives have often been cited as a possible approach to encourage uptake of vaccinations. In fact, evidence appears to be limited, according to an NIHR systematic review, and not sufficient to show effectiveness. The review did find limited evidence that incentives might not work as well as quasi-mandatory schemes, such as preventing children from starting school until vaccinations are complete.
[+] [-] wavefunction|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sorryforthethro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acd|6 years ago|reply
Herd immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
[+] [-] the_70x|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detaro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sprash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarejunba|6 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Already resolved in America, at least, with good arguments
[+] [-] crazygorilla|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maze-le|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seattle_spring|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] heavenlyblue|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgeisler|6 years ago|reply
I totally see the point of this proposal, but you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc. That would still leave you with the choice of living away from other humans and taking care of your children at home without endangering anyone _and_ without taking away the right to control what happens to your body. In the end most people would choose to just get vaccinated.
I especially wonder what happens to people that just pay the fine, are their children still allowed to go to public schools? If yes you didn't really solve the problem, you just created another tax.
[+] [-] atoav|6 years ago|reply
Vaccination is seen very similar around here. Yes, you have a right to be in control of your own body. But so should be everybody else.
The state has to find a solution that values your personal freedom and balances it with the rights other people have.
Keep in mind this might also protect children from parents. You are not allowed to neglect your kids, and the state could take them away from you if you repeatedly neglect them. Not vaccinating your kid against a illness with that high of a mortality rate is a form of neglect.
You are forced to buckle your kida up in the car with a seatbelt. There is a huge chance this might save their life. There is a tiny chance it might kill them (trapped in a burning car etc). Yet it is mandatory for you to buckle them up.
Because thats what prevents thousands of dead kids each year.
[+] [-] detaro|6 years ago|reply
It takes away choice of parents about their children's bodies. That's not quite the same.
> you could achieve a better outcome with less authoritarian rules: That's way to much punishment for the kids who don't really have a choice in this, and I'm not sure how it's less authoritarian to basically completely exclude kids from society for a decision their parents made.
We also really do not want private schools specializing in unvaccinated children...
[+] [-] yongjik|6 years ago|reply
So, just because exposing these kids to preventable disease is not enough, your solution is to rob them of public education, and let them be "educated" by anti-vaxx parents?
At some point, the right of a child to not get sick and get a normal education (i.e., a chance to lead a normal life) must trump the right of a parent to shove random crap on their children.
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|6 years ago|reply
I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well.
There isn't a good solution here that satisfies all parties and science is on the side of the vaccinated. Sometimes you just have to make hard choices and stick with them.
[+] [-] HeyZuess|6 years ago|reply
Supplying reasonable and preventive healthcare to a child is a parental responsibility, full stop. Now of course every treatment should be weighed fairly based on the treatment itself, but the evidence for vaccinations hugely outweighs the evidence to the contrary.
This is not about personal choice, as child cannot be considered to be able to make those types of decisions, it is about proper parenting. Not only this, but these decisions impact on other children as well.
I live in a third world country where decisions to vaccinate children aren't based on pseudo science, but rather on economic barriers. When there are outbreaks it can be devastating including outcomes such as death.
> just forbid non-vaccinated kids to go to public schools, kindergartens, to ride public transport, etc.
I think fining someone to relieve them of the right of choice to vaccination also isn't as bad as taking away the child's right to it's own freedom. Locking away a child is not a right I want to give out in exchange for the right of non-vaccination.
[+] [-] averros|6 years ago|reply
A propos: the "herd immunity" line of argumentation is totally red herring, since the Western rate of immunization is way above of what is needed for herd immunity to be effective (defined as driving pathogen reproduction rate below one - note that reproduction rate is NOT the same as infection rate). So is the "recklessness" line of argumentation, since the chances of actually getting infected and suffering serious consequences of that are rather small. It's way more reckless to cross a street once a day.
We should have the "Say No to Totalitarians" day. A free society can tolerate some amount of foolishness - both because not doing so implies reduction of humans to livestock, and because fools sometimes turn out to be right.