Vaccines: Overwhelming Benefits, Few Risks

[phinds]

This is in my opinion child abuse.

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

 

[pinball1970]

When it's time, my doctor reminds me to get the refreshing polio, or tetanus shots. I cannot understand by any means that anyone would reject this and actually risk to catch these diseases! I have had measles as a child. I would have traded this for a lifetime vaccination at any time! And as an adult I asked for the rest of MMR. It is not fun we are talking about. Plus outside the US, one can always argue with the fact that the community covers the costs of illness, so it is plausible, that the same community demands precaution.

This is

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

Kids being deluded by parents does not hurt anyone else agreed.

 

[sysprog]

This is in my opinion child abuse.

Do you think that all medical-professional-consensus-recommended vaccination should be mandatory for all persons deemed to be susceptible to carrying or transfecting the illness being vaccinated against?

 

[fresh_42]

Do you think that all medical-professional-consensus-recommended vaccination should be mandatory for all persons deemed to be susceptible to carrying or transfecting the illness being vaccinated against?

To a reasonable extent. There are good reasons nurses are vaccinated against Hep A. There are reasons, people traveling to tropic regions get extra vaccination, and they are sometimes demanded to do so by the countries they travel to, but usually act by their free will. So depending on where you live, the lists might vary. But smallpox, polio, tetanus and MMR should be on the list around the globe. Malaria is a more complicated issue.

If you willingly take your child at an unnecessary risk, then it is abuse. It is in the same category as throwing your child into the pool knowing it cannot swim. Maybe it learns it this way. Natural immunization so to say.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Well, see, that's a slipper slope. Personally, I think that things like bringing up a child to believe in creationism instead of reality is mental child abuse, but I don't want the government telling people that they can't do that.

My wife and I raised our three children to believe in Biblical creation ("not creation science" but a literal and historical six day creation). They all scored perfect or near perfect scores on the science portion of the ACT, they all won first place in the state science fair (some multiple times), they all were first authors on peer-reviewed scientific papers before graduating from high school, they are all attending a well-respected university on full tuition scholarships, they are all majoring in science, and they are all active in research with supervisors who greatly appreciate their abilities and accomplishments. I expect that they'll all attend grad school in some science or health-related field. I'm not really sure where the "mental child abuse" happened. Colleges were competing for them, and now they have research groups competing for them.

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

 

[pinball1970]

My wife and I raised our three children to believe in Biblical creation ("not creation science" but a literal and historical six day creation). They all scored perfect or near perfect scores on the science portion of the ACT, they all won first place in the state science fair (some multiple times), they all were first authors on peer-reviewed scientific papers before graduating from high school, they are all attending a well-respected university on full tuition scholarships, they are all majoring in science, and they are all active in research with supervisors who greatly appreciate their abilities and accomplishments. I expect that they'll all attend grad school in some science or health-related field. I'm not really sure where the "mental child abuse" happened. Colleges were competing for them, and now they have research groups competing for them.

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

Which? HPV? I recall another thread.edit -in terms of vaccines you would reject.
Your kids are either very smart or have had an excellent education at home and school.
I suspect all three.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Which? HPV? I recall another thread.
Your kids are either very smart or have had an excellent education at home and school.
I suspect all three.

Different family members have politely refused a number of vaccinations at different times, based on assessing the risks (and costs) and benefits. HPV is an illustrative example that family members have given each other permission to use in discussions, because we have _ALL_ refused it, and it is a disease where the risk can be reduced to zero (or very nearly zero) by behavioral choices. I won't list all the others, but another example is my refusal to get the flu vaccines some years. In years when I'm in the classroom and have lots of student contact, the flu vaccine is a no brainer. There are other years when a combination of very low exposure risks, my assessment of marginal effectiveness that year, the label risks, the extra trip to a care facility, and other factors lead me to skip it.

Our children are smart, and have had an excellent education both home schooled for high school and in college so far. My point is that they serve as suitable counter-examples to the notion that somehow parents teaching children creation is some kind of child abuse. Parents failing to make their children accountable for homework and school assignments IS child neglect, and this neglect is having far more reaching and damaging effects on society than the minority of parents who happen to teach creation. A dear friend (and fellow physics teacher) is a devout Christian who taught all 9 of his children Biblical creation. All have graduated from college - four sons with engineering degrees and five daughters with degrees in nursing and elementary ed. The failure of science education is a failure of parenting and accountability, but it cannot be blamed on a small minority who happens to teach something different from the mainstream that accounts for less than 10% of the most high school science curricula.

 

[pinball1970]

The failure of science education is a failure of parenting and accountability, but it cannot be blamed on a small minority who happens to teach something different from the mainstream that accounts for less than 10% of the most high school science curricula.

So you assess by a case by case?
Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

 

[Vanadium 50]

they should not be allowed to risk infection to others.

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

There is this idea throughout this thread that anti-vaxers are acting irrationally. This is not necessarily so. There is a probability p1 of getting the disease with harm h1 without vaccination, and a probability p2 of getting it with. There is a probability q of getting a side-effect with harm h2. If (p1 - p2) h1 < q h_2 it is rational for a person to refuse vaccination.

If one wants to argue that p1 is a lot smaller than it would be if nobody got vaccinated, that's fine, but it is a different argument. That's arguing that anti-vaxers are freeloaders, not that they are irrational.

Game theory tells us what will happen with rational actors. p1 will rise until

$$p_1 = q\frac{h_2}{h_1} + p_2$$

If we want to make p1 large, we need to change h1, h2 and/or p. Many of the things one could do have ethical issues. For example, one could increase h_1 by saying "if you are unvaccinated against, say measles, and you contract measles, there is to be no medical treatment. If you die, so be it." That might be effective, and it might even be effective in reducing total fatalities, but probably most of us would have problems with this. But there are alternatives which people might find more palatable, e.g. fines or taxes. But one needs to approach this from the point of freeloading.

 

[pinball1970]

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

There is this idea throughout this thread that anti-vaxers are acting irrationally. This is not necessarily so. There is a probability p1 of getting the disease with harm h1 without vaccination, and a probability p2 of getting it with. There is a probability q of getting a side-effect with harm h2. If (p1 - p2) h1 < q h_2 it is rational for a person to refuse vaccination.

If one wants to argue that p1 is a lot smaller than it would be if nobody got vaccinated, that's fine, but it is a different argument. That's arguing that anti-vaxers are freeloaders, not that they are irrational.

Game theory tells us what will happen with rational actors. p1 will rise until

$$p_1 = q\frac{h_2}{h_1} + p_2$$

If we want to make p1 large, we need to change h1, h2 and/or p. Many of the things one could do have ethical issues. For example, one could increase h_1 by saying "if you are unvaccinated against, say measles, and you contract measles, there is to be no medical treatment. If you die, so be it." That might be effective, and it might even be effective in reducing total fatalities, but probably most of us would have problems with this. But there are alternatives which people might find more palatable, e.g. fines or taxes. But one needs to approach this from the point of freeloading.

Different scenario, this is an opportunity with a low risk to the child to get very sick.
Certain diseases do result in quarenteen.
It makes sense

 

[member 342489]

I am not anti vaccination in general, and my perspective is not conspiracy related,
I know of several people among my relationships, that have had very bad experiences with this vaccine.
Most people are aware, that vaccines can make people sick, and accepts that.
But when someones kid, get high fever for 8 - 10 days, and even doctors gets worried, you become scared.
I would find it very, very unfair, to force these parents to take the next step of the vaccination proces.

 

[pinball1970]

I am not anti vaccination in general, and my perspective is not conspiracy related,
I know of several people among my relationships, that have had very bad experiences with this vaccine.
Most people are aware, that vaccines can make people sick, and accepts that.
But when someones kid, get high fever for 8 - 10 days, and even doctors gets worried, you become scared.
I would find it very, very unfair, to force these parents to take the next step of the vaccination proces.

Which vaccine?

 

[member 342489]

Which vaccine?

The MMR

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, the risk with single ones instead seems to be lower. However, it is still the exception and not the normal, and most of all, it is the reason the others should get vaccinated.

 

[DennisN]

I just visited the "Vaccine hesitancy" article on Wikipedia (because I was researching for a new joke in the PF science jokes thread ), and I stumbled upon the very interesting information that WHO has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the ten top threats to global health in 2019:
http://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

 

[brainpushups]

As far as vaccinations go, our family had practiced getting all the required vaccines according to the schedule. But we believe in informed consent and actually reading the package inserts to understand the risks and benefits. I just got my tetanus update earlier this month. But we also politely refuse some vaccines when informed consent leads us to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits for specific circumstances and individuals.

This is the ideal thing to do. I heard that there is a bill being drafted in my state that would require informed consent for vaccines and doctors who did not obtain it would be guilty of malpractice.

Don't we want people to THINK? Wouldn't it be best if doctors spent the time with patients to say that "X has these benefits and these risks and the risks are higher when conditions ... are present" rather then following some protocol which may have heightened risk for some of their patients without explaining or perhaps even knowing about it? Did you read the NPR article linked in my post #15? Do you see how the repercussions of informed consent may actually help increase vaccination rates? As explained in the article, 100,000 children were given a vaccine when they should not have been. Yes, only 10 or so charges of wrongful death are pending, but it caused a huge drop in getting vaccines for measles and then there was an outbreak. Had the risk been communicated the deaths may not have occurred and the measles outbreak may have also not occurred.

 

[sysprog]

So you assess by a case by case?
Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

In my opinion, there's not much downside regarding the vaccine that's been reliably reported, but there is a downside regarding HPV that's uncommon among dangerous virii (viruses). Almost all males are asymptomatic compared to females, due mainly to the differences between boy parts and girl parts (inguinally proximate apparatuses). The vaccine can help to immunize females. It does nothing to stop us males from transmitting the virus, unless we (males) take it prophylactically in advance of exposure and infection so that we're never hosts to a colony. If I'm already infected, the vaccine won't change that. So far, we don't have a reliable test for males, and people aren't even advised about the possibility of an asymptomatic male unknowingly transfecting a to-her-fatal strain of the virus to an intimate-with-him female. We need such a test. Given that we don't have such a test, we should inoculate everyone who might couple with anyone, and to wipe out the disease as well as or better than we did with polio and smallpox, we should do that anyway, test for men or not. As things stand now, a man could think he doesn't have any STDs, and still give the virus to the love of his life on their first honeymoon night. That shirt don't fit. It ain't right.

 

[sysprog]

To a reasonable extent. There are good reasons nurses are vaccinated against Hep A. There are reasons, people traveling to tropic regions get extra vaccination, and they are sometimes demanded to do so by the countries they travel to, but usually act by their free will. So depending on where you live, the lists might vary. But smallpox, polio, tetanus and MMR should be on the list around the globe. Malaria is a more complicated issue.

So far I agree.

If you willingly take your child at an unnecessary risk, then it is abuse.

That's in my view an overly stringent standard. Many reasonable risks are unnecessary. Letting a kid go outside is a risk that often doesn't qualify as necessary.

It is in the same category as throwing your child into the pool knowing it cannot swim. Maybe it learns it this way. Natural immunization so to say.

That seems to me to be an exaggeration. I can understand your pique at the anti-vaccination advocates. Anecdotally, I can also say that I sympathize with a friend of mine who is a Mom, who says that her (now 12-year-old) daughter invariably becomes almost hospitalizably febrile (e.g. 103 degrees F) for days after any vaccination.

 

[fresh_42]

That seems to me to be an exaggeration.

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

 

[Dale]

I can understand the toxic message that there is something or someone to blame for a child’s disability, but its a lie and a great disservice to autistic people,

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

 

[fresh_42]

My nephew too. The lie is not just a disservice to the autistic child but also to the parents. My sister understands in her mind that it is a lie, but in her heart it feels like an accusation: “you did this to your own child”

The example par excellence what a faked study can cause! And once in the world ...

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I tend to see the vaccination issue as a symptom of the loss of trust many have for the medical profession as a result of the tendency to over-prescribe various classes of medications - pain relievers, mood medications, various prevention-oriented medications, etc.

After blood tests, my own physician has prescribed a couple of meds without even discussing them with me - Metformin for a pre-diabetic diagnosis and Lipitor (or the generic equivalent) for cholesterol. There was no discussion of whether the goals could be met (reduction of risks) with lifestyle changes, just called in the prescriptions to my pharmacist. I reviewed the test results carefully with other medical advisers and we determined that lifestyle changes had a better chance of reducing my risks (for diabetes and heart disease) than the medications. So far, subsequent tests have supported my hesitancy to accept additional medications. Why not both? Cost and risk. Also, I recognize my own propensity to possibly eat less carefully and exercise less if a pill is supposed to solve the problem. I know a lot of overweight guys in horrible health on Lipitor and Metformin who "eat whatever they want" because they trust their medications too much.

Is there a downside to receiving the HPV vaccine?

Other than the $500ish out of pocket costs (for me) and three trips to the doctor in a six month period, there are a laundry list of things described on the Gardasil label. The risks are not very great for me at all, but one could say the same thing about Metformin and Lipitor. But in a generation of medicine where there is a tendency to overprescribe medications, I'm inclined to withhold my informed consent for lots of "just in case" drugs for abstract possibilities whose risks can be mitigated with other means. I skip the flu shot most years, but I also wash my hands more than anyone I know. Those hand washings prevent lots of bugs that the flu shot doesn't. I asked my wife what she thought about me getting the HPV vaccine. She asked me which guitar I was going to sell to pay for it.

I just visited the "Vaccine hesitancy" article on Wikipedia (because I was researching for a new joke in the PF science jokes thread ), and I stumbled upon the very interesting information that WHO has listed "vaccine hesitancy" as one of the ten top threats to global health in 2019:
http://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

If I accepted every medication the first time some doctor was willing to prescribe it, I'd have an awful lot of drug interactions to keep up with, very costly bills for prescription meds, and a bathroom counter full of pill bottles. No thanks.

 

[bobob]

I think you could probably classify me as having a "medication hesitancy." Unless something is imminently life threatening, I'm going to read the labels and get a second opinion. Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

I disagree. A person who is unvaccinated and acquires measles or whatever, places those people with compromised immune systems at risk of dying should they pass along the infection. My parents are 89 and 90 and I don't think they should have to worry about catching some disease that could easily be eradicated by a vaccine. Although my parents have some immunity from being vaccinated, at that age, their immune systems may not provide them enough resistance to these easily preventable diseases. Allowing people to opt out of vaccination for trivial reasons, like they just don't want to do it, is giving them a license to walk around, infect and potentially kill people, or in a case like measles, also cause birth defects.

You are free to not take medicines for which you are the only person who will suffer the consequences, but that is not the case with vaccinations.

 

[sysprog]

Yes, it was meant to be. However, as I thought about it, it is exactly what those parents do. They throw their unprotected kids in the pool of viruses out in the wild. Or do you think they would never ride the NYC subway, attend a football match or festival, refuse people to shake hands and so on and so on. They are literally out there in the pool. It is a matter of luck, if they stay healthy.

I think the analogy is faulty, at least in that realistically the risk of throwing a non-swimmer kid into a pool is mainly that he might drown, and does not include much likelihood that the other kids in the pool will because of the risky action drown too.

I also think that the likelihood of drowning for a non-swimmer kid thrown into a pool and left to fend for himself unaided, is much greater than the likelihood of a kid not vaccinated with this year's vaccine for this year's non-epidemic illness getting sick and dying due to not having been vaccinated.

I'm not trying to join the anti-vaccination advocates, but I do think that think we vaccination advocates should try to keep ourselves immune to realistic possibilities of reasonably sustainable accusations of having overstated our case (or cases) versus that (or those) of the anti-vaccination advocates.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Efforts to discourage label reading and getting a second opinion en route to fully informing consent regarding vaccinations are foolish and unfounded. Vaccines should not be treated differently from other prescription drugs.

On the face of it, this sounds great, as I think most would respond positivelly if asked whether people should think for themselves instead of blindly doing what they're told (especially if framed in terms of individual freedom vs oppressive government).
But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death. That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).
Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

 

[brainpushups]

But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death. That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).
Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

That is a reasonable objection to letting the patients determine for themselves the risks because a list of potential side-effects isn't very informative to the individual.

The physician should help their patients determine whether or not they have heightened risk for vaccines (or medication). This would require a bit of a culture change in the medical field because doctors will need more time with patients and will need to perhaps shift to a more 'holistic' approach and not just one that throws a pill at the problem, but considers instead the individual and other potential treatment or lifestyle options. When that trust is established physicians should have no trouble advocating that vaccination is appropriate for the vast majority and catch those that are at high risk of complication.

 

[bobob]

But then again, 'read the inserts' is one of the rallying cries of the pro-epidemic movements all around the world. After all, e.g. the CDC VIS for MMR lists among risks of the vaccine: deafness, coma, brain damage, and death.

If you read the packge inserts for even the most benign medicines that almost no one would blink an eye at taking, you can find all sorts of horrible potential side effects listed which get worse as the percentage of incidence becomes smaller. If you took those seriously, you would never take any medicine and would proble shorten your lifespan considerably. The problem with those serious side effects that fall into the low percentages is the way drug trials are conducted. When a drug is studied, the participants must record EVERY headache, incidence of nausea or anything else. People get headaches, nausea and maybe even a serious disease like cancer whether or not any of those thing are related to the drug being tested. There is no way to link cause and effect with the drug being tested for incidence rates comparable to the number of people in the general population who would end up with those same issues, but it is required to include all of that in the analysis. If you are looking at a drug insert where there is a 1% incidence of some side effect, in all likelyhood, that side effect has no relation to the drug being tested. It's there because the patients recorded EVERYTHING they expeienced and the data must be included, even if it is impossible to know the origin of some condition they reported.

That sound much more dangerous than having your child sick for a week or two and acquire natural-immunity in the process (using their narrative).

Well, no it isn't. If your child comes down with measels, it might be a mild case or maybe it could be much more serious. Furthermore that measels infection could be spread to pregnatny women whose children stand a good chance of being born with birth defects or even result in miscarriages. In addition, elderly people (whose immune systems are weakened by age) could contract measels from your kids "mild case' and subsequently die. Eradicating diseases requires a critical mass of people to be immune such that those whose immune systems are compromised stand little chance of contact with an infected person. Living in a very social environment imposes some responsibilities on people who wish to be part of that environment. If those responsibilities impose too much in the way of restricting someone's lifestyle, the thing for them to do id to move out to the sticks where they can do as they please without risking other people's lives. Al;so, for some people who might have soe sensitivity to the vaccines, this is something that can be addressed beforehand so that someone who might suffer an adverse reaction doesn't get the caccine. However, that unvaccinated person receives protection only by virtue of being surrounded by those who have been vaccinated.

Turns out not everyone thinking for themselves will be able to properly evaluate the information they encounter and come to valid conclusions. This is true of all of us, as it's become impossible to be sufficiently informed on everything in this day and age, [/quote[
Well, not everyone. I manage my parents' medications and I know everything in the package inserts plus as much as I can research online just to be sure they aren't going to be prescribed something that has known interactions with what they are taking, what to do if they accidently take a second does and what symptoms to watch out for to determine if they need to head to the doctor to have something changed (which has actually happened.)

I know every detail about the surgeries they've had and even the surgeries I've had going back 30 years, although by now I could not tell you what types of sutures were used. When I take my parents to the doctor, I have already spent hours researching whatever it is that has prompted the visit to the doctor along with any other questions about how they are being treated. I am constantly astounded by people who cannot tell me what medicines they were prescribed or the dosagees or much of anything but what the label says about how many times a day to swallow a pill. It is NOT impossible. If anything, the wealth of information including various studies available to anyone from the NIH makes it easier than ever to be extremely informed of the most minute details that might bring up questions to ask a physician. It might be difficult for people who are less educated, but I don't think that applies to anyone in these forums.

especially as the modern society is still struggling to come to terms with the influx of readily available but not curated information, fake news, information bubbles, etc.
So even though your approach has undeniably good intent behind it, the practialicty of its implementation is that rates of vaccinations against dangerous pathogens go down.

The NIH website has an abundance of research articles that cover almost anything you can imagine that is related to various diseases and the efficacy and side effects of the medicines used to treat thoose conditions - even things that get used off label. People who lack the education to understand the more scientific articles have a valid excuse for being a bit unsure of what to do, but anyone with a college education ought to be able to read a medical journal article and pretty much grasp the results and understand the methodolgy (perhaps with some further reading to clarify some unfamiliar terminolgy). Someone who doesn't do things is not being very helpful in maximizing the benefits of modern medicine and will also probably have a more difficult time choosing the better doctors from the spectrum of those who went to medical school.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Yes, it's great that it works for you. But you might have missed my point - it doesn't work for everyone, as borne by evidence in the movements.

 

[PAllen]

Do you believe that people with communicable diseases - a cold, the flu, measles, AIDS, should be quarantined (if voluntary) or incarcerated (if otherwise)? If not, you might need to pedal this back a bit.

Hmm. In general, the idea of quarantine is accepted as a terrible but necessary for many diseases. Indeed I think, in many cases, failure to be vaccinated warrants some form of quarantine, for equivalent moral motivations - actually, it is more justified because the threat to others is chosen rather than involuntary.

Let's take your examples, one by one, since they are very different, but in reverse order.

1) AIDS: this is not contagious except for 'very specialized forms of contact'. Engaging in these without disclosure if you know you have it is well accepted to be criminal behavior. There is no need for quarantine because there is no communicability for every day contact. There is also no vaccine for it. If there were an effective vaccine conferring herd immunity, I would definitely support mandatory vaccination to eliminate this disease (but see below for an exception).

2) Measles: This has at least 1% death rate for those who get it. I would say without doubt self quarantine while contagious should be expected (and historically, no one would knowingly send their child with measles into public spaces). With an effective vaccine conferring herd immunity, it is a no brainer that it should be mandatory.

3) Flu: in a pandemic of a severe flu, I think quarantine would near universally be supported (e.g. the 1918 flu). However, there is no generic vaccine. The vaccines we have change every year and are of limited effectiveness, and there is no herd immunity. If a generic vaccine were developed, that could foster herd immunity, then mandatory vaccination would certainly be warranted. For the current vaccines, there is no real evidence of any benefit except to individuals, so it can remain an individual choice. However, note that vulnerable populations request voluntary quarantine (e.g. elder facilities request no one with flu visit), and violating this is ethically repugnant. (Actually, many request that if not vaccinated during flu season, a mask should be worn, even with no signs of symptoms. This seems to me a justified requirement).

4) Cold: A near total red herring. Risk is moderate except to immune compromised individuals who need isolation anyway. Quarantine would be absurd given the number of affected individuals. There is no vaccine.

----

Exception to mandatory vaccination:

Anyone (or community) that chooses not to accept a vaccine considered generally mandatory is free to do so if and only if they self quarantine from the rest of society, i.e. live isolated from them.

 

[PAllen]

Also, let me share a personal story about autism and vaccination. My daughter is pretty severely autistic. When I first let go of denial and admitted it, I began hearing about the MMR autism 'theory'. Without seeing a single study on this, my immediate reaction was that this vaccine is given at the age autism is most commonly noticed (and this was true before the vaccine existed). Thus, one would expect extremely high correlation between diagnosis and recent vaccination even if the causal relation was exactly zero. Thus I would need to see strong evidence for actual causation to give any credence to this. With this thinking, I attached no significance whatever to the temporal coincidence of diagnosis and MMR vaccine for my daughter.

Lo and behold, when my daughter was 18, we enrolled her in a study that did genetic testing in passing. Turns out she has a known genetic cause inherited from my wife (who is a risk carrier whose children are at risk though she is asymptomatic). We learned that known genetic causes now account for 20% of cases, and the percentage is steadily growing.

 

[member 342489]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

 

[fresh_42]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

This is plain nonsense. Nobody forces anybody here. However, it is a legitimate question how to deal with a few ignorants who put the many at danger.

 

[Dale]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

Why would intelligence lead people to not force their opinions on others? I don’t see the connection. If anything I would expect intelligent people to be more likely to want to force their opinions on others.

 

[member 342489]

This is plain nonsense. Nobody forces anybody here. However, it is a legitimate question how to deal with a few ignorants who put the many at danger.

I admit, that my use of the term, intelligence was unneeded.

I do understand the need to isolate people infected with diseases that can cause a lot of harm or even death.

On the other hand, I consider it a fact, that the MMR.vaccine itself causes people to die.
I do not claim, that the vaccine, kills more people than it protects, only that the vaccine causes death.

So to force vaccines, is in my opinion the same as saying, that people shold run a risk of killing their own
kids.

So until the vaccine is almost guaranteed riskfree, I find forcefeeding it totally wrong a egoistic.

 

[Orodruin]

I am shocked to see so many "intelligent" people want to force their own opinion upon others!

There is a difference in forcing a scientifically established fact on someone and spewing harmful nonsense opinions on someone. The fact is simply not up for discussion (barring extreme evidence to the contrary). It is not a matter of opinion.