Should Religious Folk Be Exempt From Immunization

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article ... _Rx9RsfuVg

When immunizations are not accepted on religious grounds, the consequences can affect others. Now this concerns the mumps, but what if they are for wicked, nasty, deadly diseases?

Questions:
Let's require that immunizations are proven to 99% effective, and free to all.

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?
2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?
3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

Me:
1- No, the health of the child should always come first.
2- Yes, withholding medical care from a child is child abuse.
3- Yes, just because you don't want to be immunized from a disease does not mean I should be exposed to it.

[micatala]

Honestly, the link between the MMR vaccine and autism has more scientific studies against it than I can count (and very few for it). How much will it take to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no link? There is clearly considerable risk to not immunizing your children, so how can not vaccinating them be justified, when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against a link between MMR and autism?

I will ask again for this to be quantified. How much risk are we talking about?

The article does mention

But so far this year, the U.S. has counted 131 measles cases, the most in a decade. Most patients were unvaccinated. Some were infants too young for their first MMR shot, but nearly half involved children whose parents rejected vaccination, the CDC reported last month.

Nearly half. Let's say 60. If we can estimate how many unvaccinated children there are, and also how many of the 131 occurred among vaccinated children, and how many of these there are, we can compare risks, at least what the risk is to the unvaccinated children.

If we had data from years where the vaccination rate was higher, we might then also be able to at least estimate the risk the unvaccinated children present to the vaccinated.

Now, overall

in 2002 72.9 million children younger than the age of eighteen lived in the United States. This number is expected to increase to 80.3 million in 2020.

Thus, even this "epidemic" of measles is resulting in 131 out of, let's say, 75 million kids having measles. This is 1 out of about 570,000 children. Would we call this "considerable risk?"

Now, just to throw out some scenarios, let's say that only 5% of children are not vaccinated, and 60 of these had measles. This would be 1 out of about 60,000. So, we could say the risk to the unvaccinated child is about 10 times the overall risk. Still, it is a very very small risk. If memory serves, your chances of being killed in a car crash are roughly one in 7000 annually.

Now, perhaps we should not count all children under 18. However, even if we divide this risks by say, four, we still get risks that are less than half of being killed in a car crash.

I hope others will understand if I am not overly concerned if my actions are presenting this level of risk to others. I daresay others present this level of risk to me and my children every day. We must also acknowledge that some risk would be present regardless.

[byofrcs]

Honestly, the link between the MMR vaccine and autism has more scientific studies against it than I can count (and very few for it). How much will it take to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no link? There is clearly considerable risk to not immunizing your children, so how can not vaccinating them be justified, when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against a link between MMR and autism?

I will ask again for this to be quantified. How much risk are we talking about?

The article does mention

But so far this year, the U.S. has counted 131 measles cases, the most in a decade. Most patients were unvaccinated. Some were infants too young for their first MMR shot, but nearly half involved children whose parents rejected vaccination, the CDC reported last month.

Nearly half. Let's say 60. If we can estimate how many unvaccinated children there are, and also how many of the 131 occurred among vaccinated children, and how many of these there are, we can compare risks, at least what the risk is to the unvaccinated children.

If we had data from years where the vaccination rate was higher, we might then also be able to at least estimate the risk the unvaccinated children present to the vaccinated.

Now, overall

in 2002 72.9 million children younger than the age of eighteen lived in the United States. This number is expected to increase to 80.3 million in 2020.

Thus, even this "epidemic" of measles is resulting in 131 out of, let's say, 75 million kids having measles. This is 1 out of about 570,000 children. Would we call this "considerable risk?"

Now, just to throw out some scenarios, let's say that only 5% of children are not vaccinated, and 60 of these had measles. This would be 1 out of about 60,000. So, we could say the risk to the unvaccinated child is about 10 times the overall risk. Still, it is a very very small risk. If memory serves, your chances of being killed in a car crash are roughly one in 7000 annually.

Now, perhaps we should not count all children under 18. However, even if we divide this risks by say, four, we still get risks that are less than half of being killed in a car crash.

I hope others will understand if I am not overly concerned if my actions are presenting this level of risk to others. I daresay others present this level of risk to me and my children every day. We must also acknowledge that some risk would be present regardless.

But today's statistics are due to reasonable rates of herd immunity. Measles is highly contagious and so if a large population has been vaccinated then the vectors for the disease are few.

If there was little vaccination done then the vectors would be the majority of the people around you and so your chances of catching the disease increase.

If we use the mortality rates from the old days then (Wikipedia summarises these), we are looking at,

"The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent."

Which to me sound much higher than what you presented from today's society.

Basically the Religious folk who get away with vaccinations only can do so because the rest of society has a herd immunity.

Now if the disease was not contagious such with Tetanus then it would follow that the percentage of Tetanus vaccinations of the rest of society is not relevant. Do the religious folk realise this and do allow Tetanus jabs because they know that they cannot be a parasite to the herd immunity of society for this disease ?.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.
Where a disease is not contagious then their obligations to society are much less as long as they don't expect society to pick up the medical bills for their own faults.

[Vanguard]

But today's statistics are due to reasonable rates of herd immunity. Measles is highly contagious and so if a large population has been vaccinated then the vectors for the disease are few.

If there was little vaccination done then the vectors would be the majority of the people around you and so your chances of catching the disease increase.

If we use the mortality rates from the old days then (Wikipedia summarises these), we are looking at,

"The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent."

Which to me sound much higher than what you presented from today's society.

Basically the Religious folk who get away with vaccinations only can do so because the rest of society has a herd immunity.

Now if the disease was not contagious such with Tetanus then it would follow that the percentage of Tetanus vaccinations of the rest of society is not relevant. Do the religious folk realise this and do allow Tetanus jabs because they know that they cannot be a parasite to the herd immunity of society for this disease ?.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.
Where a disease is not contagious then their obligations to society are much less as long as they don't expect society to pick up the medical bills for their own faults.

Well said, byofrcs. I myself had not considered the crux of concern should evolve around the fear that were enough folks to refuse certain immunizations at some point we would hit critical mass where the rate of those contracting the disease would increase exponentially.

If I understood you correctly, this would only apply to that which is highly contagious, no?

[micatala]

But today's statistics are due to reasonable rates of herd immunity. Measles is highly contagious and so if a large population has been vaccinated then the vectors for the disease are few.

If there was little vaccination done then the vectors would be the majority of the people around you and so your chances of catching the disease increase.

If we use the mortality rates from the old days then (Wikipedia summarises these), we are looking at,

"The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent."

Which to me sound much higher than what you presented from today's society.

Basically the Religious folk who get away with vaccinations only can do so because the rest of society has a herd immunity.

Now if the disease was not contagious such with Tetanus then it would follow that the percentage of Tetanus vaccinations of the rest of society is not relevant. Do the religious folk realise this and do allow Tetanus jabs because they know that they cannot be a parasite to the herd immunity of society for this disease ?.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.
Where a disease is not contagious then their obligations to society are much less as long as they don't expect society to pick up the medical bills for their own faults.

Well said, byofrcs. I myself had not considered the crux of concern should evolve around the fear that were enough folks to refuse certain immunizations at some point we would hit critical mass where the rate of those contracting the disease would increase exponentially.

If I understood you correctly, this would only apply to that which is highly contagious, no?

Yes, the current low rate of infections is likely due at least partially and probably to a large extent to herd immunity resulting from vaccinations. Were vaccination rates to go below a 'critical level,' the situation could change. Does anyone know what this critical level is??

However, I do not see that I should base my decision today on the situation that existed 50 or 100 years ago, or a situation that 'might happen' if vaccination rates experience a drastic decline, rather than the situation that actually exists.

byofrcs also provides information which indicates that there are other factors that contribute to low rates of infection besides vaccinations. It is worth noting that some of the decline in at least some of the childhood diseases in the U.S. is probably due to these other factors.


The point on the tetanus shot made by byfrocs is also well-taken. Obviously there is a difference between contagious versus non-contagious diseases. My children have not received shots either for contagious or non-contagious diseases. While not universal, my experience is that most parents who forego vaccinating their children forego both tetanus and other shots.


Finally, to address one point in further detail.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.

I profoundly disagree with the assumptions being made here. On what basis do I have an obligation to society that I must fulfill, no matter what? I would challenge byofrcs to make the case that my not vaccinating my children presents so much risk that I should be compelled, with no recourse to an exemption, to vaccinate them. The burden is not on me to justify the exception, the burden is on YOU (or the government) to show that this level of compulsion is justified.


I will make another analogy. Would byofrcs support a military draft to which all are subject with no exceptions? If not, is not byofrcs experiencing the benefit of living in a safe country without being willing to require that we all contribute to that safety to the same level? Should we refuse to allow the possibility of conscientious objection to military service?

Is byofrcs willing to risk his life to serve as police officer? Should we require everyone to at least have the same chance of being selected as police officers?

The assumption that byofrcs and others are implicitly making is essentially that if a certain action is required by X% of the population in order for the population to be safer (NB: not even completely safe), than the whole population should be required to take that action, even is X is not equal to 100.

Now, I grant that the value of X for military service and police protection is a small minority, while for immunization from disease it is a large majority. This still does not negate the general principle. If byofrcs is willing to live with fewer than 100% or even a minority serving in the military or as police officers as long as the overall effect is that society is relatively safe, I would contend he should be satisfied with the same situation with immunizations, unless he can show that less than 100% compliance presents a significant risk as compared to a smaller percentage.

Government does have responsibilities towards its people, both as individuals and as a society. Assuming we determine that one of these responsibilities is to promote a healthier population, than we as a society decide how that responsibility is to be fulfilled and to what level. Government, at least in the U.S., also exists to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including freedom of religion. Those who do not practice a religion may not feel that this freedom should be in the constitution, but it is there nevertheless. There is no qualification on how 'reasonable' or widespread the religion must be before it is entitled to protection under the first amendment. There is no qualification that the majority must allow this freedom to a minority in order for the minority to enjoy it. The minority has this right regardless of how many people feel it should not.

We all know we sometimes have to balance one 'good' against another.
If government can provide an adequate level of protection against disease while still protecting the religious freedom of a minority, my view is it should consider this perfectly acceptable.

I will finally point out that, consitutionally speaking, freedom of religion is a specific (enumerated) right while 'freedom from disease' is not. Even if not vaccinating did present a significant risk to others, the constitution does not, it seems to me, guarantee freedom from this risk.

It does guarantee freedom of religion.

[Sjoerd]

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.

I profoundly disagree with the assumptions being made here. On what basis do I have an obligation to society that I must fulfill, no matter what?
...
I will make another analogy. Would byofrcs support a military draft to which all are subject with no exceptions?
...
Should we refuse to allow the possibility of conscientious objection to military service?
...
Is byofrcs willing to risk his life to serve as police officer? Should we require everyone to at least have the same chance of being selected as police officers?
...
There is no qualification that the majority must allow this freedom to a minority in order for the minority to enjoy it. The minority has this right regardless of how many people feel it should not.

I cannot speak for byofrcs, and I do live in a welfare state supported by a 52% income tax for any income on top of $ 90 000 a year. But I would state that the government in principle has all these rights. It is up to the government to decide if it is in the common interest to allow or not to allow freedoms to a minority. On the other hand, it is up to the voters to dismiss the government if they disagree with its policies. My own vote would be for religious freedom in for example education, but against it in case of vaccination. Individual counterexamples notwithstanding, you just can't generally trust parents to have enough expertise in the matter.

[Beto]

However, I do not see that I should base my decision today on the situation that existed 50 or 100 years ago, or a situation that 'might happen' if vaccination rates experience a drastic decline, rather than the situation that actually exists.

Unless you hold a double standard you're implying every other parent is entitled to a personal decision on whether or not to vaccinate their children, even during a hypothetical situation when people are dropping like flies, but a parent still doesn't agree. If these are to be regarded as "special situations" than it's the same as admitting to a demagogical stance by the government where people are given the illusion of freedom. Frankly, I prefer an open and honest restriction.

You previously stated:

And again, we need to determine the significance of the risk to others.

Who's "we"? What right would you have to deny the same prerogative to a manifestly ignorant parent? Who gets to decide who's too ignorant to be entitled a personal decision on that level? Do you expect the government to evaluate every single parent on their merits to be entitled to decisions that affect other people? Personally, I see no other fair option. Either that logistical nightmare is attempted, or the government simply disregards individual opinion and enforces the medical establishment's advice. I don't think you can expect everyone else that agrees with the medical establishment to simply trust that you're educated enough to assess risks by yourself.

Mind you, I'm not saying I don't agree with your assessment of the current situation. My issue is still whether or not you can be "unhypocritically" entitled with that power, and I don't think you addressed that properly. If you think you have, would you quote yourself on it? I might have missed it.

[micatala]

However, I do not see that I should base my decision today on the situation that existed 50 or 100 years ago, or a situation that 'might happen' if vaccination rates experience a drastic decline, rather than the situation that actually exists.

Unless you hold a double standard you're implying every other parent is entitled to a personal decision on whether or not to vaccinate their children, even during a hypothetical situation when people are dropping like flies, but a parent still doesn't agree.

Yes, I am certainly not claiming special rights for myself that I would be unwilling to grant to others. I would like more specifics on any 'hypothetical situations' before responding to those.

You previously stated:

And again, we need to determine the significance of the risk to others.

Who's "we"?

I was referring to those participating in this debate, for purposes of the debate.

What right would you have to deny the same prerogative to a manifestly ignorant parent? Who gets to decide who's too ignorant to be entitled a personal decision on that level? Do you expect the government to evaluate every single parent on their merits to be entitled to decisions that affect other people?

I said nothing at all about distinguishing between 'ignorant' or 'non-ignorant' parents. As long as a person meets the ordinary standards for being considered mentally competent, I think that is as much as governments should get into determining.

Personally, I see no other fair option. Either that logistical nightmare is attempted, or the government simply disregards individual opinion and enforces the medical establishment's advice. I don't think you can expect everyone else that agrees with the medical establishment to simply trust that you're educated enough to assess risks by yourself.

I'm sorry, I am not buying this false dichotomy. You seem to be willing to allow the exception if the parent is sufficiently "informed," but because of the logistical nightmare of determining this, the blanket requirement must take force. We already allow people to make their own medical decisions by and large without any a priori "competency tests."

Mind you, I'm not saying I don't agree with your assessment of the current situation. My issue is still whether or not you can be "unhypocritically" entitled with that power, and I don't think you addressed that properly. If you think you have, would you quote yourself on it? I might have missed it.

I am arguing that everyone has the same rights as I argue for myself. I never meant to imply otherwise, although I had not explicitly stated this.

[Beto]

Yes, I am certainly not claiming special rights for myself that I would be unwilling to grant to others. I would like more specifics on any 'hypothetical situations' before responding to those.

Suppose a vicious flu strain, much more aggressive that any real one, to which you would personally see as warranting mandatory inoculation. Surely you don't need more specifics to indulge that scenario. It already presumes you see sufficient danger. Wouldn't you support mandatory inoculation in such a situation?

I said nothing at all about distinguishing between 'ignorant' or 'non-ignorant' parents. As long as a person meets the ordinary standards for being considered mentally competent, I think that is as much as governments should get into determining.

Some people reject any and all advice of medical science. Are they "mentally incompetent", and would you like their perspectives to influence governmental policy, and affect the lives of your children?

I'm sorry, I am not buying this false dichotomy. You seem to be willing to allow the exception if the parent is sufficiently "informed," but because of the logistical nightmare of determining this, the blanket requirement must take force.

No, I thought I made it clear that if I'm willing to defer these decisions, that affect the whole population, to the joint understanding of the government and the medical establishment, it is because I can't see a viable methodology to distinguish between "competent" and "incompetent" parents, the only instance that would allow for exceptions.

We already allow people to make their own medical decisions by and large without any a priori "competency tests."

Decisions that affect (or might) other people? Like what?

I am arguing that everyone has the same rights as I argue for myself.

This particular right you argue for yourself conflicts with other people's rights, true? This principle doesn't work in this situation. Analogously, it is somewhat like a smoker saying everyone has the right to smoke as well, so he shouldn't be bothered by non-smokers.

[byofrcs]

But today's statistics are due to reasonable rates of herd immunity. Measles is highly contagious and so if a large population has been vaccinated then the vectors for the disease are few.

If there was little vaccination done then the vectors would be the majority of the people around you and so your chances of catching the disease increase.

If we use the mortality rates from the old days then (Wikipedia summarises these), we are looking at,

"The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent."

Which to me sound much higher than what you presented from today's society.

Basically the Religious folk who get away with vaccinations only can do so because the rest of society has a herd immunity.

Now if the disease was not contagious such with Tetanus then it would follow that the percentage of Tetanus vaccinations of the rest of society is not relevant. Do the religious folk realise this and do allow Tetanus jabs because they know that they cannot be a parasite to the herd immunity of society for this disease ?.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.
Where a disease is not contagious then their obligations to society are much less as long as they don't expect society to pick up the medical bills for their own faults.

Well said, byofrcs. I myself had not considered the crux of concern should evolve around the fear that were enough folks to refuse certain immunizations at some point we would hit critical mass where the rate of those contracting the disease would increase exponentially.

If I understood you correctly, this would only apply to that which is highly contagious, no?

Yes, the current low rate of infections is likely due at least partially and probably to a large extent to herd immunity resulting from vaccinations. Were vaccination rates to go below a 'critical level,' the situation could change. Does anyone know what this critical level is??

However, I do not see that I should base my decision today on the situation that existed 50 or 100 years ago, or a situation that 'might happen' if vaccination rates experience a drastic decline, rather than the situation that actually exists.

byofrcs also provides information which indicates that there are other factors that contribute to low rates of infection besides vaccinations. It is worth noting that some of the decline in at least some of the childhood diseases in the U.S. is probably due to these other factors.


The point on the tetanus shot made by byfrocs is also well-taken. Obviously there is a difference between contagious versus non-contagious diseases. My children have not received shots either for contagious or non-contagious diseases. While not universal, my experience is that most parents who forego vaccinating their children forego both tetanus and other shots.


Finally, to address one point in further detail.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.

I profoundly disagree with the assumptions being made here. On what basis do I have an obligation to society that I must fulfill, no matter what? I would challenge byofrcs to make the case that my not vaccinating my children presents so much risk that I should be compelled, with no recourse to an exemption, to vaccinate them. The burden is not on me to justify the exception, the burden is on YOU (or the government) to show that this level of compulsion is justified.

For infectious diseases the percentages seem to be in the 80% and onwards. Wikipedia has a nice list here. The background to calculating these is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... accination]here[/ur].

The science of epidemiology strong and reasonable. The burden is now on YOU to show why you want to be excluded simply from a personal choice.

I will make another analogy. Would byofrcs support a military draft to which all are subject with no exceptions? If not, is not byofrcs experiencing the benefit of living in a safe country without being willing to require that we all contribute to that safety to the same level? Should we refuse to allow the possibility of conscientious objection to military service?

If there is a draft then why should there be exceptions ? I don't actually agree with the draft anyway as I don't agree that the safety of a country is determined by how many countries you plan to invade.

But if there was a draft through some bizarre reason then there are no exceptions, and all, including politicians get to shoot other people. Which would fairly well make sure that there wasn't a draft

Is byofrcs willing to risk his life to serve as police officer? Should we require everyone to at least have the same chance of being selected as police officers?

Huh ? If everyone was a police officer then there would be no criminals other than the crooked police.

The assumption that byofrcs and others are implicitly making is essentially that if a certain action is required by X% of the population in order for the population to be safer (NB: not even completely safe), than the whole population should be required to take that action, even is X is not equal to 100.

Now, I grant that the value of X for military service and police protection is a small minority, while for immunization from disease it is a large majority. This still does not negate the general principle. If byofrcs is willing to live with fewer than 100% or even a minority serving in the military or as police officers as long as the overall effect is that society is relatively safe, I would contend he should be satisfied with the same situation with immunizations, unless he can show that less than 100% compliance presents a significant risk as compared to a smaller percentage.

Government does have responsibilities towards its people, both as individuals and as a society. Assuming we determine that one of these responsibilities is to promote a healthier population, than we as a society decide how that responsibility is to be fulfilled and to what level. Government, at least in the U.S., also exists to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including freedom of religion. Those who do not practice a religion may not feel that this freedom should be in the constitution, but it is there nevertheless. There is no qualification on how 'reasonable' or widespread the religion must be before it is entitled to protection under the first amendment. There is no qualification that the majority must allow this freedom to a minority in order for the minority to enjoy it. The minority has this right regardless of how many people feel it should not.

We all know we sometimes have to balance one 'good' against another.
If government can provide an adequate level of protection against disease while still protecting the religious freedom of a minority, my view is it should consider this perfectly acceptable.

I will finally point out that, consitutionally speaking, freedom of religion is a specific (enumerated) right while 'freedom from disease' is not. Even if not vaccinating did present a significant risk to others, the constitution does not, it seems to me, guarantee freedom from this risk.

It does guarantee freedom of religion.

Your examples are not comparable with the subject of disease for the very grounds you said in that the percentages required for Police and the Army are much lower than for herd immunities.



With mass enrollment into the Police Force or mass conscription then the behaviours of the other sin society change.




But NOT the practice of religion. Read the law on this and you'll find you can still think and talk about religion but on the subject of practices you do not have this absolute freedom.

[byofrcs]

But today's statistics are due to reasonable rates of herd immunity. Measles is highly contagious and so if a large population has been vaccinated then the vectors for the disease are few.

If there was little vaccination done then the vectors would be the majority of the people around you and so your chances of catching the disease increase.

If we use the mortality rates from the old days then (Wikipedia summarises these), we are looking at,

"The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is low: approximately 1 death per thousand cases. In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates of 10 percent are common. In immunocompromised patients, the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent."

Which to me sound much higher than what you presented from today's society.

Basically the Religious folk who get away with vaccinations only can do so because the rest of society has a herd immunity.

Now if the disease was not contagious such with Tetanus then it would follow that the percentage of Tetanus vaccinations of the rest of society is not relevant. Do the religious folk realise this and do allow Tetanus jabs because they know that they cannot be a parasite to the herd immunity of society for this disease ?.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.
Where a disease is not contagious then their obligations to society are much less as long as they don't expect society to pick up the medical bills for their own faults.

Well said, byofrcs. I myself had not considered the crux of concern should evolve around the fear that were enough folks to refuse certain immunizations at some point we would hit critical mass where the rate of those contracting the disease would increase exponentially.

If I understood you correctly, this would only apply to that which is highly contagious, no?

Yes, the current low rate of infections is likely due at least partially and probably to a large extent to herd immunity resulting from vaccinations. Were vaccination rates to go below a 'critical level,' the situation could change. Does anyone know what this critical level is??

However, I do not see that I should base my decision today on the situation that existed 50 or 100 years ago, or a situation that 'might happen' if vaccination rates experience a drastic decline, rather than the situation that actually exists.

byofrcs also provides information which indicates that there are other factors that contribute to low rates of infection besides vaccinations. It is worth noting that some of the decline in at least some of the childhood diseases in the U.S. is probably due to these other factors.


The point on the tetanus shot made by byfrocs is also well-taken. Obviously there is a difference between contagious versus non-contagious diseases. My children have not received shots either for contagious or non-contagious diseases. While not universal, my experience is that most parents who forego vaccinating their children forego both tetanus and other shots.


Finally, to address one point in further detail.

Where a disease is highly contagious then the law needs to ensure that no one can sneak out of their obligations to society whilst they still want to remain in society.

I profoundly disagree with the assumptions being made here. On what basis do I have an obligation to society that I must fulfill, no matter what? I would challenge byofrcs to make the case that my not vaccinating my children presents so much risk that I should be compelled, with no recourse to an exemption, to vaccinate them. The burden is not on me to justify the exception, the burden is on YOU (or the government) to show that this level of compulsion is justified.

For infectious diseases the percentages seem to be in the 80% and onwards. Wikipedia has a nice list here. The background to calculating these is here.

The science of epidemiology strong and reasonable. The burden is now on YOU to show why you want to be excluded simply from a personal choice. That you also include your children, who had no matter in choosing you as a parent I might add, makes it extremely important that your decision is based on sound science and not unsound religion.

I will make another analogy. Would byofrcs support a military draft to which all are subject with no exceptions? If not, is not byofrcs experiencing the benefit of living in a safe country without being willing to require that we all contribute to that safety to the same level? Should we refuse to allow the possibility of conscientious objection to military service?

The issue of drafts, war and peace are matters of politics and the world of the virus is indifferent to human politics.

Therefore your analogy is not applicable. On the other hand, if there is a draft then why should there be exceptions ? I don't actually agree with the draft anyway as I don't agree that the safety of a country is determined by how many countries you plan to invade.

But if there was a draft through some reason then there should be no exceptions, and all, including politicians get to shoot other people. Which would fairly well make sure that there wasn't a draft

It is because there are exceptions that there are drafts.

Viruses don't care less anyway who's side you are on.

Is byofrcs willing to risk his life to serve as police officer? Should we require everyone to at least have the same chance of being selected as police officers?

You are twice as likely to be killed on the job driving a truck. Do you expect us to now all be truck drivers ?

It is safer to be a Police Officer than a farm worker ! Do you now want the Police Officers to be farm workers or is it the farm workers to be police officers ?

Equally a farm worker is an important member of society in that without food there would be no society. (which leads us to the bizarre situation of Police Officers arresting Farm Workers).

I think your analogy of trying to weight one role in society with another on the grounds of occupational injuries isn't making sense when you are promoting the risk of life in a job role that has less risk than some of the stuff many others already do.

The assumption that byofrcs and others are implicitly making is essentially that if a certain action is required by X% of the population in order for the population to be safer (NB: not even completely safe), than the whole population should be required to take that action, even is X is not equal to 100.

Now, I grant that the value of X for military service and police protection is a small minority, while for immunization from disease it is a large majority. This still does not negate the general principle. If byofrcs is willing to live with fewer than 100% or even a minority serving in the military or as police officers as long as the overall effect is that society is relatively safe, I would contend he should be satisfied with the same situation with immunizations, unless he can show that less than 100% compliance presents a significant risk as compared to a smaller percentage.

Government does have responsibilities towards its people, both as individuals and as a society. Assuming we determine that one of these responsibilities is to promote a healthier population, than we as a society decide how that responsibility is to be fulfilled and to what level. Government, at least in the U.S., also exists to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including freedom of religion. Those who do not practice a religion may not feel that this freedom should be in the constitution, but it is there nevertheless. There is no qualification on how 'reasonable' or widespread the religion must be before it is entitled to protection under the first amendment. There is no qualification that the majority must allow this freedom to a minority in order for the minority to enjoy it. The minority has this right regardless of how many people feel it should not.

We all know we sometimes have to balance one 'good' against another.
If government can provide an adequate level of protection against disease while still protecting the religious freedom of a minority, my view is it should consider this perfectly acceptable.

I will finally point out that, consitutionally speaking, freedom of religion is a specific (enumerated) right while 'freedom from disease' is not. Even if not vaccinating did present a significant risk to others, the constitution does not, it seems to me, guarantee freedom from this risk.

It does guarantee freedom of religion.

Your examples are not comparable with the subject of disease for the very grounds you said in that the percentages required for Police and the Army are much lower than for herd immunities and the purpose of the few police and army is to effect the law.

Virus are indifferent to the law, either national or international. They also have no interest in the Constitution of the US nor any other rights. They just do not care what you think about this.

Therefore analogies involving how humans interact with each other just cannot apply to how virus propagate through society.

The constitution may protect the belief of religion but it has never protected the practice of religion since some Mormon tried to collect a few wives back in the 1800s.

All we are left with is how science models how the viruses flow through society. If it shows we need herd immunity then this is sound science and any religious objection is unsound and the only reasonable objection must have a scientific basis.

Show us this basis.