?

Log in

vaccination requirements - Ilya Shlyakhter (notestaff) - letters to editors
June 9th, 2015
01:07 pm

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
vaccination requirements
Don't dismiss anti-vaxxer concerns

Since herd immunity doesn't require a 100% vaccination rate, a good compromise for California is to let the unvaccinated enroll in schools with greater than a 95% vaccination rate (if enrolling the kid won't push the rate below the threshold). The unvaccinated would have less school choice and may have to move, but they would not be forced into home-schooling. ("Much in common, but worlds apart on the issue of vaccinating children," June 5)

Forcing a medical treatment — even a safe one — is a big intrusion. It is justified to save a kid from major risk or to prevent him from endangering others; other than that, give parents their autonomy.

Tags: ,

(2 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:yelya
Date:June 14th, 2015 01:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
I believe I know what this has been inspired by. :)
The problem that I see with your approach is determining which of the anti-vaxx parents chooses not to vaccinate, as right now in California these people constitute much more than 5% of the population. Second of all, you are not really giving people a free choice not to vaccinate, because it is doubtful that somebody would move just because of the vaccination rate at school (which, btw, can change any time).
[User Picture]
From:notestaff
Date:June 14th, 2015 02:36 am (UTC)
(Link)
:) grisha has a point (had to look up "amicus plato").

Opt-out rate is 3.15% statewide, much higher at some schools. Opt-outs of MMR are some subset of this.

Having to move isn't "free choice", but at least a realistic choice; home-schooling isn't, except for the wealthy. Who gets to opt-out is random, first-come first-serve till vaccination rate drops to 95%. Still better than no-opt-outs-for-anyone, no?

What law would you pass?

Edited at 2015-06-14 02:37 am (UTC)
Ilya Shlyakhter Powered by LiveJournal.com