Germany proposes $2,800 fine for parents skipping measles vaccination

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/health/measles-vaccination-germany-fine-grm-intl/index.html

by RobertSmith • 7 years ago

77 52 7 years ago

edition.cnn.com

acd• 7 years ago

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.

Herd immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

sprash• 7 years ago

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.

crazygorilla• 7 years ago

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.

maze-le3• 7 years ago

Right, they shouldn't be fined for refusing to vaccinate, they should be fined for endangering the life of their kids and others with this reckless behaviour.

ponow• 7 years ago

"Reckless"? You mean sub-optimal. Sure, if the issue is spreading disease people outside one's family, then fine away. But choices whose primary consequences are to be borne by the family, ought to stay within the family. Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.

seattle_spring• 7 years ago

Why in the hell was this comment flagged, and why can't I vouch for it?

heavenlyblue• 7 years ago

> Mandatory sterilization of people with undesired traits? The Slippery slope starts here.

I don't want to be funny here, but I am pretty sure if you took the people who don't want to vaccinate their children and the people who would like to sterilize the "god-damn-migrants" - there will be a significant overlap.

It's not a slippery slope. We're not living in Wild West any more - the population is growing and lack of vaccinations is becoming more of an issue than in a more sparsely populated past.

scarejunba• 7 years ago

Jacobson vs Massachusetts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Already resolved in America, at least, with good arguments

stmfreak• 7 years ago

Treason from the high court.

Vinnl3• 7 years ago

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.

wavefunction2• 7 years ago

These anti-vax folks believe vaccines cause autism AND that there is some massive conspiracy to give their kids autism via vaccines so a small nudge seems unlikely to much effect at all.

What we need are massive civil suits against these folks for putting other people into danger.

fpalmans7• 7 years ago

If massive civil suits, huge fines and, eventually, forced vaccination won't convince everyone there is no massive conspiracy, then, pray tell, what will?

Vinnl3• 7 years ago

Well, the assumption there is that this holds for everyone who does not get (their kids) vaccinated, and I'm not prepared to immediately accept that. We don't need 100% coverage, so as long as there are enough people for whom this nudge would be enough, we'd be good.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it would work; just that I don't know that it wouldn't, and it'd be great if it would.

thatuseristaken• 7 years ago

Your reply is such a bad generalization. I'm getting really sick of these "these anti-vax folks" statements.

Me and my wife carefully considered every recommended vaccination by reading studies on the vaccines, their side-effects and general success rate. We chose to have our son vaccinated against measels (and others) because it made sense. However other vaccines against other childhood diseases didn't do so great a job. So we decided against them.

Just saying "get (your kid) vaxed with every vax out there" is just as bad advice as not vaccinating at all. You also don't have to believe in this "vaccines create autism" bs. Every medicine has side-effects. The question is just what they are and if you should prefer them to the disease, maybe even if the vaccine just protects only in 30% of the cases.

There are more things to consider: - Vaccinating a child to early (especially if it is breastfed) will seriously dampen the success of the vaccine. - Lots of childhood diseases are especially dangerous to adult people. So it makes a lot more sense to vaccinate them (again). - Mothers that have had childhood diseases as kids will give their offspring a better immunization against those.

DanBC• 7 years ago

So, not about fines but about paying parents to vaccinate - Here's some information about cash incentives paid to patients for various different schemes: https://www.dc.nihr.ac.uk/highlights/patient-incentives.htm

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.

sorryforthethro• 7 years ago

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.

sgeisler2• 7 years ago

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.

drivingmenuts2• 7 years ago

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.

sgeisler2• 7 years ago

Is it also cruel to let one unvaccinated child endanger the lives of thousands?

Right, that's immoral, but what I was getting at was that you can choose to not endanger anybody to a large extent even if you aren't vaccinated. The main problem are densely populated areas and public institutions. If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved.

I'm also fine with sequestering unvaccinated children and adults, but given Germany's history, that might not go over very well.

I know, I'm German, but the proposal itself bears some resemblance to forced sterilization during that time to "improve public health". It's one of the most tricky policy areas there are and should be handled with more care and consideration.

I totally agree that getting vaccinated is the right choice, but without consent it's abuse and if written as law it's tyrannic.

basetop• 7 years ago

To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases.

But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected?

Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ).

Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice.

It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy.

I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.

yongjik• 7 years ago

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.

detaro4• 7 years ago

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...

atoav2• 7 years ago

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.

HeyZuess• 7 years ago

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.

mullingitover• 7 years ago

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.

the_70x• 7 years ago

kids not vaccinated are not allowed to go to school works better

detaro4• 7 years ago

Great, one easy trick to be able to homeschool your kids, just don't vaccinate them...

bingerman• 7 years ago

Homeschooling is great, with or without vaccinations.

Personally I prefer spreading actual knowledge about vaccines and their advantages (and possible side-effects, too) to calling skeptical people dumb and trying to make them hate "the system" more.

averros• 7 years ago

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.

Germany proposes $2,800 fine for parents skipping measles vaccination

Related Stories