It's not the middle class or lower middle class and poor who opt out the most but upper middle and wealthy out of irrational fear.
But yes, glad this loophole gets closed.
Not necessarily. There's also a tragedy of the commons here. If all children but mine are vaccinated, then my child is the safest, since I avoid both disease risk and vaccination risk.
So it can actually be rational to not vaccinate on an individual basis, depending on the state of vaccinations in the population. (On the other hand it is also rational to support a law forcing everything to vaccinate, since that fixes the tragedy by fiat).
One other point, is while a local population might be vaccinated, you don't know who is coming in and out, i.e. going through town, one of those could be carrying the disease, so it's still irrational.
It's a question of trust in scientific authorities, not about their knowledge or lack thereof.
No amount of understanding or attempt at education will dissuade anti-vaccine parents.
How does one interpret this document? We laugh at the side effects associated with medications when it's on the television but not the FDA documentation for such medications?
Under "CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY" it reads that MMR "may" cause serious complications and/or death. Further down it reads that the MMR Vaccination may cause serious complications and/or death.
I am confused
> No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.
It's quite unlikely that any of the marketed MMR vaccines have ever caused a death.
Which is vaccination, by a margin so close to 100% that presenting it as the greater harm and refusing it on that basis is completely untenable.
If you wish to force vaccination then there needs to be copious oversight of those supplying them.
If you are anti-DUI laws, then I have questions about your value system, but I will admit that you're at least consistent.
If you don't see the difference between the two mandates above, do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?
The vaccinations being required provably decrease death rates, which sounds a lot like the opposite of taking a risk.
It's also worth noting that this is not a true mandate. Like how DUI laws only apply to people who choose to drive, vaccines are simply the cost of entry to the public school system.
> do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?
If you can bypass the law by a simple step like not sending your children to public school, and the abortion/sterilization significantly decreases both the risk of death to the person receiving the operation and the general public, then I suspect I would not be opposed to such a measure. I'm having trouble imagining what that scenario looks like, though.