Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jessica Biel Jumps the Shark
Yesterday the Daily Beast broke the news that actress Jessica Biel had teamed up with Robert Kennedy Jr. in order to push back against a new bill proposed in California that would make it more difficult for parents to enroll their children in school without the recommended series of vaccinations. Vaccine refusal has been linked to outbreaks across the country, and making sure California, a hotbed of vaccine denial, is better vaccinated is a win for public health across the country.
Across the rest of the country, especially within media, vaccine refusal is far from a popular stance. But in Hollywood and across California, as evidenced by celebrity anti-vaxxers and the vaccination rates in their zip codes, it’s like a different world. My friend Bridget, who lives in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter:
Yeah right — most of Hollywood is DL anti-vaxx.
— Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) June 13, 2019
Biel’s anti-vaccine stand is just another way those in Hollywood, while preaching about the sacredness and importance of science, while scoffing at the stupidity of regular Americans, have a hard time practicing what they preach. The same folks who wear all black in support of the #MeToo movement, but who let Harvey Weinstein walk in their midst for years.
For her years of anti-vaccine activism, actress Jenny McCarthy has been the subject of scorn, she even has a website devoted to the death count her activism is responsible for: https://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/
When McCarthy did a stint on the View and when she hosted a radio show, the social media accounts for the shows were deluged with fans sharing their feelings about her presence. With Biel joining in on the movement, any projects she undertakes should be followed by the same reminders of the toll her activism takes on public health.
Published in General
Should a parent have the right to determine their child’s medical care and what drugs are administered, or should the state have the power to force care/drugs when they deem it medically proper?
I am not anti vaxx, my kid was always up on her shots. But I am very uncomfortable with the government being in the position to require any treatment. It is a slippery slope, at best. At worst it is totalitarianism.
So, Mrs Timberlake ( Jessica Biel) is on the side of smaller government.
There’s no forcing by the government going on, since it appears to apply only to school attendance. If parents are passionate about not vaccinating their kids, they can homeschool, which keeps them and the other kids safe. The old, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose you’re riding a bus and a smelly person boards. He’s really smelly, and when you look it appears he has feces clinging to his filthy clothes. He has open sores on his face and arms. He is, however, alert and normally conversant. (It’s not essential to the experiment, but imagine he’s carrying a copy of today’s NYT, just for realism.)
Does the state have the power to force this person, a citizen, to not use public transport? I think it’s obvious the answer is “yes” and that no serious person would argue the point. If you disagree, why?
But I’m guessing you agree the state is able to force that person to not use public facilities based on the evident threat he poses to public health. What then, is the material difference between the Smelly Liberal and an unvaccinated person? I say that for the purposes of your question there is no material difference. We can remove Stinky from the bus, and we can require everybody’s kid get their shots before going to school.
Well, that is a little hair splitting. Kids must attend school. So unless a parent has the wherewithall to home school, the government is forcing them to get vaxxed.
If all the rest of the kids at school were vaccinated, then what risk is there with an un vaccinated child? (Unless, of course, the vax doesn’t work, which I think helps the anti vax side…)
Maybe, if we had true school choice with vouchers, the argument that this isn’t force would be more persuasive. But when the regulations are 1. your kid must attend school and 2. To attend school they must be vaccinated, then you really are essentially talking government mandated vaccinations.
So you are claiming being un vaccinated is the same thing as being contagious? Contagious to, I might add, people who are supposedly immune?
The difference is that when someone doesn’t vaccinate their kid, they are putting others at risk, not just their own kid. Whether the government can force you can be debated, but the parameters of the debate are different when your actions are affecting others.
The anti vaccine families can homeschool. I do not want deliberately unvaccinated children in close contact with other kids.
The problem is that the vaccine is not perfect, and some kids cannot be vaccinated due to medical reasons. Normally, they are protected by herd immunity. It is a second layer of protection.
By the same criteria, those parents who are uncomfortable with exposing their vaccinated children to un vaccinated children could homeschool.
So those children would now be excluded from public education? How about those kids who were vaccinated, yet did not get immunity?
There seems to be an attitude that an un vaccinated kid is the equivalent of typhoid Mary. That is a bit overblown… every un vaccinated kid is not a carrier.
If there’s enough of them they are contagious.
No, I don’t. I have plenty of words that accurately state my meaning.
I suggest you do a bit of study. Herd immunity is critical to public health.
All of us have to give up some freedom for the greater good of the community. I have to follow traffic lights and the speed limit. (I can’t think of an example that would be similar to the type of decision we’re discussing–can someone help me??) The point is, measles is serious stuff, not just an inconvenience, and if little ones get it, it can be dangerous.
No material difference were your words.
Herd mentality is critical to totalitarianism. I won’t disrespect you by suggesting you do a bit of study.
The problem I see with your analogy is that I don’t think we can remove stinky from the bus.
I want to avoid a system with a single point of failure. I want to have a margin of safety based on most people being vaccinated. The more unvaccinated people present, the more vulnerable everyone is
We have numerous rules that guard against effects that only occur when many people do the harmful action.
ENOUGH!
I can sympathize with anti-vaxxers in only one regard—I don’t want the government dictating medical treatment and other health related things regarding my children, much less myself. Growing up, I had every known childhood disease except mumps, yet I survived. Having said that, there’s no way I wouldn’t vaccinate my children.
To end this feud once and for all, I propose a compromise:
For the next ten years (or pick another number), no government at any level requires mandatory vaccinations—parents make all decisions. If any children die as a result of not being vaccinated, the onus is on the parents. If any children become invalids (think polio) the onus is on the parents to provide lifetime care.
So I ask you—what’s wrong with this proposition? Not from a moral standpoint, but a practical one?
I should add Bethany’s right.
The kids at the school may have a younger sibling who isn’t completely vaccinated, , or a parent or grandparent who is immuno compromised. Maybe some of the children at the school can’t be vaccinated because of an illness.
I have a similar aversion to coercion. But I don’t have a good answer here. All my kids were fully vaccinated, as my new grandchild is in the process of.
No but they are a potential disease vector.
Two things come to mind without much work: First, anti-vaxxers are math-averse. They’d disagree about the attribution of cause even in the case of direct deaths. That’s not dishonesty; they’re honestly confused and afraid.
Second, your proposal scarcely begins to address the costs borne by responsible people. The societal cost of public health failures is huge. Also, some have an objective vulnerability and so can’t be vaccinated.
We all have to be reasonably clean – put out the trash, don’t poop on the street, that kind of thing. That is actually a very close analogy – vaccination keeps things clean.
Two problems:
One, if an epidemic sweeps through, a bunch of children of responsible parents will suffer for the actions of the irresponsible. That’s not a fair experiment.
Two, if an epidemic doesn’t sweep through in those ten years, which is quite possible given the randomness of outbreaks, anti-vaxxers might actually think they are correct. Placing even more children of responsible parents in danger in following years.
Anti-vaxxers can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that they are endangering their fellow citizens and those citizens’ children. That’s not sufficient reason, in my book, to permit them to do so. An extreme response would be forced vaccination. Homeschooling is the reasonable middle ground. If you can’t cooperate with basic preventive measures to interact in public, the public should exclude you from high-exposure environments, like schools.
And as for lacking the wherewithal to homeschool–I don’t buy it. Remarkable numbers of people below the poverty line do it. Failing to homeschool for economic reasons is placing one’s socio-economic status above one’s purported concern for one’s child. If you can’t make the sacrifice to homeschool in order to avoid vaccination, don’t place the onus on your community.
I think we’d all prefer to avoid the heavy hand of government to the extent possible, and to use it as a last resort. That’s not to say governmental force is what people characterize as a “necessary evil” – it isn’t inherently evil. But a well functioning society shouldn’t need frequent recourse to force.
One way society polices itself is through is shame. It’s good that we point out and ridicule the superstitions that vaccination avoiders substitute for reason. Their personal uncleanliness constitutes opposition to civilization, little different from the crazy addict in a shipping crate behind the convenience store.
It’s good that we label them as selfish – they would rather indulge their magical thinking regarding personal integrity and autism than recognize their responsibility.
But I think the most effective approach would be to teach them to associate vaccination with cleanliness. That’s something everyone can understand, except for dirty homeless addict guy. Nobody wants to be pointed to and whispered about. “He’s dirty. My mom said …”
Shame is effective and non-violent. When it fails, there’s always force. If neither is to one’s taste, consider the streets of San Francisco. That’s where public health goes when society indulges the mentally weak. Indulgence now makes the use of force inevitable later.
No
As Adam Carolla put it, “We need to ing back shame. Shame is great.”
To other unvaccinated children.
Their disagreement has nothing to do with math (although some use it). They are against government mandates concenring health.
But their kids are vaccinated. How do their children suffer?
I hate arguing for the other side because I’m for vaccination. Besides, we (and hopefully the anti-vaxxers) see the results in California, where vast numbers of illegal aliens with a buffet of diseases are causing a resurgence of not just childhood diseases. Oh, and it’s not just California.
Regardless where one stands on mandatory vaccination, shouldn’t one inform oneself? The ignorance surrounding this topic is both astonishing and cause for dismay.
No vaccine is 100% effective. Try this article. It’s simple and short. There is a little math, but just arithmetic. (I’ve never seen this site before today, yet I found it in ten seconds with a duckduckgo.com search. Embarrassed yet?)
Most of the arguments of the uninformed seem to assume that vaccination is a magic wand that the Shaman, uh, I’m sorry, I meant the Doctor, pokes the kid with, that protects him from the evil. (Or perhaps they excuse their superstition by projecting that belief onto responsible citizens. I guess it doesn’t make much difference.)
Civilization asks, among other things, that most citizens learn a little of western science – at least the habit of studying before forming an opinion. That’s a bit like vaccination, if you think about it. If enough of us disregard the need to be well-informed, then things start to break down.
Herd immunity is critical to public health. Ignorance of the surrounding issues is irresponsible.
Because some vaccinated children don’t develop immunity, or it fades sooner for them than normal. A few percent. And some children either cannot take specific vaccines due to allergies, or have to delay taking them due to other medical conditions. Another few percent. And of course, many vaccines cannot be given to infants — they are entirely dependent on herd immunity. And finally, there’s a little bit of constant churn with travel, especially international travel.
Herd immunity is the factor you are ignoring. It is a barrier to transmission of infections as long as the odds of the infected interacting with the vulnerable is low. The threshold varies by disease (based on the ease of transmission) but is basically effective when the percentage of immune persons is 90% or more. Given case one above, that means the percentage of vaccinated persons must be ~95% or more. That only leaves room for those who cannot be vaccinated. There’s no margin for those who don’t want to be vaccinated.
It doesn’t matter whether we bully those into compliance, shame them into compliance, or forcibly vaccinate them at the schoolhouse door–it must be done. Or those children stay home.
Schools represent the closest encounters our children experience with large numbers of others, and those encounters are repeated daily. The odds of community transmission in schools far exceeds other situations, even the workplace.