Measles: German minister proposes steep fines for anti-vaxxers

[Knolan]

Vaccinations should be mandatory. If not, a fine and the subsequent ramping up of the % for the delay should be so severe that even the upper middle class would not be able to bear it for long.

- - - Updated - - -

Even more than that, I'd allow schools to discriminate on this basis. Quickly the anti-vaxxer parents would find out their child can't be educated, anywhere. So it's either home schooling or vaccine. Some will choose home-schooling. Well, one day little Robby and the family will go out and one day little Robby will start feeling ill after the visit to the bathroom. Little Robby will die. He will.

Fuck Robby.

Great idea, oppress kids based on what their parents have done and turn them and their families into second class citizens, I see no way how this could possibly go wrong.

What about the children's right to proper medical care? Who's rights are more important in this case? The child's or the parents'?

From where I'm sitting it's the children, not the parents, who are suffering because of it so their rights should take precedence.

That is a good question, but the problem I see is are the children responsibility of the state or of their parents? Sure, at some point we need to draw the line, but it is not as black and white as some might think.

[Wyrt]

That is a good question, but the problem I see is are the children responsibility of the state or of their parents? Sure, at some point we need to draw the line, but it is not as black and white as some might think.

The state needs to protect children from abusive parents.

[horbindr]

That is actually what the Minister proposed. Make vaccination mandatory for any child that wants to attend school/Kindergarten, and fine parents that violate that.

i meant mandatory more as in a crime if you don't. plenty of kids don't go to kindergarten after all. so all this fine really does is keep more kids out of kindergarten, which kinda strikes me as the worst outcome, now you have no vaccination and less pre-school education for the kids in question.

[Shalcker]

And all of this is being done in any country with a health care system to speak of. There are isolated incidents, but they are not systematic.

I think payout is fair in case of such mistakes, and properly aligns incentives to avoid it.

In fact, such system is already more then 30 years old in US.

And looking at article, payout frequency is far from being excessive. So, really, i don't see where your opposition to this idea lies.

As for the data, it's a paper lying on my desk, it's fairly technical and, most of all, in german. If you spend 3 minutes on google I'm sure whatever the Center for Disease Control is called in your home country has similar studies published in your native tongue.

Well, can you tell me how it is called at least if you cannot transcribe it here? It is pretty hard to get specific highly technical data through "what i think it might be called".

But if you want the numbers: having 92% of the worlds population vaccinated would prevent a pandemic, 95% vaccination in densely populated countries will prevent local epidemics, 99% would eradicate the disease alltogether.

What is definition of "prevent" here? Obviously some people still can get infected (at low chance overall), but it is statistically unlikely (but should still be possible, just at fairly low chance) to spread.

And how does it look at 93%?

Clearly we aren't talking about world-wide immunisation at this point yet.

[Vorkreist]

We had a thread about something similar before, and I keep my stance that while anti-vaxxers are complete idiots and vaccines work, I am against the government forcing people to vaccinate their children. You must retain the right to refuse treatment.

You don't have the right to endanger other people's health with your stupidity. If it was something that only affected them you could argue they have that right but not when you spread diseases to other people.

[horbindr]

The argument, at least in the US, would be that you're A) taking away personal liberties - what if someone can't afford the fine. Do you take other things from them until they can pay? B) Can the history of the government be trusted to not do something fucky with the vaccines?

Those points are a bit silly but come with a touch of truth if you go back far enough in history.

you just waive the fine if they still decide to get the shot. and if they still wont get it then yeah just charge the fine like any other crime. if they can't pay there are often payment plans for that, but if they really can't that's an easy way to get child protective services involved who would then have the authority to force the kid to get the shots.

personal liberties is a weird thing. people obviously aren't against limiting them cause we all have some limits on them since birth. i can understand being worried about further limiting them, but in the case of vaccines it's a public health issue that 90%+ (and until recently 95%+) of the population has agreed with for decades so i don't really see how you could get a stronger consensus than that.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

a German official making a smart decision?

[Hutmacher]

As much as I agree with the fact that anti-vaxxers are a) stupid and b) dangerous to the majority of .. well, mankind, I don't think FORCING someone to do something is the right path (hehe right path @ CDU). Sadly, I couldn't come up with a proper idea how to solve the anti-vaxxers-issue, so.. this seems to be the only best thing to do.
Also I dont think it's the best to punish the child (in form of not allowing kindergarten/any kind of care for children). The parents are the guilty ones.
It would be cool to reward vaxxing with.. well, tax benefits, make everyday-stuff cheaper, that kinda things.

[Skulltaker]

i meant mandatory more as in a crime if you don't. plenty of kids don't go to kindergarten after all. so all this fine really does is keep more kids out of kindergarten, which kinda strikes me as the worst outcome, now you have no vaccination and less pre-school education for the kids in question.

The proposed law also covers schools. As I said, the original article is somewhat incomplete.

I think payout is fair in case of such mistakes, and properly aligns incentives to avoid it.

In fact, such system is already more then 30 years old in US.

And looking at article, payout frequency is far from being excessive. So, really, i don't see where your opposition to this idea lies.

Well, can you tell me how it is called at least if you cannot transcribe it here? It is pretty hard to get specific highly technical data through "what i think it might be called".

What is definition of "prevent" here? Obviously some people still can get infected (at low chance overall), but it is statistically unlikely (but should still be possible, just at fairly low chance) to spread.

And how does it look at 93%?

Clearly we aren't talking about world-wide immunisation at this point yet.

Yes, but the US doesn't have mandatory general healthcare, opposed to Germany. Again, the state covers all damages caused by vaccines already.

It is called "Untersuchungsbericht des Robert-Koch-Institutes zur aktuellen Lage infektiöser Krankheiten in der Nation." It's 60 pages long. Check what the CDC is called in your country, and look for publications on recent ongoing spreads of infectious diseases. If you tell me where you're from I can probably look it up for you.

Prevent means prevent. When we are talking about an outbreak of a disease that means that it starts spreading so fast that it becomes impossible to prevent spreading. If this occurs locally, we call it an epidemic, if it occurs globally, it a pandemic. It doesn't mean that the individual cannot get sick anymore, but the healthcare system is more than capable of treating all affected patients at ease.

Or, if you like it a little more technical: Prevent means that such an event becomes statistically so unlikely that the chance of it occurring becomes so small that it can be neglected. G. But: Vaccination against a disease isn't the only contributing factor in preventing an outbreak, as there are mitigating factors as well, such as other ongoing infections, general health of the population, density of population, even the climate can have an impact on how fast diseases spread. Many of these factors cannot be influenced by humans, others, like vaccination, can.

And world wide immunisation is more than possible.

[Temp name]

Seems reasonable. Wouldn't mind if the fine was larger either.

[Naramag]

The wording I read was "Fines up to 2500 Euros"... I don't have the full text of the proposal. So it could be scale according to income, it could be scale to circumstances. My guess would be a bit of both.

btw: If you have a kid, you get child benefit in Germany. It's roughly 200 Euro per month. The kid has to be under 18 and live with you in Germany or within EU, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland or Island.

it would be the easiest way to withhold the benefit until the vaccination... but on the other hand, this benefit is to support the child, not the parents. So legally speaking, withholding it would be punishing the child.

[Temp name]

Given it is a fine in Germany, I assume it scales depending on your income. Anyone can confirm?

Can't see anything in the article linked in OP, and I don't read enough German to go hunting

[Easo]

I hadn't realized that this bullshit spread outside of the US too.

I really shouldn't be surprised though, because stupidity isn't a region locked affliction.

Fucking hell, people....

Yep, EU has outbreaks too now.
Seriously, I would sentence that "doctor" and the, uhhh, mother once more. They have done so much damage.

[Knolan]

Vaccination is not treatment though, it is the equivalent of an insurance policy. Most countries even refuse people entry in the country if they are not vaccinated.
Also it's not the child that is refusing the vaccination, it's their parents.

Well, that is kinda of a loop hole abuse, it is still a medical treatment, as it imposes (albeit really, really, really small) risks.
But, yes, you are technically right, which is the best kind of right.

The state needs to protect children from abusive parents.

Then you will enter a rabbit hole, like, should kids be forced to do sports? Should kids that are fat be forced to go on a diet? And so on.

You don't have the right to endanger other people's health with your stupidity. If it was something that only affected them you could argue they have that right but not when you spread diseases to other people.

You kinda are, you are allowed to drink, for instance.

[Knolan]

Slippery slope fallacy though. If an adult willfully exposes another adult to a deadly disease we consider that assault.

Not in California ;D (sorry, could not resist)

You are right, sorry, I did not realize that. I was trying to follow where the principle would take it.

You are not exactly doing that, though. Not being vaccinated does not mean you are getting the disease, you are assuming a risk though.

[Skulltaker]

You kinda are, you are allowed to drink, for instance.

Drinking doesn't put anyone at risk, though. Irresponsible drinking does. You're not allowed to perform most professions while drunk, you're not allowed to operate a vehicle, and so on.

[Najnaj]

What about the children's right to proper medical care? Who's rights are more important in this case? The child's or the parents'?

From where I'm sitting it's the children, not the parents, who are suffering because of it so their rights should take precedence.

Measles vaccines work as herd protection to a large extent so this is incorrect. Since the measles vaccine does carry a tiny amount of risk with it as a parent your best option is to have everyone else's kid vaccinated but not yours. Most anti vaxxers aren't stupid, they are self serving cunts who gladly put your kids at risk for the tiniest benefit to themselves.


..but yes, some are absolute morons if they believe the vaccines cause autism BS. I still think it is time to call them by the right name though as they are mostly not idiots but rather assholes.

[Orange Joe]

Maybe you can also go from opposite direction? Restore trust of anti-vaxxers by promising payout for any complications arising within several weeks of vaccine use?

Don't need their trust. Get the shot, or pay up and have your kids removed from school.

[Shalcker]

Don't need their trust. Get the shot, or pay up and have your kids removed from school.

Some anti-vaxxers, especially of religious kind, already opt-out from schools for homeschooling. You aren't going to get everyone with threats like that.

[Orange Joe]

I think payout is fair in case of such mistakes, and properly aligns incentives to avoid it.

In fact, such system is already more then 30 years old in US.

And looking at article, payout frequency is far from being excessive. So, really, i don't see where your opposition to this idea lies.

Well, can you tell me how it is called at least if you cannot transcribe it here? It is pretty hard to get specific highly technical data through "what i think it might be called".

What is definition of "prevent" here? Obviously some people still can get infected (at low chance overall), but it is statistically unlikely (but should still be possible, just at fairly low chance) to spread.

And how does it look at 93%?

Clearly we aren't talking about world-wide immunisation at this point yet.

The US doesn't have national health care that would pay for the childs care, therefore compensation. It's not a payout it's to pay for medical care.

- - - Updated - - -

Some anti-vaxxers, especially of religious kind, already opt-out from schools for homeschooling. You aren't going to get everyone with threats like that.

Then they will get fined until they do. Also Pretty sure you can't really home school in Germany like you can in the US.