
Germany proposes $2,800 fine for parents skipping measles vaccination - RobertSmith
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/06/health/measles-vaccination-germany-fine-grm-intl/index.html
======
mullingitover
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.

------
Vinnl
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.

~~~
wavefunction
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.

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

~~~
NullPrefix
Could you explain how do massive civil suits, huge fines and forced
vaccination prove that there's no massive conspiracy? I just want to know the
reasoning behind your statement.

~~~
fpalmans
As mentioned before, I was being sarcastic.

Why does anyone believe that marginalizing or demonizing the antivax movement,
that attempting to force them into submission, will do anything but strengthen
their resolve?

Even I am starting to wonder why, when the benefits of vaccination are
obvious, governments feel the need to _force_ parents. If the vaccination
story is solid, which I believe it is, let's just let this play out. Let the
anti-vaxxers be our control group. History will settle the debate.

~~~
aleatorisch
Umm, because this so called "control group" you're so casually dismissing also
includes infants and individuals with various conditions [0].

Those people rely on herd immunity to not get sick, and we shouldn't allow
crazy anti-vaxxers to endanger them.

[0] [https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-
vacc.html](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/should-not-vacc.html)

~~~
fpalmans
I wouldn't say that I am casually dismissing them, I am callously dismissing
them.

But seriously? What is the alternative? Moving closer and closer to forced
vaccinations for everyone who can be vaccinated? This will only feed their
discourse.

Though I believe we both agree on the benefits of vaccination (my children are
vaccinated and will continue to receive their vaccinations as recommended), I
think we disagree on the nature of the perceived threat. Please correct me if
I am wrong, but I believe that you consider the lack of vaccinations the main
threat here. According to me, the antivax movement itself is the greater
potential threat.

~~~
aleatorisch
> Moving closer and closer to forced vaccinations for everyone who can be
> vaccinated?

YES!

> This will only feed their discourse.

I don't care. Should we kowtow to every group with "discourse"?

> I think we disagree on the nature of the perceived threat.

I think they are both a major threat. We disagree that the anti-vax movement
will "run its course". Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away. We
can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not harmful to have a
bunch of un-vaxinated people out there.

We already give you a fine if you don't wear a seat-belt, smoke indoors, have
glass containers in public places, and so on. You may disagree with all these
regulations on some libertarian(ish) ground, but then we have a fundamental
disagreement about when your freedom infringes on my right to be safe, and
your right to be a burden on the state.

In short, not getting vaccinated is a public health risk, and the government
has a responsibility to protect its citizens by enforcing as high a
vaccination rate as is reasonably possible.

~~~
fpalmans
> > This will only feed their discourse.

> I don't care. Should we kowtow to every group with "discourse"?

Perhaps the word "discourse" means something different than I thought it
meant. I meant to say that forcing vaccinations would only end up making their
arguments more plausible.

I do not advocate kowtowing, I advocate carefully choosing a strategy which
addresses the main threat here.

Nor do I advocate ignoring them, I merely disagree that fighting them will
make them go away.

~~~
aleatorisch
Let's be clear, they have no arguments that rely on any sort of rational
discourse. No "strategy", or clever approach to the problem will convince them
they are wrong.

I'm honestly not sure you're actually arguing in good faith here. You've
offered no path that would address the issue other than hand waving and saying
"fighting will make it worse", and "we should let it run its course". I'm
saying that there is no "run its course", they aren't gonna just give up and
go home if you stop fighting, and they aren't _all_ gonna just die if measles
either (thanks to the above mentioned herd immunity we all protect them with).

You say you've vaccinated your kids. Lucky you. Maybe realize you're
privileged to have been able to do that and stop telling those less fortunate
they'll just have to let their loved ones die from preventable diseases lest
we make a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists' "arguments more plausible".

~~~
fpalmans
Agreed, arguments will not convince them they are wrong. Data will not
convince them they are wrong. Attempting to force them to vaccinate will not
only make them fight more. In addition to fueling their arguments to grow
their ranks, they will likely be able to attract others to join their fight on
ideological principles.

I propose the following (briefly):

* Though admittedly callous, do not force vaccination, do not penalize refusal to vaccinate. Sadly, there will be a toll. But, eventually, this will change some hardliners' opinions. Having them advocate to vaccinate will be more effective.

* Focus on the fringe cases. For example, if the child desires to be vaccinated, or if one of the parents wants vaccination. Allow this to expand to concerned grand parents. Civil courts.

* Continue with the information campaign. As the decades roll by, more and more hard data will be available showing occurrences of autism (or whatever it is they claim is caused), life expectancy, etcetera.

In other words, focus on those who have not been indoctrinated yet. Adjust
your strategy on constraining this movement to the fringe. Do not invite
lengthy court battles determining whether or not they have the right not to
vaccinate. Let's just prevent building case law [edit] in that area.

edit2: Let's avoid building case law on whether or not the government is
allowed to force vaccination. Of course, building caselaw wrt my second point
is unavoidable.

------
sorryforthethro
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.

------
acd
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity)

------
the_70x
kids not vaccinated are not allowed to go to school works better

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

~~~
bingerman
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.

~~~
detaro
The point is that homeschooling is not legal in Germany, so banning vaccinated
kids from school would give some parents a way towards what they want (keep
their kids out of school) by not vaccinating them, which is exactly the
opposite of encouraging vaccination. (If we assume the concept of "ban from
school" makes sense if there's a law mandating school attendance)

------
sprash
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.

~~~
maze-le
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
"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.

~~~
maze-le
No I do mean "reckless". It is one thing to have no knowledge about a topic
and act accordingly, it's quite another to be in active denial about a topic
that has been proven again and again.

>> Actually, a reasonable starting fine is the expected cost of healthcare
outside the family due to non-immunization by the family.

Well, its damn hard for anyone immunocompromised (under immunosuppressive
therapy or by disease). They have a higher chance of dying, a death that could
be prevented if herd immunity would be reached. They are not just a costly
externality.

~~~
convolvatron
it would be so much easier if we could just assign a dollar amount to each
human life. then the insurance industry could perform its normal risk-
management function.

since clearly all lives dont have the same economic value, and the market is
really the only effective process to ascribe such a value - slavery is really
most natural framework to sort all this out.

as a plus, we also dont have to have all those stupid discussions about
trollies and track switches anymore.

------
sgeisler
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.

~~~
drivingmenuts
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.

~~~
sgeisler
> 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.

~~~
majewsky
> If you are just living on a farm in the middle of nowhere barely visiting
> the neighbor villages there is much less risk involved.

Sounds like you've never visited Germany.

~~~
eindiran
> I know, I'm German

The post says that GP is German.

------
averros
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.

