This surprised me, I thought the US was the epicenter of the anti-vax movement? Or is it just how things appear because of the constant news topics?
This WHO page  on measles statistics claims a 60% increase for the Americas. Maybe the BBC interpreted a <100% increase as a decrease, or maybe I'm misinterpreting it, since I don't see the raw numbers.
Medical professionals are effectively pitched in a fierce battle against a very successful meme.
In at least one of these four countries (the UK) there is absolutely no ban on talking about this problem, and it has seen solid coverage in the media for years.
The map is actually on the Daily Mail!
Unfortunately, there is a new viral threat - or rather, a memetic one. A meme that encourages people to immunocompromise themselves and their children. We're not so good at vaccinating against lethal memes, but perhaps this is the pandemic of the 21st century.
It's not just an internet phenomenon; the originator was Andrew Wakefield, with the help of lots of traditional sensationalist poor quality news publications.
Edit: this is more controversial than I was expecting .. I don't normally ask for explanations of downvotes, and I know it's frowned upon, and normally when I get downvoted I know exactly which audience I'm offending and why. But I don't understand it here.
The other reason we didn't have mandatory vaccinations is that there was just no need. Vaccines are about as close to a miracle drug as you can get. With virtual no side effects, a 1 minute procedure makes you immune to illness that would previously have devastated society.
If you took vaccines back in time and told people what they did, but claimed the had every side effect they are accused of having, there would still have been lines out the door.
as being opposed to the meme that vaccines should be mandatory, or:
as being opposed to the meme that vaccines immunocompromise people.
I initially read it as the former, because your first sentence was critical of mandatory vaccines. Then I read your other posts, and realized you were likely making an argument about how this is a subtle problem, where we had an effective cultural/medical system before which avoided making anything mandatory, which is good because it’s better to not be authoritarian when we can avoid it, but a meme broke that effective system.
Is that right?
I'm also saying we need to develop better public health methods against dangerous memes. Whether that's vaccination of the mind or breaking off a few pump handles.
There are few hypotheses as closely scrutinised and solidly disproven as the theory that (measles) vaccines cause autism, but a quick glance at the material spreading online shows that as one of the all-time favourites of the army of trolls and the misinformed.
Being unvaccinated is not immunocompromised. They're almost orthogonal and indeed
someone can be both vaccinated and immunocompromised (and actually immunocompromised from vaccine injury).
> It's not just an internet phenomenon; the originator was Andrew Wakefield
Maybe in recent times? But there seems to have been people against vaccination since its origin.
> After the publication of the paper, other researchers were unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, or autism and gastrointestinal disease. A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part, and most of his co-authors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations. The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues. The investigation centred on Deer's findings, including that children with autism were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.
> On 28 January 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the GMC found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and twelve counts involving the abuse of developmentally delayed children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted against the interests of his patients, and acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet fully retracted the 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton said the paper was "utterly false" and that the journal had been "deceived". Three months following The Lancet's retraction, Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in the research published in The Lancet, and was thereby barred from practising medicine in the UK. A British Administrative Court Justice noted in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr. Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked".
The problem is, on the path to this equilibrium, people die unnecessarily.
But now it does not and we may require laws unless the misinformation can be quenched soon.
So no, cost is not the reason and I think it's a bit scary that that's the best reason you could come up with.
I'm as sceptical of antivaxxers as most of HN, but I'm appalled at the level of support for forced medical intervention in the comments here. That's the stuff of dictatorships.
Unlike most medical interventions, vaccination is not about one's individual well-being, but more about the protection of the entire population, especially other, more vulnerable individuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity).
This is why some vaccines are recommended even if you're not especially in danger, because they help protect others that may not be able to be vaccinated (because they are too weak, or due to a special reaction to the vaccine etc.)
Not saying that it means that forced vaccination is morally justified however! But the question of vaccination is definitely not simply about individual choice in regard to one's own health.
The question isn't 'can we rationalise this?' - we can rationalise everything. The question is 'is the threat great enough for the government to start infringing on liberty?'. It probably isn't, otherwise we'd ban all hard and soft drugs (including alcohol & smoking) as a similar level of threat to public health. That battle has been fought and lost by the public safety folks.
An incentive program would probably be a good idea, but I expect there is already one in place.
It’s all about managing th externality.
I think that’s over the top. The most legitimate argument for forming governments is the management of externalities. It infringes on the factory owner’s liberties to restrict their dumping of toxic waste into the river.
Likewise vaccines and quarantine are ways to limit the spread of dangerous pathogens.
There are no real negative effects for vaccination, as long as you don't force them on people who have genuine medical conditions preventing them from taking them safely (e.g., allergy to vaccine components).
Also, an interesting note: if you join the military, you have to get vaccinations. You're not allowed to opt-out.
I'm in the UK that has lost eradication status. Before I could claim my children weren't in danger because its eradicated. Now it isn't and am now exposing my children to a clear danger.
Is it not analogous to letting my children play with the bleach under the sink?
According to this  non-immune adults in the UK can get vaccinated, if born between 1970 and 1979, and hence got the single measles vaccine, or between 1980 and 1990 and hence missed the mumps vaccine.
However what about those of us born before 1970 (measles vaccine licensed in UK in '68), and so presumably never vaccinated against any of the three?
That would leave people of 50 and older, and viewed as having "life long" acquired natural immunity. So presumably not vaccination failure amongst them.
So is the "older adults" only referring to some age < 50, who were vaccinated, and that vaccine immunity has now faded?
Edit to add - there are age / year statistics available here , which lumps everyone >= 35 in one bucket. Which may imply these "older adults" are actually people between the ages of 35 and 50.
 - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/
The section "MMR for non-immune adults".
 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/measles-confirmed...
> Ms O'Brien said all four European nations that have lost their eradication status have "extremely high" vaccination coverage.
And then we have other horrible things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
Followed up by Operation Sea-Spray.
The various US governments have done some pretty horrible things to its citizens over the years. Citizens should be rightly dubious of mandated medical treatments.
That said, vaccines are good. Please get your kids vaccinated.
The boy who cied wolf, basically.
Related neighbour thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837940
From anthropological studies, it seems the usual cited reason is either environmental problems or invasions. Environmental problems are probably the main reason for most: they have a long drought, rivers dry up, crops fail, etc. But that doesn't explain why these peoples were unable to adapt, perhaps by moving elsewhere.
Of course, there's the Romans. They had some problems with volcanoes (Pompeii and Herculaneum I think), but those were local, whereas the empire spanned most of the continent, so they should have been able to handle it. From what I've read about it, it seems their society collapsed basically from too much corruption and bad governance; at some point, it became more sensible for people to abandon the cities with their aquaducts and plumbing and their highly specialized trades and move to a feudal lord's land and be a serf, working in the fields and living in a hut. So I really do have to wonder: what kind of stupidity on a massive scale happened to cause things to go that badly?
I recall one documentary about Minioan archaeology - they had a practice of demanding/taking sacrifices from tributaries - the sacrificed adolescents weren't related to the other remains found.
Apparently they suffered many deaths from an eruption and then when they were weakened their feared reputation backfired as their tributaries invaded and decided now was the time for vengence and to put an end to them for good.
Corruption as a downfall seems to be a case of short term vested interests resulting in massive stupidity which also comes back to bite them. China weakened their navy massively over internal political disputes and even after they were forced to pay massive ransom and pardon pirates who decimated them. They even ignored the opportunity/hint as the pardoned pirates offered to sign up to be the new navy. Imperialism by western naval powers followed.
We've just never had something quite like it.
Nowadays, one can go online and find PDFs of textbooks, online lectures from prestigious professors teaching useful subjects, videos from conferences to learn latest findings, tutorials on practically every subject matter, Discord groups / subreddits from other enthusiasts, YouTube videos explaining practically every esoteric subject matter... I could've used so many of these resources when I was struggling in high school with classes taught by smart but bad teachers.
I guess I've felt like it hasn't been that hard to separate the 'good' information from the misinformation.
But then again, if I was growing up now I very well may have become addicted to iPad games.
I had no trouble finding textbooks, I could ask my high school teachers, my university tutor, my friends, classmates, and so on for help. As for the esoteric subjects, well they are esoteric precisely because not many people are interested in them so I don't think I lost out there either.
The amount of information available to me in the late sixties and seventies was already many orders of magnitude more than any one person could consume.
Since the population boom it took quite a while to get something like the internet set up.
This obviously does vary from country to country. Greece's big problem is more the complete destruction of its economy over the past decade and the vast damage this has done to healthcare access there.
Exactly. The flu and the common cold viruses are different from most others, which is why we don't have a cold vaccine and our flu vaccine is only good for that season's flu (maybe). The flu and cold mutate very rapidly and constantly, whereas those other viruses don't.
Edit: Here are a couple of sources. The first claims to have proven that someone on the vaccine schedule spread measles in 2011. However I will correct that I thought the disney case was similar but I think that one may have been wild measles and only a few vaccinated were infected. These are just food for thoughts
This one is more scientific and dry but is from the CDC I believe and showed among other things an increase in sporadic measles outbreaks among vaccinated
The whooping cough is more interesting. You can find multiple cases of outbreaks among highly vaccinated people but the symptoms are allegedly milder so the vaccine is possibly doing something positive about it. The CDC is warning the vaccine is losing effectiveness.
Anyway interested in any takes on that. I'm not wildly anti-vax but even these mild questions on it were immediately downvoted. I think its a complicated and fascinating thing to talk about when people aren't crybabies about it
"Since a single cycle of viral replication would be expected to
take 17 to 24 h, it is unlikely that the RT-PCR detected the
progeny of virus replicating in the urinary tract. Rather, this
observation suggests that shortly after vaccination the input
virus or viral antigen, in the form of nucleocapsids, is deposited
directly into the bladder via interstitial fluid."
Looks like we're just peeing out the vaccine. I'm not educated enough to know if that's "live" RNA or not, but it makes sense it would be there, as it was introduced in the vaccine itself.
I've tried finding some good resource about mathematical modelling of infectious disease, but they're rather dry or clearly biased.
Although that's probably true in the UK, are we really going to pretend the problem in Greece is also some non vaccination movement? This is absolutely Orwellian.
But, if you choose to send them to public schools for instance, they can impose requirements for attendance like vaccination, much like being required to pass a drivers test before using public roads.
And yes, you should get your kids vaccinated. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/09/in-the-united-states-ru...
Except for the military draft?
The slippery slope fallacy does not apply to governments. Once you give an inch, history has shown us indeed that miles are taken.
So why stop with vaccines? As a thought experiment, imagine the US moves to universal health coverage, where the government is the sole administrator of health payments. As a cost cutting measure, some department introduces legislation that requires proof you take your medication as exactly as prescribed in order to increase positive health outcomes, cut back on medicines administered, and reduce costly office visits. Again, similar situation to vaccines, "of course you should take them as prescribed", but do you want it to be forced? what if you feel particularly nauseous one day and don't want to take your nauseating-inducing drug? Or any other thousands of reasons people forget one time. Maybe you take more? Maybe the pharmaceutical industry was wrong about your recommended dosage and your medicine is killing you.
Anyways, it isn't hard to imagine. It's ironic to me that many proponents of "keep the government out of my body" vocalize support for these types of things.
Jokes aside, it's not stupid, it's just extremely dangerous.
It's unbelievable what a luxury we have nowadays! Saying NO to vaccines. Any person from the last 5000 years would have had these shots without thinking twice about it. We, on the other hand, think not about survival anymore, but about "oh, my freedom is endangered".
It's the so called mass immunization, and it's very well documented to have proven improvements in terms of health in the last century. Otherwise let's all go back to the Middle Age where people would die for a cold.
It's not me telling. It's being part of society. If you want to benefit from it, you have to follow social rules. Otherwise go live in a jungle like some people do. I find it unfair that a newborn should risk his life because people around are not immunized.
It's unfair to benefit from health improvements thanks to all the others that are immunizing themselves through vaccines. That's what I find stupid and evil.
First page result on google: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/...
In a world where a single pharma company can be given total control of the manufacture of a specific vaccine via patents, mandatory vaccination is really asking for trouble. I could patent a vaccine to cure some random virus, use my army of lobbyists to convince the government it was a health crisis, and distribute saline injections for 20 years.
Now, you can have all the most interesting 'pharma is bad' arguments, facts are facts. You don't have to go out and worry about catching measles. The biggest worry is "oh shit, will I catch the train?".
Vaccines have undoubtedly saved millions of lives and eradicated numerous deadly diseases. But whether the government should make it illegal to refuse vaccines is not only a question of health, but one of individual liberty. The answer may be, "public health is more important than individual liberty", but this gets into a gray area.
Their adverse effects have impact over other people. That's all I care about. That their poor children die because of their parents' beliefs, I find it very sad, but that's how it is, I can't change.
Why do you feel you have the right to tell me what to do with my body? My body, my choice!