Comment by Dot Tumney
Human immune systems are fascinating. Large chunks of medical research are targeting non-reaction, over-reaction and inappropriate reaction. All this is also making clearer the hows and whys of vaccination procedures.
At all points in history, human and microbe have interacted. The diseases produced have always varied according to the situation: cholera-water contamination, HIV-body fluid exchange, malaria-mosquitoes. To complicate things further, individual humans and groups react differently depending partly on previous exposures.
The most basic social and political responses deal with providing clean water, sewerage, housing and adequate nutrition as protection against many transmission routes and to improve recovery chances. Achieving the basic for all people is a task far beyond the ambitions or capacities of capitalist systems, which are much better adapted to quarantine (equally crude).
Whenever the immigration scenario gets nasty, "them bringing in their diseases" gets a run. However, if this is overdone, the tourist industry screams. The "health" funding debates are all focused on trade-offs, since the idea of healthy people being a social goal and desired result of economic activity is still in the realms of fantasy.
Given all of these ins and outs, should one view individual protection as good or bad — politically speaking?
The "vaccination debate" (as just discovered by the tabloid media) raises all of the following: children's and parents' rights; societal demands and responsibilities; social obedience enforced legally or morally; fear of everybody suing everybody else; information quality and availability; and, of course, who is making the money.
Risk assessment. Is a disease more likely to kill the child than the corresponding vaccination? Yes. Is the disease more distressing than side effects of the needle? Probably. Are there hidden long-term, subtle dangers? Maybe, but does exposure to the disease itself produce them as well?
Are the possible negative effects of vaccinations anywhere near as risky as driving the kid to the shops? No. Are the current vaccines the best possible? No. Can drug companies be trusted to go on improving them? No. Is the average GP likely to be aware of any situations where vaccinations shouldn't happen? We can hope. Does the current Medicare standard consultation allow time for reasonable discussion of expected side effects and what action is needed? No.
Speculations. Would I trust everybody else to keep my kid safe by immunising theirs? As much as I'd trust the man to be responsible for birth control. Would I allow unvaccinated children in my "for profit" child-care centre? Not in the age of lawsuits.
Is the trade-off for vaccination programs auto-immune diseases? Probably not. Is the current asthma increase due to lack of exposure to infection during the immune system "programming process", so that it reacts to dust? Possibly.
Does the fact that infectious epidemics occur whenever social protection collapses prove that "natural processes" should rule? Not when it comes to anyone I know; not even as a method of population control among folks I've never met; not in an artificial environment.
Infectious diseases have no natural controls in cities, especially not in the age of air travel. Should we forgo medical interventions and move to rural idylls connected by the internet and protected by ramparts? Well, you may try, if you can afford it, but I'm staying here, thank you. I don't fancy inbreeding, and your genetic diversity imports might have a novel bug your systems aren't ready for.
Is vaccination an appropriate area for legislation? There is already a certain amount in relation to overseas travel and immigration, but like much of the rest of restrictions on immigrants it's a Work Force Quality Control and Budget Expenditure Reduction measure.
In GLW #261 (February 5) Dave Riley quotes figures suggesting that only 1% of parents strongly opposed immunisation and that 97% had children's initial vaccinations done at two months of age. The fall-off is in the following jabs.
I feel that the provision of resources and access to immunisation and information about it are definitely a government responsibility. I don't, however, trust them with compulsion backed up by deprivation of the non-conforming. But the notion of the offspring of the 1% getting a free ride as it were, providing the 99% cooperate, seems to offend our free-market policy makers.
The TV shots of wheezing babies will probably be enough for the forgetful, or those who have never seen a disease before. Vaccination as a disease prevention method requires continuity. A blasé population will have disease/vaccination cycles.
As a social option, vaccination is a health budgeter's preferred option until better things emerge. So it probably is for the individual to decide. This is, after all, the sort of topic where the tabloid scares regularly change sides. Don't confuse this with information.