A modest proposal

[kengr]

Thinking about all the news items regarding spread of diseases and low vaccination rates, I have a siuggestion.

Unlike some folks I know, I *do* believe that to some extent we realy *do* have to allow actual religious exemptions. Those existed for a long time and *weren't* a problem until the laws got changed to allow "personal belief" exemptions. Because *in practice* those turn into "I don't like the idea".

And, of course, there are medical exemptions. Some people have conditions that don't allow them to be vaccinated (compromised immune systems for one)

So, my proposal.

Let's say the required vaccination level for maintaining "herd immunity" is 95%. So that means that for safety no more than 5% of the population can be unvaccinated.

Public schools (at least) would be required to have no more than *half* that percentage of unvaccinated students.

This would be handled be giving first choice to the kids who can't be vaccinated die to medical conditions. After that, they can admit kids who have religious exemptions, until they hit the maximum. If there are more kids in those categories than the allowable percentage, then priority goes to the ones who've been attending the school longest.

After that, if your kid isn't vaccinated, they can't go to that school. Parents can send their kid to another school that hasn't maxed out yet. But *they*, not the school district, are responsible for transportation.

I'd want private school strongly encouraged to follow the same rules.

I'd allow private schools to choose to not adhere to the limits. Heck, if there are enough unvaccinated kids in a district, the district could choose to set up separate schools for unvaccinated kids.

But schools that don't adhere to the limits aren't allowed to share events with schools that do adhere to them. That's to prevent spreading things to the schools that follow the rules.

This would annoy the heck out of the yuppies and the like who have bought into the anti-vax propaganda. But it'd let them have their way *without* endangering other kids.

I predict that if such a policy was put into effect, it wouldn't be vary many years before the epidemics of various disease sweeping thru the "low vaccination rate" schools would lead to a lot of parents changing their mind about vaccinating their kids.

Hard on the kids, but there's really no way that failing to vaccinate *isn't* apt to be hard on the kids. This just limits the hazards as much as practical to just those kids, not the rest of the population.

Comments

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

The way I see it, you can't get a religious exemption if it's against your religion to pay taxes, and saying that your religion lets you assault people or abuse children doesn't get you a free pass either. Not vaccinating your kids not only puts them at risk, but everyone else and their kids at risk, too, and therefore is reckless endangerment on a massive scale, even bigger than drunk driving, and thus should NOT have a religious exemption.

[kengr]

The way *I* see it is that you have to accept a religions premises as they apply to its adherents. They just don't get to insist that non-adherents follow those premises.

That's pretty much the basics of freedom of religion and of basic respect for other's beliefs.

So for example you can't insist that Jews or Muslims eat pork or Hindu's eat beef, just because it'd make life simpler for the folks running a public agency.

So, if a faith has some principles that pretty much say you are going to hell for some sorts of medical treatment, that's not something you can force on them in good conscience.

At the same time, with vaccinations, the unvaccinated *can* present a risk to others. Thus my solution that would keep them more spread out (hopefully enough to be harmless) in most cases, and let them put up with each other as a (mostly) separate risk pool.

There are some precedents,. Prohibition didn't apply to communion wine. Nor do the drug laws apply to sacramental peyote and the like.

Letting the government force people to violate religious rules is a precedent you need to be *very* careful about applying.

Also, forcing medical treatment on people has a bad history as well.

We do need to bend over backwards on some of this. But at the same time, we *can* take steps to reduce the danger to the rest of us.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

IMHO, respect for someone's religion ends where their beliefs begin to threaten the lives and/or welfare of other people. So if their choices put other people at risk, I don't respect those choices, and I don't think anyone should. It's like the Wiccan Rede says: "An it harm none, do as you will." Choosing not to get vaccinated, especially choosing not to vaccinate your kids, is a major violation of the Rede and therefore I do not respect anyone whose choices put other's lives and welfare at risk. Especially when it's kids who are at risk. (I took an oath to Nahtahdjaiz, Child Goddess of Children, to protect kids, and I believe that respecting the choice to not vaccinate kids would be a violation of that oath.)

Now if they don't want to vaccinate themselves, that is a lesser offense in my book, and my take on them then is, if they want to make that choice, they should quarantine themselves away from the rest of us, like on an island in the middle of the ocean or something like that. Because it's still reckless endangerment, just not as much so.

Of course, then it gets complicated. I couldn't in good conscience let them breed on that island, to put kids at risk. But I am a strong believer in bodily autonomy¹ as well, so forced sterilization is out of the picture, too. It's a quandary.

Don't get me wrong, your solution is better than what we have currently, as it would separate the selfish assholes from the true believers. But if it was a choice between that and mandatory vaccinations for kids, I would go with mandatory vaccinations.

Letting the government force people to violate religious rules is a precedent you need to be *very* careful about applying.

Yes, and neither of those exceptions you mentioned has anything to do with the health and safety of the public at large. Drinking wine or taking peyote doesn't put millions of lives at risk of dying.

Also, forcing medical treatment on people has a bad history as well.

Oh? I've never heard anything about that. I've heard of things like black people being experimented on, but that didn't have anything to do with medical treatment.

1 = Obviously with the exception of where it begins to interfere with the health and safety of other people.

[kengr]

Well, the worst examples of forcing medical treatment on folks involve "mental health" stuff.

For example, Alan Turing being "treated" for his homosexuality. Or the favorite Soviet trick with political dissidents that were a bit to prominent to "disappear". They got certified as nuts and committed to asylums. Where they were "treated" to "cure" them.

But in essence the precedent says "What the state deems best for you is more important than what *you* think is best for you"

On the other hand, yiu *do* have cases like Typhoid Mary where they finally *had* to confine her because she refused to accept that she was spreading disease. And insisted on working as a cook. Even using assumed names.

But failing to vaccinate is *not* a danger to the general public as long as the number of people doing so is low.

Before the granola brigade started buying into the "vaccines are bad" meme, the rate of unvaccinated was only 1-2%. Which is well within the safety margins.

Since we do not *need* 100% coverage, we can tolerate some folks who aren't going to do it.

Even having communities (like the Amish?) who "all" fail to do it is a danger to *them*, not *us* as long as the general public keeps the numbers up.


Trying for "complete safety" is usually a bad idea, because you'll never get there, and attempts to do so involve a lot more government interference than is good for us. Just look at the results of trying to be "100%" safe from terrorists.