VaccinateGate

Do you honestly think I am of the anti-vaxx crowd? I didn't just fall off a turnip truck yesterday, you know. My children will receive all recommended/mandated vaccines.

But as you've just demonstrated, Christie has a point. Not every friggin' vaccine, no matter how wonderful it might be, ought to be mandatory. There should be some room for parental latitude.

 

Based on what, exactly? Because it's sure not based on facts.

P.S. - Not trying to accuse you of anything. Just having a discussion.

 

Costs, benefits ... the usual suspects. In the vast majority of instances, there really should be little room for parental discretion. I am not even sold on religious exemptions, and I'm probably one of the biggest religious freedom types 'round here. Nevertheless, there are disease-vaccine pairs (sorry, can't come up with a better phrase) for which vaccination is relatively costly (or, conversely, confers relatively little benefit). Similarly, there are disease-vaccine pairs for which childhood immunization, while better, isn't substantially better (w.r.t. benefits) than later immunization. Here I believe there is some room for latitude. How much? I don't know. But zero? Sorry, I ain't buying.

 

Most of the studies done on this show the routine immunization schedule saves a substantial amount of money in both direct and indirect "societal" costs. Like, in the tens of billions of dollars annually. Broken down by each individual vaccine, usually the cost-to-money-saved ratio is at least 1-3, meaning every dollar that goes toward [insert vaccination here] results in $3 savings down the road. Most vaccines perform even better in that regard.

HPV vaccine may be an outlier. We don't really know yet, since it's relatively new. But I think it'll show that it's hard to argue the benefit of preventing at least five different types of cancer and widespread STDs isn't worth the cost.

 

BTW ... I used the words "costs" and "benefits" very, very broadly. Costs include risks of harm, etc. So do benefits. You get the idea.

And, to repeat: I am not arguing the anti-vaxx position (which I think is overwhelmingly stupid). Rather, I'm arguing that Christie's point, taken at face value, is not remotely unreasonable. It's light years more reasonable than the arguments put forward by, among many others, PhDs in neurobiology and lefty political scions who are darlings of the climate change crowd.

 

Even Christie's walkback language is insidious with his "not all diseases are the same" tack. It's pretty clear how he wants that to be read among his voter base...some diseases, like measles, you should vaccinate for. Others, like HPV...well, only sluts need that vaccine.

 

Is it clear? That seems like an awfully uncharitable reading.

 

That's pretty much the Republican/Christian position on HPV vaccine, so if it's uncharitable, take it up with The Base.

 

It is uncharitable. "It's pretty clear" is overstating things. But he's a Republican with presidential aspirations, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think he's already pulling out the dog whistles.

 

Actually, you guys probably should get out a bit more. If Christie's statement reflects political calculations, it was offered up as a warning shot to our esteemed ex-governor here in the Lone Star state. He, you may recall, triggered some of the early Gardasil kerfuffles with his executive orders mandating its administration to 11- and 12-year-old girls.

 

Right -- and he got roughed up about it in the primary debates. Most GOPers sided with Bachmann.

It's without question a culturally conservative position and right in the GOP wheelhouse.

 

Ahem -- Rand Paul: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

Rand Paul: Vaccines Can Lead to 'Mental Disorders' - NBC News