Government censorship always works to suppress only bad ideas and is never used to preserve power /s
All of this is still crude - just less crude then outright censhorship - because the deep roots of the movement are too difficult to root out. Ultimately, this movement is suited to the West in our age. First, we demonize Big Everything (sometimes even with reason). Second, most of the people who reject vaccines ultimately prefer a dead child (even someone else's) over an autistic child. This is also pushed hard in our culture. Third, we have this worship of natural everything, even though nature is full of poisons.
Well, it seems like child abuse to me, and it's not even containable - the effects are not limited to their family, but can effect mine as well* . Second, I don't see a way for political resolution here. On political matters there are votes and if my side loses, that's the way it is. Here, the very fact such a movement exists (even if the vast majority is against it and votes against it) puts some immunocompromised people at risk.
* There are religious sects that agree to basically live apart of society - so it wouldn't matter that much to us what they do - but I don't think that's a possible resolution to this issue, not for most anti-vaxxers.
Typically, the resolution is some form of mandating that kids get vaccinated.
However, given that these parents believe that puts their child and themselves at risk, they'd go far to stop it, up to faking vaccinations - at which point any outbreak would "prove" the vaccines are ineffective. So I don't think there's a way of avoiding a confrontation with the movement itself.
I feel like there a tendency to believe that, since censorship is bad, censorship must also be completely ineffective, and we tell stories like "deplatforming is useless" to reinforce that. But I don't think that's a realistic approach. Censorship can and does work, in the right circumstances. Chinese millennials may know that something happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, but they're fuzzy on the details and inclined to downplay it and keep quiet about it. That's censorship working as intended. Assuming your enemies are incompetent doesn't accomplish anything but a false sense of security.
I am quite capable of telling the difference between tyranny, and basic public safety, and I think you are too. Vaccination in 2019 is about as clear-cut a line as I can think of.
Besides, government censorship is not some esoteric political theory, indeed it's the natural inclination of those in power, and there's a long history of states using it to the detriment of their citizens -- but maybe they just haven't tried "real" censorship?
And just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
For your second point: there's a long history of states using police to the detriment of their citizens (And, in my opinion, they continue to do so, even to this day), so we should abolish the institution tomorrow. How's that for an esoteric theory? For some reason, though, the courts aren't super keen on that line of reasoning...
Yes, lack of herd immunity causing an outbreak certainly does meet the "clear and present danger".
You don't get to build whatever you want precisely because it might harm somebody else--we have building codes.
You don't get to skip vaccination precisely because an outbreak WILL harm somebody else.
You really think this sort of thing is apolitical, that the government can be trusted here?
The primary question that I like to ask people who make statements like this is as follows: "What is your mental model of how vaccines get approved and pushed to market?"
Even money says that you have a model that looks like "drugs" where vaccines are biologics, and treated completely differently.
Then I like to ask "If you did get sick from a vaccine what could you do". In the US you can't sue, you end up in a special vaccine court. HN in general opposes things that have extra-judicial processes attached to them (secret warrant courts, binding arbitration). For me extra judicial has become a "smell" ala code smells that make me look deeper at an issue.
This is the same industry that gave us Martin Shkreli, Aids tainted medicine knowing sold in 3rd world countries, and $600 epipens. The suppression of science that is going to upset the apple cart is a thing. See John Yudkin and pure white and deadly, see suppression of tobacco research, see Barry Marshall and the fact that even after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results.
There are plenty of people out there that are mindlessly "pro vaxx" who have zero understanding. The debate has made me educate myself on the topic. Vaccines are an effective but flawed product, one that needs educated consumers and a hell of a lot of reform.
* None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust. Or vaccines in particular.
* That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though. Big Corporates are bad, supported by Arrogant Science that can sometimes be flawed, therefore something related to them must be Bad too. To fix the unspecific Bad, the area needs some unspecified Reform (reform is always Good of course, and can never be Bad).
One that has no president or case law is. One without the ability to contest (your award) is. The moment that you leave special masters rather than experts before a judge you end up with a very different set of outcomes.
> None of your examples even relate to the FDA approval process which seems robust.
I didn't question the FDA approval process for drugs, or biologics. I just said it is different and you need to approach the situation with a very different mental model. There is good and bad in the process and consumers should be aware of what they are putting into their bodies.
If you want to question the FDA, and on the topic of biologics, then look no further than Chiron corporation. The UK government had to shut down their plant, and the FDA knew what was up. Peoples lives are on the line and a "miscommunication" by the FDA is an unacceptable excuse.
The examples I listed had NOTHING to do with the FDA, and everything to do with the players involved, Doctors and large corporations. History is a good indicator that we have problematic interactions between these groups and science that harms profits or changes long held (and sometimes wrong) beliefs.
> That was a good example of the ideological forces I was talking about though..
I didn't say "big corporations are bad", I didn't say "science was arrogant". Sciences has its problems - reproduction, trusted elders, corporate interests and the ego of humans. I think science is aware of its issues and is the tides are shifting on punishing and replication, money and ego's are harder to solve but the former will do much to address the problem. Again history is a great indicator of how we treat change when money and long held ideology are on the line, it is a place where we should be MORE cautious not less.
* The FDA did screw up once in 2004 with a flu vaccine - and it was caught in time. I doubt a single miscommunication 15 years ago is representative of the process.
* I stand by my summary. Sure, your original post didn't use the same exact words, but it's pretty typical rhetoric: greedy corporations ("corporate profits", "$600 epipens") and arrogant flawed science ("Barry Marshall.. after getting a Nobel prize some Dr doubt his results").
* After all that, you're not really saying what "reform" you have in mind. If history is any guide, the misEducation of the last twenty years did a lot more harm than good.
[0] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078168
I did not know that the vaccine court was established after an earlier vaccine scare in the UK...