Nice try throwing all that "science" and "informed arguments" around to confuse us, but I have it on good authority from a former model that vaccines cause autism.

You should also wash with anti-bacterial soap (has bad effects, but science!), and make sure your child never gets a cold (because there is no vaccine against that), and never travel internationally. All to make sure this woman's child stays safe. I have sympathy for the child and the parent, but expecting others to behave in a way that maximizes protection for your child is ridiculous. Especially because 99% of the infections passed around in day cares are colds.

I understand the logic of herd immunity (although you should note that the flu shot has a 70% chance of working, if you get the right strain). But trying to use a guilt trip argument? That's ridiculous. Especially because the risk that her son will get a bad cold or the flu is much higher than the risk of getting measles or pertussis. Even if everyone is vaccinated to the hilt.

Thalia: a kid with a suppressed immune system has a much better chance of surviving a cold than the flu, measles, etc. In any event, stating "your unvaccinated child puts my my child at a higher risk of death" is a factual statement so I don't see why you find it "ridiculous."

The main thrust of anti-vaccination appears to be the possibility of personal responsibility and thus guilt if something bad did happen to your kid.

This is an entirely reasonable response. You could be doing something bad to someone else's kid. Not that your kid wouldn't die of disease, but if your kid, as usually happens, survived without too much trauma, you could still be personally responsible for the death of some other kid.

Guilt trips are a time-honored method for encouraging responsibility. As long as they're not wrong, I don't have a problem with it.

"I have sympathy for the child and the parent, but expecting others to behave in a way that maximizes protection for your child is ridiculous"

Vaccinations are part of the social contract that is implied by belonging to society. The point of most of the vaccinations is to provide widespread protection to society at the cost of minute risk to each individual (calls of autism are complete crap, but adverse immune response from people with an immune disorder are a legitimate risk). Participation in vaccinations have paid huge dividends in the past - we have made small pox extinct outside of the lab and are on the cusp of doing so to polio. Occurances of measles, mumps, and rubela have plumeted though are on a rise again thanks to the lies of the anti-vax movement. If society were diligent about their social responsibility those too could be things of the past.

However people don't care about the social contract regardless of the fact that it is the foundation for society. They also seem utterly incapable of making intelligent individual risk based decisions (the risk of Autism from MMR is 0. The risk of an adverse immune reaction is significantly lower than the risk of contracting and suffering serious side effects from the diseases innoculated against). So that pretty much leaves the guilt based approach.

I kind of dislike lumping "vaccines" into a group. Some, such as MMR seem pretty solid, with benefits obviously outweighing the risk of adverse events. Others, such as chicken pox, seem a lot less clear cut.

I feel bad for the Slate poster - she's obviously in a bid situation. But frankly, the tone reminds me of the nut allergy crusaders. One kid has a big problem, and therefore everyone in the world must modify behaviour to fit. I could see reaching an accomodation if my kids went to the same school as hers, but her situation is exceptional, and not relevant to the vaccination calculus of most parents.

re: #7 Anonymous - I think vaccines are a good idea, but I question giving vaccination "social contract" status. I just checked a dictionary and read the wiki page to brush up on the meaning of the term, and it does not appear to mean anything that would be relevant to your argument.

I think vaccines are a good idea, but I question giving vaccination "social contract" status.

Then maybe you should read about how many times epidemics followed anti-vaccine crusades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationist#Events_following_reductions_in_vaccination

The comparison to allergies is invalid. Your child's allergies have no impact on anyone else's. Your child's measles can kill.

The definition that I found for social contract relates the relationship between a community and its government. I'm prepared to believe there's another definition that's more applicable, but I haven't found it. Unless vaccinations were to be required by law, they would not fall within the scope of the social contract as I read the term.

As for the nut allergy comparison. . . did you even read my post? Let me make the comparison more explicit:

In scenario 1, the pathogen is nuts, and the susceptible child has a nut allergy. The parent of the susceptible child demands that all other parents to modify their behavior by not bringing any nut-containing foods to the school. This gets everyone's goat when the susceptible child is used as a reason to demand the modified behaviour in all situations, not just those where a child has a life threatening allergy.

In scenario 2, the pathogen is influenza, and the susceptible child has a severely compromised immune system from chemo. The parent of the susceptible child demands that all other parents modify their behaviour by having their children receive yearly flu vaccines. This gets my goat when the susceptible child is used as a reason to demand the modified behaviour in all situations, not just those where a child has a severely compromised immune system.