Germany Makes Measles Vaccinations Compulsory For Children (cnn.com) 130
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
Germany's parliament has voted to make measles vaccinations compulsory for children, with parents who fail to immunize their children facing fines of €2,500 ($2,750).
The Measles Protection Act, which the Bundestag approved on Thursday, requires all parents to provide evidence that their child has received two measles vaccinations before they are enrolled in school or kindergarten. Medical staff, daycare workers, teachers and workers at community facilities must also be vaccinated under the act, which is due to come into effect in March 2020, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health told CNN.
There has been a resurgence of measles -- a highly infectious viral illness that can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes -- across the globe... Almost 350,000 measles cases were reported globally in 2018, according to the United Nations children's agency UNICEF -- more than doubling from 2017.
There has been a resurgence of measles -- a highly infectious viral illness that can spread through the air when an infected person coughs or sneezes -- across the globe... Almost 350,000 measles cases were reported globally in 2018, according to the United Nations children's agency UNICEF -- more than doubling from 2017.
This is common sense, I've got no issues w/ it (Score:4, Insightful)
But are we really going to have an long series of "Country X has made measles vaccinations mandatory" stories here on Slashdot?
Re:This is common sense, I've got no issues w/ it (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not even that new.
The former East Germany had compulsory vaccination, and much lower incidence of measles than the West.
The East still has higher coverage.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/v... [who.int]
Re: (Score:2)
"But are we really going to have an long series of "Country X has made measles vaccinations mandatory" stories here on Slashdot?"
You're already complaning now after only 2 countries?
We'll have to suffer through 194 more.
Re:This is common sense, I've got no issues w/ it (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that the homeopathy crap is, unfortunately, still popular here, this
is bullshit. The pharmacies don't offer homeopathy unless the customers actually ask for it.
Here is one interesting thing I have noticed - you write a lot about Germany and it is almost always factually incorrect. Where do you actually get your (mis)information from? Some crackpot Russian livejournal blog?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not surprised, that's Bavaria, the home of German hillbillies. Generally, this crap is only much more ingrained because homeopathy was "invented" in Germany and hence supported by Hitler.
I am surprised by your prescription, though, homeopathic sugar pills are over-the-counter because there is no active substance in them. It makes no sense to prescribe OTC stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, this crap is only much more ingrained because homeopathy was "invented" in Germany and hence supported by Hitler.
Please let this be true. Even though it’s utterly fallacious, I want to lay down an “Oh yeah, well guess who else supported homeopathy!” on one of the nut jobs that go on and on about it being just as good as medicine. Sadly it probably stands a better chance than actual reason and logic, but if that doesn’t work I’m going to ask them if they think it’s okay to punch a Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
If you understand German, you can read this:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
>It makes no sense to prescribe OTC stuff.
Two words: placebo effect.
The placebo effect is actually more powerful than many/most modern medicines, several times more powerful in many cases. (Why are so many pills blue? Several studies have shown that blue pills enhance the placebo effect)
If you've got a patient with a minor problem that doesn't justify medical traetment (e.g. treatment is likely to do more harm than good), but they're demanding you prescribe them something, placebo-pills are an excellen
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if it is OTC, the doctors usually just say "you can get this or that at the pharmacy".
In all my life I had an OTC "prescription" just once, for loratadine (which is certainly not a placebo), and the prescription was on a green slip instead of the usual pink one, meaning that it is a suggestion or a reminder, not an actual prescription. As far as I know OTC drugs can only be on the pink prescription slip (that's the one the national health insurance will pay for) if a prescription drug is also on it
Re: (Score:2)
>The national health insurance won't pay for these either.
Are you saying that the NHI won't pay for over the counter medications? If that's true that seems like a *huge* problem that would push people towards much more dangerous drugs. At least in the U.S., the primary difference between prescription and OTC drugs is usually the potential dangers of the drug - either to the patient, or society as a whole (e.g. as with overuse of antibiotics breeding antibiotic-resistant diseases). Hopefully you were s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the NHI doesn't play for the OTC drugs, although certain NHI insurers do. And no, it doesn't really push people to more dangerous drugs because the OTC stuff usually costs about as much as the NHI co-payment, a few euros. In Germany, the lack of danger is not the only difference between the OTC and prescription, the price also matters. Expensive drugs, even if safe for self-medication, are usually prescription only. Case in point, loratadine and desloratadine. The former is available as a generic OTC d
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that seems reasonable - except for the prescription-only bit on expensive drugs safe for OTC use, though I suppose there's maybe some protection against consumer price gouging?
> ...WTF is that green slip supposed to be and judging from a little googling, a lot of people are puzzled by it...
That sounds to me like the confusion is over why the slip is a different color - not how to "redeem" it. Had you not been confident enough to ask about the color, what would you have done? Taken it to the pharma
Re: (Score:2)
The practical difference is that once people understand that the drugs are OTC, they won't bother visiting a doctor to get these next time. It is, after all, a hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, that's a fair point.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greens don’t represent all Germans, just a large enough percentage of them to block needed progress on more than one front. It’s their version of hippie moms.
Re: (Score:2)
"Homeopathy is much more ingrained in German medical culture then in many other countries though."
Psst, the guy who invented it was a German.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a problem for me personally a few years ago. It is still a problem to the point where my national broadcaster had a story about how their crew working in Germany ran into that exact same problem. In their case, one of the crew members had a wasp in his beer which stung his tongue. He went to the apothecary for the medication, and got two items. One of them was homeopathic, which pissed said person enough to write a story about it which our national broadcaster published. That was a few months ago.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the pharmacists have tried to scam foreigners.
You should have brought the case to the local consumer protection association.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would have answered that yes, state sponsors homeopathy to the same degree as actual medicaments?
Seriously, you need to stop pretending this isn't a problem, because foreigners visiting are obviously not even going to have means to go through the pedantic nightmare that is German bureaucracy just to recover a few euros.
Re: This is common sense, I've got no issues w/ it (Score:2)
Nobody, because it is not the case. Homeopathic sugar pills are not in the list of medications that have to be paid by the national health insurers. Many of them do, though, voluntarily, catering to the stupid to win customers. You see, in Germany there is universal health care, but it is not state owned. Instead, it is provided by self governed non-profit organisations and everyone below a certain income must participate in this system. The state sets policies and the maximum payment amount, the insurers c
Re: (Score:2)
You keep pretending really hard that I don't understand the German system after being expressly told the exact opposite. That I have personal experience with it, and pointing to the experience of others which matches mine. And keep pretending that by explaining details of how German system works, something in my statement would be debunked.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the USA the homeopathic "cures" either can't make claims, or have to provide disclaimers about how their claims aren't proven, so there's a pretty clear warning signal on the packaging.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's newsworthy because it's Germany, the promised land of homeopathy and centralized and massively overzealous solutions to all problems."
Don't forget the hundreds of thousands of 'Heilpraktiker' who read your Kirlian-Aura and watch a giant photograph of your pupil to decide which species of leech to put on your back.
Re: (Score:2)
The German government doesn't really give a fuck about how you kill yourself, as long as you don't kill others along with yourself. If you don't want medical treatment and instead prefer to eat sugar pellets, hey, it's a free country.
Where they draw the line is where you become a danger to the rest of the population.
Which is essentially as it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
If you plan to travel to Germany, take note. This is a real problem if you have to buy medicine in Germany and you don't believe in homeopathy.
This is pretty much nonsense. Unless you go to a specialized homeopathic pharmacy, this will not happen.
There may be a trend by general practitioners to replace other placebos with homeopathic ones, because they are sure not not have any negative effect. But this is a known and understood thing, GPs do need some placebos because some patients will just insist on getting medication whether they need it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I note above, I've run into this issue personally a few years ago, and in addition, my national broadcaster had a story of their crew running into the exact same problems a few months ago.
Stop whitewashing it. This is a genuine problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I used to live there. Unless this has completely changed in the last few years, this report is BS.
Re: (Score:2)
So did I. Unless this completely changed in last few WEEKS, this report is true.
Never in the Netherlands (Score:2)
With three Christian parties that have a big influence in politics this is never going to happen in my country, where we have separation of church and state only on paper.
Re: (Score:3)
With three Christian parties that have a big influence in politics this is never going to happen in my country, where we have separation of church and state only on paper.
Sorry, but the religious thing is just an excuse made by clueless parents
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] (Hey, this even mentions Netherlands)
https://www.historyofvaccines.... [historyofvaccines.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From the first link:
In Protestantism, there are various denominations without a supreme leading moral figure, such as the Pope in the Catholic Church.
I'm pretty sure that's because Protestants consider Christ to be their "supreme leading moral figure".
This gives protestants the advantage to make up any old thing they want, while at least Catholics are restrained by the views of some old guy in the Vatican.....I was raised Protestant, but now I'm pretty sure that if there is a "god", it's probably not the one in the Bible...or the Koran or any other religious book written by people.
Re:Never in the Netherlands (Score:5, Funny)
now I'm pretty sure that if there is a "god", it's probably not the one in the Bible...or the Koran or any other religious book written by people.
Of course not, Linus is never mentioned in any of those books.
Re: (Score:2)
But even with vaccination, it is only a very tiny number of sects that refuse to use modern medicine. Anti-vax isn't a Christian or a Protestant thing. The number is small enough that it would be highly surprising if any political parties for those groups are large enough to be represented in the Netherlands.
Re: Never in the Netherlands (Score:2)
See? Stupid idiots. Their god gives them vaccines and they refuse them.
Re:Never in the Netherlands (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys managed to relax your drug and prostitution laws just fine...
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never in the Netherlands (Score:2)
Drugs are tolerated, not legal
Stupidity is tolerated and legal, everywhere. The best vaccine is to have your kids play with some kid who has measles.
Re: (Score:2)
A distinction without a difference. It is tolerated as a national and governmental policy. The legal text isn't relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never in the Netherlands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have our own bible belt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Took them long enough, though. Should have been done decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Except East Germany had compulsory vaccinations despite being quite a lot poorer.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, it's two Christian parties with big influences, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Socialists (CSU). And both have voted for compulsory Measles vaccination.
Isn't that almost the same party, CSU in Bavaria and CDU for the rest of Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite the same, CSU is the idiot brother to CDU.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, it's two Christian parties with big influences, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Socialists (CSU). And both have voted for compulsory Measles vaccination.
Isn't that almost the same party, CSU in Bavaria and CDU for the rest of Germany?
Almost, the CSU is the CDU but they have to speak very slowly and use small words.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so it's like the AfD?
Re: (Score:2)
More or less, the main difference is that the CSU guys are unable to speak proper German.
Re: (Score:2)
In the CSU it's the politicians that have a problem with proper articulation, in the AfD it's the voters.
I do wonder whether there is some cut-set...
Re: (Score:2)
How about the AfD that tried to delete the AfD [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
"In Germany, it's two Christian parties with big influences, the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Christian Socialists (CSU). "
But the latter one only in Bavaria, The 'Hillbilly-State' as somebody commented it a bit above.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but real diseases trump the feelings of imaginary beings.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the current government in Germany is headed by a christian party and the current chancellorix is daughter of a priest?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccinate your fucking child.
Re: Never in the Netherlands (Score:2)
I can Google "flat Earth Nazi dinosaurs" and get lots of info too. What's your point?
Should be everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who wants to treat their own health problems with a bag of polished gemstones is still more than free to do so. But this involves minors, who should have a right to health and an education, and furthermore, it also involved infectious diseases that effect everyone. I'm less interested in ideology than I am in not getting measles.
Re: (Score:2)
A big part of government is protection of the public in general. Which means that protections of individuals will sometimes be in opposition to it. That is, things like rules of law that prevent rampant crime (even in poor areas), As such, public health is a major part of government responsibility (epidemics will affect everyone). Where Libertarians stand often depends upon the individual, whether the person is adamant that individual liberties are more important than the public good, or if they're smart
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but from both a moral and legal perspective the cost of preventing or prohibiting something is magnitudes less then the cost of requiring or forcing it or even encouraging it. Forcing people to do something , even if they consider it immoral , should only be done with the the utmost necessity, because morally speaking a person might be injured by not be allowed something that is good , but physically forcing something to do something against there will is a much greater act of violence. Also from and
Re: (Score:2)
This issue isn't about minors, it's about everyone. Even adults get sick.
I think we are now enough years away from the MMR scare that the first bunch of unvaccinated children are entering legal adulthood. That has two effects: 1. Measles become much more dangerous when you are an 18 year old compared to a six year old. 2. All this kids can now decide that they want to get vaccinated, no matter what the parents decided.
So the effect is that a lot of 18 year olds are getting vaccinated now.
Re: (Score:3)
Stay with the topic, will ya?
MMR is a very different vaccination than a vaccine against flu. Side effects with flu shots are heaps higher than with MMR, not least because of the test period being heaps longer. Development of flu vaccines is a race against time due to the incredibly fast mutation rate of flu viruses along with their very different spreading patterns through the time. If you have a year for development, you have more time than usual. MMR has been in development and testing for the better part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Relative to the real infection, it sure as hell is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have had the flushot every year. I also have had what people is commonly called an education, and therefore would like to call you out. But I'm not in the business of labeling others, so you can chose to label yourself. Are you:
a) A dishonest intelligent shit who resorts to ad hominem attacks?
b) An ignorant git who has no clue about anything they talk about?
c) A horrible despicable human who knows what they were talking about but chose to compare the seasonal flue to MMR anyway. If you chose c, then let m
Re: (Score:2)
note: the number of people who died from measles last year in Europe was about 3 time those who died from lightening strikes.
https://www.who.int/csr/don/06... [who.int]
http://lightningsafety.com/nls... [lightningsafety.com]
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Insightful)
Good (Score:2)
Some real science? (Score:2)
I still have never seen any actual science that justifies these actions.
Any law that universally 'FORCES' people to do something should be one that has a heavy burden of proof that it is necessary for the good of the whole society, partially because it will make people less happy and also because doing so always has a high economic cost. It is much easier to prohibit an action then to force one.
so near as I can tell.
About 27 people a year die in the united states from lightening strikes. ( I couldn't find
Re: (Score:2)
30% of 27/317 million =.000000002% per person decrease in chances of measles death and what cost per person?
Shouldn't we first invest in better maths education?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Except measles is a terrible disease to suffer through. With modern medicine, the death rate is down (to under 1%, from 10% at the turn of the 20th century). However just because your kid survives, doesn't mean he will be normal - measles does cause some very nasty and permanent changes so your kid would be living the rest of their life with the impact.
Granted, those too are minimized with modern healthcare, but they're still permanent lifestyle changes and permanent prescriptions for drugs you now have to take for the rest of your life.
Just because modern healthcare can control it, doesn't mean it's pleasant to have or there won't be side effects. The best way to avoid those other diseases is to prevent the major cause of those from happening, which is avoiding getting measles in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - wrong.
Vaccines use an attenuated version of the antigen - dead virus, just the cell walls - that kind of thing.
The real thing though packs the real wallop.
Re: (Score:2)
If your un-vaccinated child gets the virus, then response time of their immune system will be considerably longer compared to a child whose immune system has been prepared for that encounter in advance. As a result it's likely that the symptoms are worse, giving the disease a much higher change to do irreparable damage. Vaccinated children may not even show any symptoms. The longer response time from the immune system also gives the virus more time to replicate itself and to spread to other
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the person is an adult, they can make a proper educated decision about being vaccinated.
Since the proper educated position is to vaccinate.
We can just cut out the wasted time and make that proper educated decision for them. Just vaccinate them as kids. Why waste time having them at risk?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Although with the added bonus of having a good chance to be permanently disabled or dead if his or her body doesn't produce those antibodies fast enough or complications arise. Which is FAR more likely with the real deal than with the vaccine.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, to put it in terms the average /. reader can understand: A vaccine is hiring a pentester. An infection is inviting some Chinese hackers to your company.
Re: (Score:2)
And refusing vaccination is like failing to encrypt or protect your customer's data because hiring the necessary experts would cut into profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because otherwise they'll eat nothing but chocolate and granulated sugar until they die of a deficiency disease before their 6th birthday?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
In early childhood, nutritional choices make a difference that easily lasts into adulthood.
Other choices that might have lasting effects include surgery. Would it be OK with you if parents consent to a potentially life saving surgery which may have life altering consequences or should they let the two year old decide?
Re:This is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
We force things on our children all the time. They're children. They don't understand enough to make their own informed decisions yet.
And there is no question that MMR vaccines are beneficial. They protect the child receiving the vaccine personally. They also protect others around them, some of whom might not be able to have the vaccine themselves for various reasons, because of the herd immunity effect.
Re: (Score:2)
But we're not talking about circumcision. We're talking about a medical intervention that saves lives. They're completely different situations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You really suck at trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
How about finding out and fixing the actual problems that make so many people fall for something so stupidly (self-)harmful??
How about understanding their situation and train of thought that made that look like a good choice?
Is force really the best you can do?
Because the only thing this will do, is make them fight back even harder.
So in the long run (!), by doing this you are just siding with your enemy, mates.
Because in the time it takes to convince everyone (and that includes both your own citizens and visitors) to get the MMR vaccine willingly a lot of people are going to get sick, and some of those will die. Many more than would get sick or die from the vaccine itself.
Re: (Score:2)
You statement seems a bit hysterical considering less then 100 people died in Europe last year from this disease. 27 or so were killed by lightening, maybe we should take some action to prevent that?
Re: (Score:2)
You statement seems a bit hysterical considering less then 100 people died in Europe last year from this disease.
It's not a hysterical statement. The rates of side effects, while certainly a non-zero number, are so low that even 100 deaths is a much, much larger number. Basically, the chance of a side effects is so small that the benefits vastly outweigh the risk in terms of lives saved/lost.
Re: (Score:2)
well, not so much the virus itself but there are some sickness and occasionally a mortality from allergic reactions to ingredients int the vaccine, so yes the vaccine use also has a mortally rate, just many many many times lower then non use.
Re: (Score:2)
Many more than would get sick or die from the vaccine itself.
this statement implies that the vaccine would make at least one person get sick or die
It's possible. There is a non-zero rate of side effects. However, that number is so small as to be nigh negligible, especially compared to the risks of not being vaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
As with the Nazis, you won't convince anyone who is already lost to the bullshit.
But you might just catch the ones that can still be salvaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Like that old campaign against neo-Nazis: "Nazit's im, Hirn?". A word play that means both "Does your brain Nazi?" and "Is your brain drafty?".
It took me a moment to decipher that, and I'm German.
What parent meant was "Na, zieht's im Hirn?" ("Say, is your brain drafty?") vs. "Nazis im Hirn?" ("[Do you have] Nazi [thoughts] on your mind?" or more freely translated "Do you think like a Nazi?")
Re: (Score:2)
in my experience 50% of of anti-vaxers are so because they don't understand the science. Some small 2% actually have religious objections to all or any medicine and vaccines are only 1 of them. The rest don't actually object to specific ingredients used in the vaccines. for instance , if your religion says you are made unclean by touching a pig you aren't too happy about having fluid form pig cells injected into you, or if you believe abortion is murder you may want to encourage the vaccine industry to de