If this was something that just hurt people who made bad choices I wouldn’t mind this so much.
There’s also science showing catching Measles erases past immunity from other diseases, meaning just these deaths and illnesses directly from measles may not be the only ones.
How much discussion you've seen may be largely dependent upon the circles you frequent. I certainly recall news stories and discussion for each of the large breakouts over the years, even from back when the anti-vaxx movement was a fringe left rather than mainstream right movement.
It shouldn't be surprising that there's more discussion now, however, given the current head of the HHS is not only an anti-vaxx advocate but also known for his role in the 2019 outbreak of measles in Samoa.
“The _term goes here_ describes how successful protective measures like vaccines or pasteurization become victims of their own effectiveness. As these interventions eliminate visible threats over time, people forget the dangers they prevent, leading to skepticism about their necessity. This creates cyclical patterns where protective measures are abandoned, threats resurface, urgency is renewed, protection is restored, and eventually skepticism returns once the threat again fades from memory. “
I tried to ask Claude for a term that goes with that description but it used “prevention paradox” which describes something else
As per your US Health Secretary, a few vitamin pills ought to do the trick [1]. Out of your own pocket, of course: Medicaid and Medicare are on borrowed times. Not too unlike the anti-vaxxers that contracted this then-eradicated terrible disease.
I'm curious when a child is going to sue their parents for neglect over not vaccinating. I've looked a few times and can't find any cases or news articles about it. I'm specifically talking about a child, not an institution or whatnot.
This is the kind of logic that stopped a lot of anti-gun lawsuits from taking place. All it takes is a shift in societal thinking for something like this to gain traction.
Isn't the question whether that also makes them legally responsible for their consequences?
If they were not legally allowed then it would be possible to sue them even if there were no consequences. There have to be consequences to be able to sue for a legally allowed decision.
Readit News
There’s also science showing catching Measles erases past immunity from other diseases, meaning just these deaths and illnesses directly from measles may not be the only ones.
People who contract measles suffer from illness at a much higher rate than people who do not contract measles.
Dead Comment
2024: 285 Measles cases (primarily in Minnesota and Illinois)
2019: 1,274 Measles cases
2018: 381 Measles cases
2014: 667 Measles cases
2000: 85 Measles cases
2000: "Elimination declared!"
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html
It shouldn't be surprising that there's more discussion now, however, given the current head of the HHS is not only an anti-vaxx advocate but also known for his role in the 2019 outbreak of measles in Samoa.
I tried to ask Claude for a term that goes with that description but it used “prevention paradox” which describes something else
We nuked it in 1970 and came crawling back the next year. Futzing with the clocks is annoying, but apparently it's better.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/04/rfk-jr-vitam...
If they were not legally allowed then it would be possible to sue them even if there were no consequences. There have to be consequences to be able to sue for a legally allowed decision.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment