There were 83 diagnosed cases in the last month according to the UK Health Service Authority. Most are children under 10 living in the Borough of Enfield, which has one of the lowest rates of vaccine uptake in the country. Not coincidentally, parts of Enfield including Edmonton, the epicentre of the outbreak, score highly on most indices of deprivation. Because they have not been vaccinated against measles, experts have warned that more children are expected to be diagnosed with fatal neurological complications from measles. These include subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a rare neurodegenerative condition that usually appears around six to ten years after a measles infection. In the words of Professor Benedict Michael, a professor of neuroscience and chair of charity Encephalitis International’s scientific advisory panel “It’s a gradual but relentlessly progressive brain damage” and “Despite all of our drugs that we throw at it – immune drugs, antivirus drugs – it’s basically universally fatal.”[1]
Between 2000 and 2016, there were only five diagnoses of SSPE in the UK. Six children were diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 and experts such as Professor Ming Lim, a consultant paediatric neurologist at Evelina London Children’s Hospital, who has treated multiple children with SSPE, expect the number to rise. Prof Ming is certain that his junior resident colleagues will be taught to recognise SSPE purely because of this resurgence. In his words “If you see one case, you will never want to see another case of SSPE in your lifetime. It is a devastating condition.”[2]
The case of Sarah Walton is vivid example of the horrors of SSPE. She contacted measles at her nursery in 1979 at the age of 11 months, before children usually receive the vaccine. Her mother Jo reports that she recovered well but in 2004 at the age of 25 Sarah developed a myoclonic jerk – an involuntary spasm – that sometimes left her unable to walk. Eventually, she was diagnosed with SSPE and about two months later and a week before she was scheduled to wed her boyfriend, she suffered a massive seizure. In the words of her mother, “She went into the hospital walking and talking. And four weeks later, when she came out, she couldn’t speak and she couldn’t swallow.” Sarah required 24-hour care for the next 20 years and in February 2025, after several bouts of pneumonia, she died in her father’s arms.[3]
Measles: Risks And Protections
It may seem incredible to have to spell out what measles is and its attendant risks in an era where such diseases had been consigned to the medical history books but the long-term, cumulative effects of Dr Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent research on the supposed links between the MMR vaccine and autism; the incessant anti-vaccination misinformation pumped out by “alternative” health influencers and the resultant culture of vaccine hesitancy makes this an essential and potentially life saving task. Measles is a highly infectious viral illness that can spread very easily among people who are not fully vaccinated. It usually starts with cold-like symptoms, followed a few days later by a rash that starts on the face then spreads to the body. The spots, which are not usually itchy, are sometimes raised and join together to form blotchy patches.
Measles is spread when an infected person breathes, coughs, or sneezes. One case can generate 18 secondary infections. Nine out of ten non-vaccinated people will catch it if exposed. A person is infectious from when they first have symptoms (about four days before the rash appears) until four days after they get the rash. Health experts recommend opening windows and doors to help reduce its spread, frequent handwashing and immediately binning used tissues.
While many people recover, the risks of measles are serious complications such as pneumonia or brain inflammation. In rare cases, measles can result in long-term disability or death. Babies and people with weakened immune systems are more at risk. Measles can also cause miscarriage or stillbirth, premature birth, and low birthweight.[4]
There is no specific treatment for measles, only the vaccination to prevent catching it, which is part of the measles, rubella, varicella (MMRV) injection that replaced the MMR jab in the UK’s routine childhood programme last month.
Dimensions Of The Measles Crisis
Last month, the UK lost its measles-free status, granted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) where there has been an absence of endemic cases in a country for at least 12 months (isolated cases will always occur, but the transmission chain must be broken). In the UK, transmission did stop in 2016 and 2017 but restarted again in 2018. The pandemic brought another lull, but since 2023 transmission rates have risen alarmingly. In 2023 there were 481 cases, a dramatic spurt from 63 the previous year. In 2024, the outbreak rate hit quadruple figures with 3,681 UK-wide, with 2, 911 in England. Last year, outbreaks were smaller, amounting to 957 cases, but remained continuous. The majority of cases were in children aged 10 and under, and half were in London.[5]
Dr Vanessa Saliba, a consultant epidemiologist at the UKHSA describes how the return of measles “kicked off towards the end of 2023 with outbreaks in Birmingham and Coventry”. Through 2024 it “seeded virtually all the other regions in the country” but the largest outbreaks remained in Birmingham and London. She found that importation of measles found unvaccinated pockets and spread like wildfire. In January 2024, it was reported that more than 50 children had been admitted to Birmingham’s children’s hospital triggering the declaration of a national incident by the UKHSA.[6] The UKHSA has said modelling of a large measles outbreak in London suggests that between 40,000 and 160,000 people could be affected.[7]
Even in high-income regions, measles causes fatality in about one in 5,000 cases. There were two UK deaths in 2025: one an adult, one a child with an underlying immunological problem. In 2024 another child dies similarly; and four adults also died, one from the viral condition SSPE mentioned early, a fatal side-effect that emerges up to eight years after measles in about one in 50,000 cases. As also referred to previously, other complications of measles include severe diarrhoea, pneumonia, ear infection and hearing loss, blindness, and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
Between 2000 and 2016, there were only five diagnoses of SSPE in the UK. Six children were diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 and experts such as Professor Ming Lim, a consultant paediatric neurologist at Evelina London Children’s Hospital, who has treated multiple children with SSPE, expect the number to rise. Prof Ming is certain that his junior resident colleagues will be taught to recognise SSPE purely because of this resurgence. In his words “If you see one case, you will never want to see another case of SSPE in your lifetime. It is a devastating condition.”[2]
The case of Sarah Walton is vivid example of the horrors of SSPE. She contacted measles at her nursery in 1979 at the age of 11 months, before children usually receive the vaccine. Her mother Jo reports that she recovered well but in 2004 at the age of 25 Sarah developed a myoclonic jerk – an involuntary spasm – that sometimes left her unable to walk. Eventually, she was diagnosed with SSPE and about two months later and a week before she was scheduled to wed her boyfriend, she suffered a massive seizure. In the words of her mother, “She went into the hospital walking and talking. And four weeks later, when she came out, she couldn’t speak and she couldn’t swallow.” Sarah required 24-hour care for the next 20 years and in February 2025, after several bouts of pneumonia, she died in her father’s arms.[3]
Measles: Risks And Protections
It may seem incredible to have to spell out what measles is and its attendant risks in an era where such diseases had been consigned to the medical history books but the long-term, cumulative effects of Dr Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent research on the supposed links between the MMR vaccine and autism; the incessant anti-vaccination misinformation pumped out by “alternative” health influencers and the resultant culture of vaccine hesitancy makes this an essential and potentially life saving task. Measles is a highly infectious viral illness that can spread very easily among people who are not fully vaccinated. It usually starts with cold-like symptoms, followed a few days later by a rash that starts on the face then spreads to the body. The spots, which are not usually itchy, are sometimes raised and join together to form blotchy patches.
Measles is spread when an infected person breathes, coughs, or sneezes. One case can generate 18 secondary infections. Nine out of ten non-vaccinated people will catch it if exposed. A person is infectious from when they first have symptoms (about four days before the rash appears) until four days after they get the rash. Health experts recommend opening windows and doors to help reduce its spread, frequent handwashing and immediately binning used tissues.
While many people recover, the risks of measles are serious complications such as pneumonia or brain inflammation. In rare cases, measles can result in long-term disability or death. Babies and people with weakened immune systems are more at risk. Measles can also cause miscarriage or stillbirth, premature birth, and low birthweight.[4]
There is no specific treatment for measles, only the vaccination to prevent catching it, which is part of the measles, rubella, varicella (MMRV) injection that replaced the MMR jab in the UK’s routine childhood programme last month.
Dimensions Of The Measles Crisis
Last month, the UK lost its measles-free status, granted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) where there has been an absence of endemic cases in a country for at least 12 months (isolated cases will always occur, but the transmission chain must be broken). In the UK, transmission did stop in 2016 and 2017 but restarted again in 2018. The pandemic brought another lull, but since 2023 transmission rates have risen alarmingly. In 2023 there were 481 cases, a dramatic spurt from 63 the previous year. In 2024, the outbreak rate hit quadruple figures with 3,681 UK-wide, with 2, 911 in England. Last year, outbreaks were smaller, amounting to 957 cases, but remained continuous. The majority of cases were in children aged 10 and under, and half were in London.[5]
Dr Vanessa Saliba, a consultant epidemiologist at the UKHSA describes how the return of measles “kicked off towards the end of 2023 with outbreaks in Birmingham and Coventry”. Through 2024 it “seeded virtually all the other regions in the country” but the largest outbreaks remained in Birmingham and London. She found that importation of measles found unvaccinated pockets and spread like wildfire. In January 2024, it was reported that more than 50 children had been admitted to Birmingham’s children’s hospital triggering the declaration of a national incident by the UKHSA.[6] The UKHSA has said modelling of a large measles outbreak in London suggests that between 40,000 and 160,000 people could be affected.[7]
Even in high-income regions, measles causes fatality in about one in 5,000 cases. There were two UK deaths in 2025: one an adult, one a child with an underlying immunological problem. In 2024 another child dies similarly; and four adults also died, one from the viral condition SSPE mentioned early, a fatal side-effect that emerges up to eight years after measles in about one in 50,000 cases. As also referred to previously, other complications of measles include severe diarrhoea, pneumonia, ear infection and hearing loss, blindness, and encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
In the case of two year old Ezra Barrett from Walsall who contracted measles in the West Midlands outbreak and who was rushed to A&E after the appearance of a rash on his body, the consultant struggled to insert an IV drip as “His body’s too shut down” due to his raging temperature and ended up being on high-flow oxygen. Ezra has recovered well after a week’s stay in hospital, but his speech is delayed and he is being monitored for hearing loss. His mother Davina Barrett also fears SSPE, and when she first shared Ezra’s story, she received messages challenging her, “saying it’s not true, that the MMR would not have helped Ezra.”[8]
This sadly not unknown anecdote leads to the nub of the contemporary measles resurgence: the critical drop-in vaccination rates and the explanatory factors. The WHO states that herd immunity driven by community-wide vaccination is the only way to prevent measles. This is high due to the very infectious nature of the disease, remaining contagious in the air or on surfaces for up to two hours. The first measles vaccination was offered in the UK in 1968, and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella in 1988. Last month it switched to MMRV, including protection for varicella (chickenpox). It is offered in two doses, first at 12 months and, from last month, topped up at 18 months (formerly the top-up was scheduled when the child was three years and four months old). Having both doses gives immunity for about 99% of people. The UK’s average coverage in 2024 was 92.3% for the first dose, but 84.4% for the second, falling since the pandemic.[9]
Enfield has one of the lowest MMR vaccine uptake rates in the country, according to UKHSA figures from August 2025 that showed just 64.3% of five-year-olds in Enfield had received both doses of the vaccine in 2024-25. The Sunday Times reported that more than 60 cases of measles had been reported by seven schools and a nursery in Enfield. A message posted on the NHS Ordnance Unity Centre for Health GP surgery’s website described a fast-spreading measles outbreak.” It added:
This sadly not unknown anecdote leads to the nub of the contemporary measles resurgence: the critical drop-in vaccination rates and the explanatory factors. The WHO states that herd immunity driven by community-wide vaccination is the only way to prevent measles. This is high due to the very infectious nature of the disease, remaining contagious in the air or on surfaces for up to two hours. The first measles vaccination was offered in the UK in 1968, and the combined MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella in 1988. Last month it switched to MMRV, including protection for varicella (chickenpox). It is offered in two doses, first at 12 months and, from last month, topped up at 18 months (formerly the top-up was scheduled when the child was three years and four months old). Having both doses gives immunity for about 99% of people. The UK’s average coverage in 2024 was 92.3% for the first dose, but 84.4% for the second, falling since the pandemic.[9]
Enfield has one of the lowest MMR vaccine uptake rates in the country, according to UKHSA figures from August 2025 that showed just 64.3% of five-year-olds in Enfield had received both doses of the vaccine in 2024-25. The Sunday Times reported that more than 60 cases of measles had been reported by seven schools and a nursery in Enfield. A message posted on the NHS Ordnance Unity Centre for Health GP surgery’s website described a fast-spreading measles outbreak.” It added:
During this recent outbreak, one in five children have been hospitalised due to measles and all of them had not been fully immunised.[10]
The social demographics of the parts of Enfield, and indeed the West Midlands, that are being ravaged by the measles outbreaks – working class, BME preponderance, single parenthood – contrast so much with the New Age, Wellness Woo, Natural Health milieu in which the High Priest and Priestesses of the anti-vaccination movement reside – the grift economy of the faux sisterhood of wealthy white women with their pyramid business model for selling “alternative” health products, that it is tempting to view this ongoing public health disaster as a victory for the “pureblood” ideology of this anti-public health movement. The tragedy is that the bogus anti Big Pharma message they promote has found some traction, in the words of Prof Azeem Majeed, the head of primary care and public health at Imperial College, London, “among certain communities” which have “distrust of authority because of bad experience with councils, in health, education, welfare or housing.” For all the main factors likely to affect vaccine uptake are present in Enfield according to Prof Majeed – the prevalence of people from ethnic minorities who had also lower levels of education, deprivation, and how often people moved between different addresses and countries.
The MMR and autism has less purchase now; rather the main drivers of vaccine scepticism now is the wave of Covid 19 untruths disseminated by the Disinformation Dozen through social media and the influence of prominent US politicians such as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. However, compromised access to vaccines in areas of high deprivation must also be factored into the equation. Dr Saliba points to the major restructure of the NHS in 2013-14 which took away from health visitors the power to deliver vaccines. The year-on-year decline in vaccine take up overlapped with the austerity agenda which saw provision for health visitors and Sure Start centres, often venues for vaccinating, slashed. Boroughs like Hackney and Enfield are homes to diverse populations who need tailored engagement including translation services and cooperation of community resources such as mosques and temples with lots of communities.[11]
Finally, while no medicinal product is ever 100% free of side-effects, it is possible that vaccines have become “victims of their own successes” in that memories of the casualties of infectious diseases such as measles have faded. As anti-vaxxers promote their fairy tales of how natural immunity was gained by participation in measles or chicken pox parties, it is instructive to listen to the case of 60-year-old Alan Crowrher from Derbyshire who, born before the vaccine, caught measles when he was five; an experience he “felt normal.” However, the result was profound hearing loss and blindness caused by nerve damage. Today he has 15% of his hearing left. In his 30s, damaged optical nerves were diagnosed; he has 10% of his sight remaining. He has a simple message for parents reluctant to have their child vaccinated: “Come and sit with me.”[12]
References
[1] Phoebe Davis & James Tapper, 'Fears of rise in fatal brain disease as take-up of measles jab continues to fall.' The Observer. 22 February 2026 p.17
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid.
[4] Andrew Gregory, 'Precautions. What are the risks and how do you protect your child.' The Guardian. 17 February 2026
[5] Emily Retter, 'The alarming return of measles.' The Guardian G2 16 February 2026 pp.4-5
[6] Ibid, p.5
[7] Rachel Hall, 'Measles outbreak in London spreading via unvaccinated children, watchdog confirms.' The Guardian. 16 February 2026
[8] Retter, p.5
[9] Ibid
[10] Hall, op cit
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid
⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter.
This might be coming uncomfortably closer to home for me as my local newspaper The Colchester Gazette today reports that health officials are concerned that the measles outbreak could spread from Enfield into Essex, Southend and Thurrock. Thanks to all anti vaxxers.
ReplyDeleteBarry - I'm always at odds with this particular topic, as I'm someone that tends to favour bodily autonomy and the right to decide what medical treatments or interventions one takes. Although, this is not an anti-vaccination position per se, neither am I ignorant to the importance of weighing up the right of an individual against a desire to do what appears best for the collective.
DeleteWith that said, I can see some parallels here with other topics.
Consider - The immigration debate as one example.
Here we see some with the concern that to express a certain view or opinion, unfairly results with the assignment of a pejorative label. I think it can and does happen. This can then result with the person receiving the label becoming much more stubborn in their position, and less receptive to any argument against their position.
So to I see it with vaccination. Someone being anti-vax by definition is one thing, but when the term anti-vax along with other words or terms is used as a pejorative, which in many cases it is used as such, it has the same result as I've mentioned above. When ego feels threatened, rationality can often go out the window.
One could say that the unvaccinated are solely responsible for outbreaks, and this could be correct. But then we could also analyse the cause(s) behind the increase in the unvaccinated. It's not impossible to imagine scenarios, where one with concerns about vaccination can be pushed towards and become stubborn in an anti-vaccination position, due to the language and behaviour involved of those with an opposing position. Therefore it could be possible that some that are vaccinated may also bear some responsibility.
If those who get vaccinated cannot then be infected by those who don't it should follow that only those who will catch the virus are those that choose not to take the shot.
DeleteI suppose the follow on from that is what rights do children have when it comes to matters of public health policy?
I find it difficult to reconcile right to choose with compulsory vaccination.
As always, with your pieces Barry, lots of information and plenty to think about.
AM - It might be that there are some who are unable to be vaccinated due to contraindications, without which they may in fact choose to be so. Aside from that, reports may show that vaccination improves resilience, but 100% immunity is not given. There was a particular case of an outbreak, forgive me I can't remember of what or where, I'd have to check my notes, I think in Canada or the States, in which reportedly, due to a low uptake of vaccination, those that were vaccinated also became highly susceptible and infected as a result.
DeleteRegardless, I still can not imagine myself becoming a supporter of forced vaccinations.
That is instructive Matt.
DeleteIf lower uptake on vaccinations puts others at risk including those that take the vaccine, then the case can be made for compulsory vaccination on public health grounds much like the no smoking in pubs exists for similar purposes. People could claim a right not to be infected by the pollution of others. If a person has the right to refuse a vaccination but in doing so increases the risk level for others, does a bar owner have the right to prevent them from entering the premises?
Like yourself, not sure I could support compulsory vaccination, particularly if the alternatives have not been adequately explored.
AM - The smoking ban in pubs is an interesting comparison, it reminds me of the Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah case over the death of her daughter Ella due to air pollution.
DeleteRosamund sued the UK government including various departments. IIRC, the case resulted in an undisclosed financial settlement and a formal apology, although there was no admission of legal liability. The mechanisms that led to the cause of death currently remain in place.
Although much is being done in attempts to reduce pollution, I think it would be a very long time in the future before the planet ever reaches a point to which man-made pollution could not be responsible for ill-health or even death, if such a scenario were even possible. Until then, everyone could have a claim not to be, as you say, infected by the pollution of others.
Whilst the objective of banning petrol and diesel cars, and the goal of cleaner alternatives to fuel is widely known, banning smoking in pubs was something reasonable that could be implemented and achieved at scale far more swiftly without any meaningful consequence or disruption.
The bar owner had the right to exclude the smoke, but not the smoker, which is reasonable and fair. I'm not sure how one could exclude a pathogen without excluding the carrier though.
As with many things, remedy must be weighed in the balance with risk and consequence. If a bar owner had the right to exclude an unvaccinated carrier, would that right extend to any or all other services? Would they then have to also exclude from those services, those that can't be vaccinated for reasons outside their control? Would such exclusions be fair, reasonable and/or proportional on the balance of risk and consequence?
I agree, alternatives must be explored adequately before any calls for compulsory vaccination. There may be no adequate alternatives, and so we must also weigh the balance before compulsory vaccinations. Much will be entirely situation dependent. Finding the balance may not be so straightforward, and in our attempts to find the balance error may occur. But I think it's inevitable that a certain amount of risk and undesirable outcomes has to be expected and accepted, as difficult as that may be for some.
Matt,
DeleteI think it would be a very long time in the future before the planet ever reaches a point to which man-made pollution could not be responsible for ill-health or even death
Naive of us were we to think otherwise.
I'm not sure how one could exclude a pathogen without excluding the carrier though.
Clearly - but I guess the ethical right lies with the excluder rather than the excluded despite all the problems with implementation.
Exclusion could not apply to those who can't receive the vaccine for reasons outside their control. I imagine they would constitute a tiny minority of the unvaccinated and the risk posed by them would be very slight.
Balance and risk assessment - not to mention accountability have to be factored in - and maximum consent should be sought. But society works via a mix of consent and coercion - fail to stop at a red light and we are coerced into complying. The demarcation lines will move and are often blurred but the direction of travel should be towards public health policy rather than libertarian driven dissent from such policy.
I do believe that the elimination of risk can only be achieved by increasing state power to a dangerous level. Societies should work towards defining what is an acceptable level of risk. Even then the boundaries will be fluid.
Hard to disagree with much of that Anthony. I don't think we're actually too far apart, if even.
DeleteA few additional points to consider - Would it not be, that an unvaccinated person is as safe as a vaccinated person up until a point of infection? Breakthrough infections can occur whether one is vaccinated or not. Should the breakthrough occur with a vaccinated person, would it not be then, that for a period of time, they are more of a risk than an uninfected unvaccinated person?
I would think that much of society so far, or at least up until 2019, has or had, already accepted the status quo as acceptable risk. To my mind, this should remain up until any given actual scenario requires urgent re-assessment, rather than the theoretical. Any policy enacted should be reversed when a return to pre-urgency is achieved. As it stands, I would not call for, or want to see, a general wide blanket exclusion of unvaccinated persons. Having a right to protect one's health shouldn't extend to excluding a healthy person just because they are unvaccinated.
"the direction of travel should be towards public health policy rather than libertarian driven dissent from such policy."
I think that depends on what any particular policy may be. I can imagine what would be to my mind, dystopian type policies where I think dissent from such policies should then be the direction of travel.
I think if attempting elimination of risk requires increasing state power to dangerous levels, then we must settle for mitigation of risk rather than attempt elimination.
Matt,
DeleteWould it not be, that an unvaccinated person is as safe as a vaccinated person up until a point of infection?
But more at risk otherwise there would be little point to vaccination. I compare it with the pedestrian walking across the road with their eyes shut. Up until the point of impact they are as safe as the eyes wide open pedestrian.
Whoever gets the infection, vaccinated or not, is less safe than the infection free person, vaccinated or not. But I remain unsure as to how a general societal protocol can be moulded from that.
As a general rule, I believe all change should be gradual so that if it goes south it can be reversed. This is a point once made by the conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton.
It is where the right should tilt towards - the principle of do no harm should apply to all including the unvaccinated. While not in favour of compulsory vaccination, I would resile from stripping citizens of the right to avail of measures they feel will protect them.
The particular health policy is one that has presumably been approved by the people we elect after a deliberative process involving input from the scientific community and others, and which takes account of dissenting voices.
The increase in state power to dangerous levels will be a contentious topic which would need to be demonstrated rather than asserted. Working on the principle of perfection being the enemy of the good, I would prefer mitigation of risk to a proposed mandatory panacea.
The direction of travel should always be towards do no harm. And if a consensus is forged that the cure is worse than the cold, we live with the cold.
AM - "But more at risk otherwise there would be little point to vaccination"
DeleteInitially only to themselves and not to others.
"I would resile from stripping citizens of the right to avail of measures they feel will protect them."
Would this right still have to be reasonable and proportional? For example, could or should the bar owner then have the right to exclude persons say with herpes or HIV?
Initially only to themselves and not to others.
DeleteI am not sure how to reconcile this with your earlier observation that the risk to the vaccinated increases proportionally to the extent that others opt not to get vaccinated. If that line of reasoning holds, then this hypothetical unvaccinated person is a small cog in a larger wheel that is increasing the risk.
I think any action has to be reasonable and proportional - I can't see anybody advocating what they claim is unreasonable and disproportional. It sort of defeats the purpose. The bar owner generally has rights as to who they let into their premises. If they, and not the government, are making a decision as to who they serve and If they are not selecting for exclusion people in the protected characteristics section under equality legislation, then they would have the right to exclude anyone they judge capable of spreading infectious diseases. If they don't have that right then the right goes to those who can spread such diseases. That would seem neither just nor fair.
But I am not an enthusiast for coercive measures unless necessary, and society needs to be cautious to ensure that a power asymmetry does not come to prevail. There has to be a balance. Foucault might have had something useful to say on this type of thing.
AM - "I am not sure how to reconcile this with your earlier observation that the risk to the vaccinated increases proportionally to the extent that others opt not to get vaccinated."
DeleteI did not extend the observation to include any increase in risk results in others opting not to get vaccinated. I would think the opposite is actually more likely to occur, that is, an unvaccinated person may re-evaluate their position rather swiftly when they're sitting there with measles, or being close witness to others suffering a condition.
From what I understand, generally the vaccinated are protected by the vaccine. The unvaccinated are also protected by the vaccinated in areas where herd immunity is achieved. The increase in risk to the vaccinated tends to be a specific circumstance when infection occurs in areas that have low uptake of vaccination rates. The precise increase to level of risk I am unsure of, the maths would be dependent on several factors. If such a specific scenario occurs, then yes, perhaps grounds for exclusion may indeed become justified for a period of time.
If there were ever a call to exclude unvaccinated in general rather than in a specific circumstance, to my mind, the grounds would not be justified.
After re-reading our conversation I think we may be in agreeance, as I don't see you calling for exclusion in general circumstances, and we both see and appreciate the need for balanced assessment, and for precaution with any policies that may be proposed.
Matt - your first para is not clear to me.
DeleteThe unvaccinated are also protected by the vaccinated in areas where herd immunity is achieved.
If they benefit from the social, fine by me. I would not dismiss them as freeloaders as they are not receiving something they sought.
If there were ever a call to exclude unvaccinated in general rather than in a specific circumstance, to my mind, the grounds would not be justified.
Pull it back to the base line and there are two core positions. (a) People have the right to spread infection.
(b) People have the right to curb the spread of infection.
I come down on the side of the latter. How that right is exercised is another matter.
It doesn't much matter whether we agree or not. I have never learned a thing from people agreeing with me! Of more import is that we are capable of evaluating the matters at hand without resorting to screaming or sulking. But I suspect our positions are not far apart.
AM - I wasn't saying I agree because I think the agreeance matters, but more so to help determine the course of the conversation.
DeleteIf those are indeed the two core positions, I certainly wouldn't agree that people have the right to infect. What I contend is, that it doesn't hold that all who are unvaccinated are spreading infection, and those that are vaccinated are not spreading infection.
Determining a general protocol to establish actual health status at the point of entry to premises may indeed be problematic; but to my mind, if it is the right to protect on grounds of health, then in general, excluding a healthy person simply because they are unvaccinated is not justified on those grounds, especially if an unhealthy person retains access just because they are vaccinated. I think a specific set of circumstances would be needed to justify exclusion.
Matt - once the two core positions are accepted the policy tilt will be towards protecting society from any threat posed by the unvaccinated. I don't think it is a category error to identify the unvaccinated as a risk group from whom at risk groups need protected. We don't need to exaggerate the threat or be alarmist.
DeleteIs there a societal obligation on the part of the unvaccinated healthy person to demonstrate to the premise owner that they are in fact healthy? Or is their word enough? In these situations I would tend towards favouring the premise owner than the unvaccinated person. The owner indicates something of a social conscience whereas the unvaccinated person indicates the self.
These are very general positions and of course we could find ways of obsessing it to infinite regress proportions. Not sure anybody would be any the wiser at the end of it. Perhaps the best we can hope for in a world of lived experience is some combination of Bayesian reasoning and Occam's Razor to act as a backstop and avoid turtles all the way down.
AM - How far the policy tilts is what concerns me.
DeleteVaccination status alone does not determine health nor risk. Identifying the unvaccinated as a risk group is not a category error in specific circumstances, otherwise it is a category error as generally they are not a risk. Risk of infection, and risk of consequence from being infected must be considered, but any restrictions should be proportionate to risk. Otherwise, the right is extended to everyone for any and all infections. One could exclude someone with the common cold because they have the right not to be infected with it, vaccination status becomes irrelevant. There may be many other elements of health that you or I may think doesn't warrant the same levels of concern, but that's also irrelevant, the possibility to exclude regardless becomes not only apparent, it becomes a right. This right can then be exercised without restraint, unless restraint is imposed.
Without opening up a covid debate, during covid, certain access, for example travel, was restricted. One had an obligation to produce evidence of either a vaccination, or a negative test for infection. These restrictions seemed reasonable due a specific scenario where it was deemed urgency was required, and sought to balance the element of risk and consequence. The restrictions were removed once it was deemed the element of risk diminished to particular levels, and any consequence thereafter was accepted. Had the restrictions remained in place as a general rule rather than requiring the specific circumstances that initiated them, in my opinion, that would be unreasonable on the balance of things, even more so if the scope of restrictions were then actually increased instead.
Matt - I shall get to read this at some point but for now my interest is on the wane.
DeleteI'm sure you will live to tell the tale, Barry...
ReplyDeleteThe Epstein Files Illuminate a 20-Year Architecture Behind Pandemics as a Business Model—With Bill Gates at the Center of the Network
ReplyDeleteI want to make it clear that I oppose compulsory vaccination but everything must be done without such force majeure to ensure that herd immunity levels are maintained at 95% of the population to protect us all.
ReplyDeleteBarry - Understood. Do you have any thoughts towards what protocols may be enacted to achieve or retain the 95%?
Delete" to ensure that herd immunity levels are maintained at 95% of the population to protect us all"
DeleteBarry the covid mRNA vax did nothing, I had 3 shots and still caught covid twice ( suspect a 3rd undiagnosed).
I agree with your sentiment though with the caveat that it's an 'Old School' vaccination.
Steve - The 95% applies to neither vaccination rate, nor covid. I think for covid the proposed target percentage was initially 60-70%, I'm unsure if this proposal was amended.
DeleteMatt what does it refer to then?
DeleteSteve - Herd immunity for measles.
Delete