Immunity From Criticism

Yesterday there were headlines stating that Matt Hancock, the Tory health secretary, was "looking seriously" at compulsory vaccinations for school children.

Now I don't want to get into the argument about the safety of vaccines, but I do want to push a more fundamental point. That being the right to choose. Should the state really be forcing vaccines on people? Does this not transgress some fundamental human right?

Recently we've had the furore surrounding Boris allegedly putting his hand on the thigh of a female journalist 20 years ago. If our person is so inviolable then surely being pinned down and forcibly injected with a needle is much worse than someone playfully putting their hand on our leg. Where's the #MeToo on this one.

If the state has sovereignty in this area then who's making these decisions. The same incompetent people that have mishandled Brexit for the last three years? And if you say "no, experts are making these decisions", then again, like with the judges, who judges the experts?

Is it experts that make their living in the pharmaceutical and medical industries? How can we be sure there are no conflicts of interest? Or that financial drivers aren't overriding medical concerns?

Vaccines and other medicines are pretty hefty business. If every individual in a country needs a batch of vaccine then that's a pretty lucrative contract for whoever's knocking up those batches. Can we really be sure that a "non-expert" politician will have the will and the understanding to say "no, sorry, my country doesn't need this vaccine, we'll decline the offer" in the face of such industry pressure. Especially when we're creating a culture where anyone daring to question the value or safety of a vaccine is immediately decried as a "loon" or "conspiracy theorist".

I remember being given the measles vaccine when I was about 13 or 14 years old ..even though I'd already had measles as a child. I remember making this point at the time, but it was just dismissed and I was told I still needed to have it. I understood only too well that we were all being immunised on mass like farm animals, with no regard to our personal circumstances. At least back then though parents had the right to take charge and say no. Though mine, like the politicians, were too bamboozled by the experts to do so.

The Matt Hancock suggestion of compulsory vaccination came with particular regard to measles, as it's apparently on the rise in Britain again. Though there are stories of people dying and having serious complications from measles, for most people the experience is a very minor one. You get some spots and have a few days off school. I distinctly remember it not being seen as that big a deal as a child. It was just one of those illnesses that most children got at some point in their childhood. So the idea that I needed to be vaccinated against it (regardless of whether I'd already had it) seemed a little odd at the time. I think this is how many people feel. They're being told by the experts it's an incredibly serious issue, but their personal life experience tells them that it isn't. This leads to suspicion. Compulsory vaccination would create this sense even more so.

So again, who decides what vaccines we should have, and how many. If not the individual. Where does it all stop? Is it really wise to play God with our immune systems to such an endless extent?

What if there is a downside? Is it wrong to ask this question?

Should we really be criticising people for their caution? And more to the point forcing them to comply.

I often wonder with the flu vaccines. Humans throughout their lifetime get a cold or the flu quite frequently. So perhaps there's some evolutionary benefit to this. After all, perfectly healthy people suffer from these things too. Perhaps getting a cold or the flu serves some purpose. Maybe it helps the body to clean out and reboot itself. For instance, when we get the flu we often get a temperature. The body no doubt needs this higher temperature to carry out certain functions. Perhaps these functions do more than just fight the flu.

Small children also tend to get all manner of tummy bugs and sniffly noses. Their bodies are of course developing quite a lot in these early years, so are these things a necessary part of this development.

We vaccinate against the flu and dream of curing the common cold ..but would this be a good thing? We've evolved in such a way that these things are a common part of life. Is this a failing of nature or is it a useful function?

I'm speculating here, but again, why shouldn't I? Is it not much more healthy to have vigorous debate and a diverse range of opinions. A free market, choice, and the evidence of the consequences of those choices.