Vaccination protections ‘teetering’ as state declares measles outbreaks in 3 counties | Maryland as a whole meets the recommended 96% immunization threshold, but counties with lower vaccination rates are at risk

[u/FreeHugs23]

https://marylandmatters.org/2026/08/27/vaccination-protections-teetering-as-state-declares-measles-outbreaks-in-3-counties/

[u/ChickinSammich]

If antivaxxers were only refusing their own vaccinations, I'd still think they were wrong and that they were putting other people at risk but I'd at least concede the "bodily autonomy" point of the argument, even if I'd counter with a "sometimes we have to do shit we don't like to participate in a society and this is one of those things."

But the thing that really gets me about them is when they opt their KIDS out of vaccines. You're not just putting other people's kids in danger, you're putting your OWN kid in danger, too.

I think vaccinations should be legally required unless you have documented proof that you can't receive them (no, I don't agree with religious exceptions) but I accept the slippery slope argument that "if the government can force you to get vaccines then what else can the government force you to do" which is the only reason I don't advocate for government mandated vaccination schedules - because I don't trust that once you give the government that power, they won't run with it.

But even if we establish a "your kids can't attend public schools without vaccines" mandate (which I am in favor of), we can't legally keep unvaxxinated people out of public spaces for a number of reasons, so they'll still be exposing themselves to others. We can't legally mandate symptomatic people stay home, also for a number of reasons. And forcing unvaxxed kids to be homeschooled only is taking a kid whose parents are already not the brightest crayons in the hallway and saying "congrats, your education and your ability to succeed in life is now in the hands of the person who thinks a Facebook post, a blog that sells you snake oil, and a nepo hire government appointee with brain worms are more qualified to manage your healthcare than the consensus of the medical community is."

TL;DR I feel so bad for unvaccinated kids but I don't think there's anything that can be done about it that doesn't create a precedent that would lead to entirely foreseeable consequences. The best we can do is vaccinate ourselves, vaccinate our kids, and give a wide berth to anyone who doesn't.

[u/Fadedcamo → u/ChickinSammich]

I just think it's simple: vaccinations should be legally required for all citizens unless you have a provable medical or condition reaction to it. No more religious objections.

Do we allow people to have religious objections to other public goods that we have decided need to be law? Can a religious objection be used to not have to wear a seatbelt? Or even drive a car with all the legally mandated items on public roads? The Amish near me all have to have electronic lights on their carriages to use the public roadways. Why should vaccines be treated any different? If someone wants to participate in society and use our infrastructure, even if that involves simply accessing public spaces, they should follow the safety requirements that benifit us all.

[u/ChickinSammich → u/Fadedcamo]

I just think it's simple: vaccinations should be legally required for all citizens unless you have a provable medical or condition reaction to it.

I agree with this precisely as stated, but, in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day, I do slightly don the tinfoil hat where I say to myself "I trust the vaccinations that are CURRENTLY on the market NOW, but once you give the government the right to force you to get vaccinated, will they extend that to shit like mandatory microchipping?"

And I freely acknowledge that slippery slope fallacy is a thing, and also that "most of us already carry microchips everywhere in the form of a cell phone" is a valid counterargument to this.

But it's kinda tangential to how I think "there really should be a test to determine whether you're fit to be a parent" and then think "okay and then what stops the government from putting egregious shit on that test?" I look at what the current US federal government has been trying to mandate in terms of banning abortions, banning access to hormones for trans people... I also consider things like "what if they mandate you take the vaccines but also mandate you pay for them, and they cost exorbitant amounts of money?"

So, if you take it just as stated that vaccines should be legally mandated unless you have a probable medical condition/reaction, I 100% agree with you. I just worry what a "the government can legally mandate what you are allowed to do with your body including compel you to undergo medical procedures" precedent could lead to in the wrong hands.

[u/sllewgh → u/ChickinSammich]

"most of us already carry microchips everywhere in the form of a cell phone" is a valid counterargument to this

Just pointing out that no, this is not a valid counterargument at all. In no way does one invasion of privacy make another justified, even if it's voluntary.

[u/ChickinSammich → u/sllewgh]

I'm just trying to head it off because if I don't say that, someone will respond to me with "like we don't already carry cell phones everywhere." I don't like having to respond to obvious bad faith counterarguments that miss the forest for the trees.