Talk:Vaccination policy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vaccination policy for each U.S. state

This change is not supported by the cited source. For example, the cited source nowhere says that Vermont has a "total or partial philosophical exemption". What seems to have happened here is that someone has gone through the dozens of web pages pointed to by the cited source, and endeavored to categorize each state's policies. That is all well and good, but it is original research, and as per WP:OR cannot appear in Wikipedia. Instead, I suggest finding a reliable source that summarizes the various states' positions, and citing that source. Also, I have some qualms about citing vaclib.org in this area: it is quite partisan, and I'd rather see a more-neutral source like a major newspaper. Eubulides (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a subsection for each U.S. State, so I hope that someone finds a reputable source for this information. A simple to understand table format would be very useful. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

News

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0303/States-move-to-toughen-vaccination-laws-in-wake-of-measles-outbreak

Falsely claiming religious exemptions

This edit removed the following text:

"Some parents falsely claim religious beliefs to get vaccination exemptions."

along with a citation to the following source:

LeBlanc S (2007-10-17). "Parents use religion to avoid vaccines". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24.

Previously, the same editor had repeatedly removed the same text and source, without comment.[2][3] The comments for the latest edit say "I have removed text that is biased in nature. This text makes assumptions that cannot be verified as either true or false in terms of the general population, which it claims to do." However, the cited source clearly supports the text, as the source's headline clearly states. Furthermore, this is not a controversial issue among reliable sources: no reliable source says that parents never falsely claim religious beliefs to get exemptions, nor does any reliable source say that these false claims are irrelevant or insignficant. This appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, where an editor disagrees with what a reliable source is saying, without any other reliable source to support the disagreement. Since we've had several go-rounds of this edit, with no resolution here, I am asking for a 3rd opinion. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Typically I'd like to see both sides to render a third opinion (feel free to relist as needed), but I can make the following recommendation now:

I agree that a statement with this information should remain. However, this appears to be a case of weasel words (see in particular the "Other problems" section) and should (imo) be rewritten. Furthermore, perhaps the point could be elaborated further, as is done in the news article cited. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words #Other problems suggests avoiding words like "some" and I assume that's what you're talking about here. There are no precise statistics on the (illegal) activity in question, for understandable reasons, but I found a reliable source (Ciolli 2008, PMID 18827888) that says it's "widespread and growing"; that's more-precise than "some" so I used that. This new source is better than the old one for our purposes, as it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, so I substituted the new source. Eubulides (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen articles in recent weeks that state some parents falsely claiming religious beliefs to get the exemption in states that allow it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cited source not appropriate for the claim

I'm moving this ref from the article to the talk page because the claim is a medical claim and the authors of the cited article are philosophers, not medical doctors. The claims are "...cause loss of herd immunity" and "...substantially increasing risks even to vaccinated individuals." The source itself cited others which may or may not support the claim, but they need to be checked first before including them in the article. (If a WP editor does find support for the claims in one of those sources, please include an except in the citation as those sources are not readily available online.) I also tagged the phrase "too many" as vague. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

References

User:Sparkie82, I notice you are targeting this subject in more than one place. What kind of medical background and knowledge do you have? Do you understand how herd immunity works? Have you followed the wikilink to that article? I'm asking because I need to know what type of background knowledge you possess and what types of terminologies I should use when discussing this with you. I want us to be able to understand each other. Once I know that, we will be able to proceed to work this out. I'm laying the groundwork for further conversation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to converse, but I'd rather work on improving the quality of Wikipedia. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

course assignment

Syntax to post:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ajdellinger/sandbox For this school assignment, my partner and I are working to expand information not given for additional European countries (France, Italy, Spain, Germany). We will gather major policies/vaccination schedules and summarize. We will also add a data table. Ajdellinger (talk) Ajdellinger (talk)

it's probably more relevant to the vaccination schedule article than to here... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Global herd immunity - citations needed

"These global actions are telling to the progression of vaccinations. Living in a globalized world that is extremely connected, diseases that are preventable by vaccinations have become part of a larger public health movement: global herd immunity. These task forces and political campaigns that have erected in order to spread availability and knowledge of vaccination are modern attempts to protect the world from vaccination-preventable diseases."

• The term "global herd immunity" is neither fully defined nor cited. It would be helpful to describe how globalization and technology have made the spread of disease as well as immunity possible. Edeiotte (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Eradication of disease - Incomplete and outdated information for eradication of disease section

"The last naturally occurring case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977. In 1988, the governing body of WHO targeted polio for eradication by the year 2000, but didn't succeed. The next eradication target would most likely be measles, which has declined since the introduction of measles vaccination in 1963."

• The information here is relevant for contextualizing the history of eradicating disease by WHO efforts, but it is vague in describing WHO program goals of eradication over time and does not indicate up to date information on current WHO or other non-governmental organization objectives with specific mention as to which communicable diseases are being most heavily targeted for vaccination. Edeiotte (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• The mentioning of measles as "most likely" is an unsupported statement without citation and could use elaboration as to why measles and not some other infectious disease such as Hib is considered important to what I assume is the World Health Organization? The organization to which this applies is not mentioned. The CDC website has numerous examples of current efforts in the United States to further vaccinate across all age groups and eradicate disease. Edeiotte (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I removed the speculation that measles would be most likely to be targeted next. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of reference source

Australia's vaccination policy

"In 2014, about 97 percent of children under 7 years have been vaccinated, though the number of conscientious objectors to vaccination have increased greatly.[16]"

• These data come from the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a newspaper and has some degree of bias towards the pro-vaccination position. In the article, important statistics of conscientious objecters and prevalence of unvaccinated children is uncited. Intergovernmental or non-governmental census collections may be a more reliable and more easily accessible source for readers to understand the scope of the issue of compulsory vaccinations in Australia. One source of the international policy environment is from CMAJ and may be a good starting point. Edeiotte (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

The news article gave numbers, yet the wiki article said "increased greatly", which is subjective and OR. I have changed it to use the numbers.. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Policies and history by country

Is it intended to expand the article to cover every country? I have copied the relevant section to the articles about health in each country as that seems to make the information more accessible. Would it be better to keep the information about each country there, with a link from this article? Rathfelder (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Vaccine Reaction as a source

The Vaccine Reaction is a publication of NVIC and therefor not an RS, A better source should be found for the percent of french people who are anti-vaccine. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. I agree it should go. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Vaccinations have become a hot topic over the last few years. More and more people are beginning to think they aren’t necessary and are opting to not vaccinate their children. While on the contrary, over the last few years it has actually become more crucial for us to stay on top of vaccinations. The US Department of Human Services (2018) has noted that “since 2010, there have been between 10,000 and 50,000 cases of whooping cough each year in the United States, and about 10 to 20 babies, many of which were too young to be fully vaccinated, died each year.” That is a rising number that should be setting alarms off in those who wish not to vaccinate. This number has risen from the idea that vaccinations are either given out in too big of in increment or are just flat out too harmful for kids. Though even with these thoughts, there is plenty of research to back up the timeline of vaccinations. People around the country, that were never vaccinated, have countered this argument by speaking from experience. They are people are grew up without vaccinations and dealt with the repercussions, like measles, from it that others, that were vaccinated, did not have to deal with. Those who weren't vaccinated have spoken out to show their support for the vaccination community. A vaccination policy should be implemented based off of the herd immunity. Herd immunity is the idea that if most of those around can not get the virus, then even if your child is not vaccinated, then no one can get your child sick (Iannelli, 2018). We should vaccinate our kids to be able to keep those who are not able to be vaccinated safe. Those who do not have the option do not deserve to suffer based off of non vaccinations. Jbisceglie (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)bisceglie14Jbisceglie (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Updated vaccine schedules

Haven't checked, but those vaccine schedule images from 2015 must be outdated. Current schedules for European countries can be checked at the ECDC website. I've added Finland's (which was missing). I used HTML2Wiki to translate the tables. Two things I couldn't figure out how to do is: 1. merge duplicate footnotes, and 2. set a minimum column width. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

2. set a minimum column width

That much I learned since then =D

Schedules are now at Vaccine schedule and transcluded here. Tables for a few countries are still in png format and yet to be tabled. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Vaccination policy in the United States

I have broken out and expanded Vaccination policy in the United States. The material in this article can be reduced accordingly. BD2412 T 12:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Avatar317:: Generally, when an article is broken out from a list or survey article, the content relating to the content broken out is usually substantially reduced to a summary. BD2412 T 01:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Would said summary include the collapsed vaccine schedule, BD2412? I think that's what Avatar317 objected to removing from here, not the blurb. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that it would. I haven't gotten around to figuring out what else should be trimmed, but to me that element was immediately apparent. BD2412 T 03:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why the schedule shouldn't be transcluded in both, collapsed here and uncollapsed there. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the U.S. section under the article Vaccination Policy should be reduced now that there is an expanded article called "Vaccination policy in the United States." Personally, I recommend deleting the sections on War and the Spanish Civil War here and keeping those sections in the expanded article. There is already a statement about compulsory vaccination in the U.S. military. Perhaps a sentence could be added there about the need to curtail disease during war and linking to the expanded article. If no one objects in the next day or two, I'll try to do this.Kfhtoll (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@BD2412: I don't object to removing duplicated text content; otherwise editors have to update content in two articles, but I think the hideable "Vaccine schedule" table is what should stay, since I think part of the goal of Wikipedia (as I see it) is to make data/information/content as EASILY findable for the reader as possible. Those tables are listed for other countries in the same article and if your edit stayed I would wonder as a reader why the US info was absent. I don't think that it's obvious to the reader that the collapsed table would be found in the linked Main article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the "War" section. BD2412 T 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Avatar317. Btw, I moved the schedules that once resided here to Vaccine schedule, and transcluded them back. I'll be doing the same with the summary table once it absorbs all info already present on the one here. Guarapiranga (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The MMR column for Japan and Indonesia

I recently updated ja: 予防接種法 (Vaccination law in Japan) and would like to add the summary onto this English article as well. The table of Vaccination_policy#Summary, however, makes me difficult. As per the Japanese national law, vaccines for Measles and Rubella as a form of MR vaccine are recommended to all, but Mumps vaccine has not been even recommended by the national law since 1994. The similar thing is in Indonesia - MR are mandatory whereas Mumps is recommended. As both countries account for a significant portion of global population, can we sprit the MMR column into two (i.e. MR and Mumps)? --ProfessorPine (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Plus one for Hungary (varicella inoculation).

The article's spreadsheet needs updating: vaccination against chickenpox illness (varicella simplex) recently became mandatory in Hungary, for all children born in August 2018 and younger, using the two syringe method (starter at 13 months of age and reminder at 16 months). With this addition, the number of child age based scheduled mandatory vaccinations became 12 in Hungary and cements the country's position as possibly the world's most inoculated nation. See here: http://medicalonline.hu/gyogyitas/cikk/nincs_hiany_a_baranyhimlo_elleni_kotelezo_vedooltasbol 78.131.76.55 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, whoever thinks kids can go to kindergarten or school unvaccinated in Hungary is severely mistaken, the article's spreadsheet also needs updating in that respect. In 2018 the "ombudsman" (citizens' rights warden) wanted to support anti-vaxxers with a statement but got replaced. There was a small-sized antivaxxer movement of parents and GPs in the wealthier wester-nmost part of of Hungary about 5 years ago, but state authorities eased them over the border to neigbouring and rather "lax on vaxx" Austria, taking advantage of the free movement of people within the EU. Hungary is a unitary nation-state and federal-ish notions of liberites and freedoms and religious excuses essentially don't exist in its historic mindset. 78.131.76.55 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

China - mandatory or not ?

The map shows China as a "grey "zone implying no policy, yet the article itself describes an extensive list of vaccines that are mandated in China.

In addition, the spreadsheet does not list PR China (!)

The Library of Congress provides an interesting summary of the current Chinese policy ( admittedly, not mentioning Covid-19) https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/china-vaccine-law-passed/

Feroshki (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Compulsory vaccination

There's a line on here that says compulsory vaccination "greatly reduces" infection rates, and it has no work behind to back it up, the reference being an article about "Medical Ethics", bluntly, bereft of any substantial data, and, now, this edit0r dude with a major league attitude problem won't let me take it down. His name, if that's his real name, is "Zachary Daiquiri". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audun Haug Nilsen (talk • contribs) 14:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So just to show I'm willing to discuss, the statement was made on your talk page that "the data in that paper was from a _single incident_, in the 1800s! They were waddling in horse manure in the streets!" It mentions smallpox, which if you want to look at greatly reducing the infection rate, it is true the vaccine reduced the infection rate from millions of people dying of the disease to it being eradicated, i.e. an infection rate of 0. Just because very few countries have compulsory vaccination does not change the fact that if it was compulsory and everyone who could get a vaccination did, the infection rates would go down.

also another reference "Greenwood, Brian (12 May 2014). "The contribution of vaccination to global health: pas present and future". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. PMID 24821919."--VViking_TalkEdits 22:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Australia

In the overview table, Mumps and MR are marked as "NO", but should be "RA": see the cited reference 65 (given at 12 and 18 months). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.9.47 (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed — Guarapiranga ☎ 10:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Compulsory COVID-19 vaccination in table: highly dubious

As of 08:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC) the table says that COVID-19 vaccinations are mandatory in Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, and a few other places, in some cases with no reference, and in others with a reference from 2019 or older, before COVID-19 pandemic even won the title debate against 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and its successors... I don't have the time to fix this right now - feel free to do so! Boud (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes indeed, what are the sources for these countries? This somewhat older source says 3 countries have it: The Countries Where Vaccination Is Mandatory and here a more recent source Factbox: Countries making COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. Some countries where not correct so I corrected it. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we include Austria already? --2A02:2C40:100:B209:0:0:1:F7CC (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence reads, "Vaccination policy is the health policy that governments adopt in relation to vaccination." In my opinion it is not written according to MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which states, "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject". Also, it has repeated words unnecessarily. According to MasterClass staff, "When you’re not using repetition as a rhetorical device, repeating words can get in the way of good writing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I changed it to : "Vaccination policy is a kind of health policy that governments adopt in order to prevent the spread of infectious disease through vaccination". To be clear, "policy" is repeated in the sentence because vaccination policy is a subset of health policy, and we have to properly identify this relationship, and "vaccination" is repeated in the sentence because it would be weird not to have vaccination linked in the first sentence of the article. BD2412 T 06:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A nice monster for you.

    Chickbox vaccination would leave unvaccinated children susceptible to contracting chickenpox as adults, when they're more likely to develop a more severe infection or a secondary complication, or in pregnancy, when there's a risk of the infection harming the baby.

    from https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/chickenpox-vaccine-questions-answers/ . The UK vaccination policy for chickenbox is to... not vaccinate most people to avoid herd immunity, so as to cause childhood infection so as to decrease adult morbidity. Do we consider this consistent with the lead and do we care Talpedia (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I am not particularly moved by that outlier. BD2412 T 17:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edeiotte. Peer reviewers: Edeiotte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wenli zhou.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Averyw1086. Peer reviewers: Swiernicki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matovar, Benjy Hall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YueWu0928.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In schools and daycares

I found that a sentence referenced a similarity and also slight variation in two percentages. The observation was correct but no sources were cited therefore I added on two citations to support the point made regarding the vaccination rates in European Countries versus the United states.Bmschultz (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Compulsory Vaccination

It appeared that multiple sentences throughout this portion had a slight bias towards mandates not being necessary due to the success rates of countries beyond the United States. The evidence provided was all backed up and correct, however it didn't seem to explore the opposite side of said argument, nor stay neutral. I am unsure of how to reword these portions to be less swaying to one side or the other therefore I have not directly edited them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmschultz (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Herd Immunity

I read the given explanation for herd immunity and upon looking at various sources decided an unmentioned yet important part of what hat phrase describes and effects. Therefore, I took it upon myself to mention the intended result of herd immunity was to lessen the effect of a contagious pathogen has on a society.Bmschultz (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

Could use some citing on the second paragraph. B7lam916 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Strout89 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by M0rgan100237 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

On the table being overcolored

The colours there are from the {{table cell templates}}. I've raised the issue there, where it was also raised 8 months ago, and where it should be fixed, so that it is resolved everywhere {{table cell templates}} are used, rather than just here. — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! I did a little research on the topic and found a helpful blog with different palettes and how they would appeared to the color-blind: https://medium.com/cafe-pixo/inclusive-color-palettes-for-the-web-bbfe8cf2410e

I can share this link at the template page too. Lindsey40186 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you seriously consider this "50 shades of pink" palette more readable than former one? Was the idea behind that if some people are colorblind, we must make everyone colorblind? 85.221.140.12 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Vaccinationists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Vaccinationists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)