My latest op-ed for the Australian is on anti-vaxxers

In 1885, Montreal suffered an outbreak of smallpox that would go on to kill more than 3000 people, which was at the time around 2 per cent of its population. During the outbreak, an eccentric physician known as Dr Alexander Ross circulated a pamphlet urging people to reconsider getting vaccinated against the infectious disease. The pamphlet, which has been preserved by historians and can be read online, states in bold letters “do not be alarmed by the smallpox!”, “thousands have had their health ruined (by vaccination)” and “many children are killed outright!”. This early pamphlet is a masterful example of the key rhetorical devices used by anti-vaxxers, devices still used today, often to great effect.

To be fair, not all of Ross’s concerns were completely unfounded. In the 1800s, vaccination was a much more risky enterprise than it is today, medical instruments were not always sterilised and so vaccination could lead to secondary infections. Leeriness over the smallpox vaccine was not uncommon: the vaccine itself consisted of an “arm-to-arm” process of scraping the flesh and then inserting the fluid from a smallpox blister from a person who had been vaccinated a week earlier. This arm-to-arm process was later replaced by syringes that contained the lymph fluid of cows that had been infected by cowpox.

Notwithstanding some legitimate concerns, the logic of Ross became faulty when he argued that vaccination was riskier than the smallpox disease itself. While vaccination always entails some risk (like any other medical intervention) the risk to health posed by smallpox was much, much higher. Smallpox caused fever and vomiting, mouth ulcers and skin rashes, the rashes would often blister, which would lead to scarring, sometimes blindness, and disfigurement that could last a lifetime. About 30 per cent of people who contracted smallpox would die, including many children and babies. It is only thanks to vaccination that this hideous disease has been eradicated – so much so that we don’t need to vaccinate for it anymore.

Ross was not an isolated figure. In the 1800s several anti-vaccination leagues sprang up in the UK and US specifically in opposition to the smallpox vaccine. These leagues argued that smallpox was not caused by a virus but instead by a lack of sanitation and that vaccination was “un-Christian”.

Others argued that vaccination was an affront to bodily autonomy. Vegetarians also disliked vaccination because it often used lymph material from cows. Victorian-era anti-vaxxers were motivated by two moral concerns: they worried that the “purity” and “wholesome blood” of children would be “poisoned” by vaccination and they also worried that new public health efforts were an exercise of medical tyranny.

Concerns about medical tyranny were inflamed when laws were passed to make vaccination mandatory in England in the mid-1800s. Many of us consider today’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic to be heavy-handed, but governments have long struggled to control the spread of infectious disease and have often used coercive measures. In England during the mid-1800s, if parents did not get their babies vaccinated against smallpox within the first three months of their lives, they risked being thrown into prison.

Yet coercive measures are also known to provoke anger among the populace. In response to compulsory vaccination laws, anti-vaccination sentiments grew. In 1885, the English town of Leicester saw a march of 80,000 to 100,000 anti-vaxxers; they carried banners, a child’s coffin and burned an effigy of Edward Jenner – the famed scientist who had discovered the first smallpox vaccine more than 100 years earlier.

The growing popularity of anti-vaxx sentiment caused the English authorities to wind back their laws that had made vaccination compulsory and parents who refused the smallpox jab hence became known as “conscientious objectors”.

Why does this history matter? It matters because in the fight against Covid, Australia has not yet had to deal squarely with the problem that is vaccine hesitancy and conscientious objection. Because our vaccine rollout has been slow, we still have more demand for the shots than supply. But that will soon change.

This will present us with an ethical dilemma. Gladys Berejiklian has indicated that restrictions might not be lifted in NSW until 80 per cent of eligible adults have been vaccinated. But with an estimated 26 per cent of Australians hesitant to get the vaccine, this may be an impossible target.

We have to accept that we may never reach optimal vaccine coverage. And rather than making vaccination compulsory – which history shows does not work and can even backfire – we may have to learn to live with the reality that a certain proportion of the population would rather risk infection with Covid than be protected from it.

Part of learning to live with Covid will be learning how to live with the reality of anti-vaccination propaganda. When social media companies censor such material, it appears to increase conspiratorial thinking. The realisation that many among the community will refuse the best defence we have against Covid can be challenging, but not much about this pandemic has been easy.

So what can we do? I believe we should respect the decisions of the conscientious objectors. But similarly, the rest of us should not have to live under restrictions to protect this group. Even if they are elderly and have co-existing health problems, we should not consider conscientious objectors to be a “vulnerable” group. If conscientious objectors wish to risk infection with Covid, then they should also live with the responsibility for their choices.

Rather than holding the rest of society hostage to protect a group that willingly refuses to protect themselves, we should respect the choices of conscientious objectors and get on with returning to a life with the freedoms we once enjoyed.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-ethical-dilemma-posed-by-vax-objectors/news-story/7077abd9e288e6f4b582cad923406aff

8 Likes

Fantastic! Thanks for cross posting this here.

5 Likes

It also encourages the spread & belief of falsehoods that increase hesitancy. Antivaxers need to be reassured they won’t be coerced so talk of target vaccinations & indefinite restrictions once the vaccine has been made widely available is a form of doing that.
And much more importantly the threat of endless restrictions seriously undermines trust in our institutions & government that has already taken a few heavy hits over covid. There is so much more at stake than the consequences of living with covid.

6 Likes

I understand your point, but its worth considering that the vaccine only really needs to be distributed to the medically vulnerable- and it’s their choice as to whether they want to or not. Plus, it’s worth noting that here in the UK, as the vaccine hesitant have seen friends and family vaccinated it has allayed their fears and convinced them to participate.

image

I include these figures because the 80% target is a little high for practical purposes. 60% would be a fairer figure for a return to normalcy- especially if uptake is higher amongst the medically vulnerable. In our case, the vaccines were almost entirely focused at first on those most susceptible- and it shows in the precipitous drop in hospitalisations.

It should be a matter of debate whether most of the under thirties need vaccinating, and children should be exempt in most circumstances. Although many of the concerns are overhyped we really don’t know the long-term effects of the vaccine.

I definitely agree with this last part- freedom to die from the burden of risk assumed is an essential part of Western liberty- otherwise horseback riding would have been banned long ago.

7 Likes

Small pox vaccinations were being promoted in New England in the 1690s by Cotton Mather and vaccinations against small pox were already wide spread in Britain’s American Provinces in 1770.

But Cotton Mather was also one of the driving forces behind the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692-3; so, go figure.

Again, in 1902 the US city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, required the vaccination of all residents against small pox and imposed a $5 fine for refusing. A Swedish immigrant named Henning Jacobson objected and in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) the Supreme Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public” and that a fine ($5 in 1905 is equivalent to about $200 in 2021) was an acceptable balance between the individual’s right to self-determination against the state’s broad interest in public health. By way of background it should be noted that quarantining the infected is ancient but the current practice of quarantining everyone and ignoring those most likely to be infected is something that has never been done before.

I just came across this from a Canadian émigré now living in Queensland:

2 Likes

Thanks for that history. I find the history of medicine and public health so interesting.

1 Like

Jacobson is still the “leading case” on mandatory vaccinations in the US and the fine that passed constitutional muster is the equivalent of a speeding ticket. Because the federal government lacks what is called the “general police power,” which was retained by the states in 1788, the states can issue these kinds of orders but the federal government cannot. The open question is whether the state is limited to fining people won’t submit to vaccination.

Here’s a link to the entire decision:

Addendum: One problem with Jacobson is that it was relied upon in Buck v. Bell (1927) which held the state could forcibly sterilize mentally deficient individuals. Bell has been criticized but has not been overruled.

1 Like