By: Tanya Chang and Sofya Kavalenka
Culture Editors
When a dangerous disease begins spreading through a community, one’s health can quickly become a public concern. Vaccines effectively slow down the spread of diseases and protect people from serious illnesses. During a declared public health emergency, the United States government should implement vaccine requirements to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases and protect vulnerable communities.
Widespread vaccination remains one of the most successful medical tools in reducing detrimental illness worldwide. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) reported vaccines save roughly six million lives globally every year. Additionally, in the U.S., for nine major diseases that have recommended vaccines, the number of new cases has dropped by 99% compared with the pre-vaccine era. Alongside being efficient, vaccination can also provide rapid results. As reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDCP), a radical change in the amount of yearly cases of measles occurred when vaccines were mandated in 1963. Beginning at three to four million cases annually, the amount of incidences dropped by a half just in a few years. Given these statistics, vaccination could drastically reduce disease rates if a public health emergency unexpectedly occurred. Therefore, a reasonable solution for the United States government would be to require its citizens to receive vaccination.
Another reason to implement mandatory vaccines in a health emergency is in order to protect vulnerable communities, including kids, elderly individuals, people with limited access to health care, and immunocompromised individuals. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), people who cannot receive certain vaccines, such as extremely young babies and those with certain medical conditions, rely on those around them who get vaccinated to reduce their risk. For highly contagious diseases like measles, the WHO estimates that a 95% vaccination threshold is required to maintain this community shield. When more people are vaccinated, diseases have a lower chance of spreading, creating protection for those who cannot safely receive the vaccines themselves. This form of community protection is important since rapid transmission can place additional pressure on healthcare systems.
Despite these benefits, some people believe that obligatory vaccines violate their individual freedom. Some may interpret this regulation as prohibiting one’s ability to choose their own treatment, removing their individual power over their body. While this concern is understandable, a public health emergency is different because an individual’s decision affects the safety and health of others; it can increase transmission rates and put vulnerable communities at a greater risk. For instance, in 1809, Massachusetts mandated the smallpox vaccine, but the law was repealed in 1838, as many believed that it infringed on their individual liberty. Consequently, the number of reported deaths by smallpox increased from 39 cases in 26 years to 1,032 deaths in 17 years. Vaccination requirements lead to fewer incidences of infectious diseases, establishing that the benefits of mandatory vaccination outweigh the concerns of individual freedom.
During a public health emergency, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; instead of blindly forcing the public to receive vaccination, it should provide accurate information about the event. At the same time, citizens should take responsibility for protecting themselves and others by following public health guidelines.
(Sources: BBC, CPP, JHU, NLM, WHO, CDCP)