@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscienceStarted 9yrs agoActive 51mins ago

Should the government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases?

In January 2014, 102 measles cases linked to an outbreak at Disneyland were reported in 14 states. The outbreak alarmed the CDC, which declared the disease eliminated in the U.S. in the year 2000. Many health officials have tied the outbreak to the rising number of unvaccinated children under the age of 12. Proponents of a mandate argue that vaccines are necessary in order to insure herd immunity against preventable diseases. Herd immunity protects people who are unable to get vaccines due to their age or health condition. Opponents of a mandate believe the government should not be able to decide which vaccines their children should receive. Some opponents also believe there is a link between vaccinations and autism and vaccinating their children will have destructive consequences on their early childhood development.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Mandatory Vaccinations

@9TTPNT8
#1 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

Answer Overview

Response rates from 10.2m America voters.

68%
Yes
30%
No
57%
Yes
22%
No
5%
Yes, but only for deadly contagious diseases
5%
No, but require vaccination in order to attend public school
3%
Yes, but with exceptions for those whose religious beliefs forbid use of vaccines
1%
No, but hold parents criminally liable for transferring deadly diseases to other children
3%
Yes, they are essential to protecting other children who are too young to be vaccinated
1%
No, fund public ad campaigns about the risks and benefits instead

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 10.2m America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 10.2m America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8MN5H3T from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

I think that all people should get vaccinated, unless they have a medical condition which prohibits them from getting vaccinated because they will become dangerously sick.

 @8LXM9YD from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

Only if their parent wants to.

 @8L3Q3SW from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

If families are not anti-vaccination then yes.

 @8KSVDFW from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

it depends on the childs immune system and how old they are. vaccinations past one year old should be mandatory unless the immune system cannot handle it

 @8K42BVR from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes vaccines should be required to be part of the public school system and other systems run on tax dollars. However vaccines should be covered at low to no cost if they are required. Otherwise, no requirement for home schooling

 @8NKM5C6from Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

I am too uneducated on this subject to have a firm conviction in my answer

 @98PP9SX from Kentucky  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, especially for deadly contagious diseases. Parents should get their children vaccinated before they attend Daycare or public school. Parents should be held criminally liable for not getting their children vaccinated or for transferring diseases to their children and/or others children and should be arrested and imprisoned. Vaccinations that should be mandatory should be for Polio, Mumps/Measles/Rubella, Chickenpox, Rotavirus, Meningococcal Meningitis, HPV, TDaP, and COVID-19 (if possible).

 @59J9PYNfrom New York  answered…4yrs4Y

US should stop spreading viruses for profit only then world would be free of all diseases. Capitalism is world cancer.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Mandatory Vaccinations” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6mos6MO

Axis of Desperation: Russia Recruits North Korean Soldiers in Ukraine War

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III confirmed on Wednesday that North Korea had sent troops to Russia to join the fight against Ukraine, a major shift in Moscow’s effort to win the war. Mr. Austin called the North’s presence a “very, very serious” escalation that would have ramifications in both Europe and Asia.“What exactly are they doing?” Mr. Austin told reporters at a military base in Italy after a trip to Ukraine. “Left to be seen.” He gave no details about the number of troops already there or the number expected to arrive.Mr. Austin cast President Vladimir V. Putin’s need for North Korean mercenaries as a sign of desperation.“This is an indication that he may be in even more trouble than most people realize,” he said. “He went tin-cupping early on to get additional weapons and materials from the D.P.R.K.,’’ he said, using the abbreviation for Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, “and then from Iran, and now he’s making a move to get more people.”But he said intelligence analysts were still trying to discern whether the troops were moving toward Ukraine.Ukrainian officials insist they are headed there, and Ukraine’s defense minister was quoted on Wednesday saying he expected to see North Korean troops in Kursk, the Russian territory that Ukraine has occupied, in the coming days.Mr. Austin’s statement came as American intelligence officials said they were preparing to release a trove of intelligence, including satellite photographs, that show troop ships moving from North Korea to training areas in Vladivostok on Russia’s east coast and other Russian territory further to the north.For two weeks, there have been reports of the movements, fueled by the Ukrainian and South Korean governments, that more than 12,000 North Koreans were training to fight alongside Russian soldiers.American officials have said they estimate that 2,500 North Korean troops have been dispatched. But they made no estimate of how many more might follow, or even how well they might perform on territory that the North’s conscripts have never fought in, amid fellow fighters who speak a different language.

▲  1410 replies

Active 1wk ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1127 replies