Vaccinating your children might seem like a choice about control, but it’s actually about granting them freedom to navigate the world without fear.
There’s a saying: “You’re not afraid of being alone in a dark room; you’re afraid of not being alone in one.” For someone unvaccinated, every crowded room or shared space can feel like that dark room–full of invisible threats.
Consider what it means to be unvaccinated in a world where diseases like measles are resurging. Headlines about outbreaks can be particularly harrowing for immunocompromised individuals. But do those who choose not to vaccinate realize that one infected person can expose over 200 others?
What happens when herd immunity—a shield for the vulnerable—is compromised? Should those who can’t be vaccinated be forced stay indoors or wear respirators to protect themselves from otherwise preventable diseases?
California took a bold step in 2016 with Senate Bill 277, which eliminated personal and religious exemptions for school vaccinations, revealing that removal of non-medical exemptions can be effective at increasing vaccination coverage. While seemingly counterintuitive, we argue this law enhanced individual and collective freedoms by reducing the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases; we reclaimed control over our health and safety.
Fast forward to today, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Newly elected President Donald Trump has already begun to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization, the very organization that tracks public health data and supports vaccination globally. Arguably even more alarming is Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of Health and Human Services, which has sparked significant backlash from health professionals. Kennedy’s nomination underscores a dangerous tension in public health policy–a battle between science and fringe ideologies.
Kennedy’s well-documented vaccine skepticism, rooted in conspiracy-driven theories about vaccines, COVID-19, HIV, and even fluoridation, poses an existential threat to the progress we’ve made in public health. His suggestion that the U.S. can “take a break” from infectious disease research, even amidst emerging threats like H5N1 and Monkey Pox, is not only reckless but potentially catastrophic.
How can someone with such beliefs be trusted to lead agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health, which rely on evidence-based science to protect Americans?
Decades of high vaccine coverage brought declines in diseases like measles and pertussis, which in turn has dramatically increased our life expectancy. Yet recent increases in vaccine exemptions — and the spread of vaccine misinformation — have fueled preventable outbreaks. Critics of vaccine mandates argue that exemptions protect parental autonomy, but this argument collapses under scrutiny.
Studies show that unvaccinated children are 35 times more likely to contract measles and six times more likely to contract pertussis. Measles alone caused two to three million deaths annually before widespread vaccination, now it’s reduced to 100,000.
Vaccines work. The WHO, the world renowned, data driven organization the U.S is now attempting to leave under the current government, reports that most childhood vaccines are 85–95% effective. While adverse reactions are rare — about one in a million — choosing not to vaccinate carries far greater risks. A child exposed to measles faces a 90% chance of infection. Vaccinating our children doesn’t just protect them; it protects everyone, from newborns to cancer patients whose weakened immune systems leave them vulnerable.
By removing personal and religious exemptions for school-based vaccine mandates, SB 277 safeguarded public health while respecting the balance between individual rights and community welfare. It empowered parents to protect their children and those around them. As we face new public health challenges, the lessons of SB 277 remain clear: collective action is the cornerstone of true autonomy.
For individuals who cannot protect themselves against measles or other preventable diseases due to medical reasons, life can feel like walking in darkness, never knowing when danger will strike. Now, with the nomination of an openly anti-vaccine health secretary and a federal government that is increasingly skeptical of science, the question is clear: Will we stand up for science, or will we allow misinformation to guide policy at the highest levels?
Public health, and thus healthcare as we know it, is at a crossroads, and the time to act is now.
William H. Eger, MPH is a PhD candidate in the School of Medicine at the University of California San Diego and holds a Master of Public Health degree in Infectious Disease Epidemiology from Yale University. Madison T. Germuska is a nurse administrator at UCSD Health and a MSN/MBA candidate at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing and Carey School of Business.
