Psychology
National – and Chris Luxon – have work to do to counter confusion about vaccination.
National – and Chris Luxon – have work to do to counter confusion about vaccination.
The day after his selection as National Party candidate in Botany, former Air New Zealand boss Chris Luxon was “a little bit Susied”, in the words of party leader Simon Bridges. Depending on your position, he either blundered or showed refreshing candour when telling RNZ Morning Report journalist Susie Ferguson he not only supported the party’s discussion-paper proposal to cut benefits for sole parents who don’t vaccinate their children, but also indicated support for extending the cuts to people receiving the Working for Families benefit. It certainly feels as if we’re about to head into election season.
Politics aside, this is a serious issue. Since the 1998 publication of a now thoroughly discredited paper by equally discredited British physician Andrew Wakefield linking the MMR vaccine to autism, there has been a drop in vaccination rates and a spike in the toll taken by the latest global measles outbreak. Unless you’ve had your head under a rock, you’ll know this epidemic has reached our shores.
It is safe to say the research response to Wakefield’s claims, initially characterised by confusion at an inability to replicate the original claims, but more recently by many, sometimes massive studies, shows there is no credible evidence linking the vaccine to autism. In one recent case study, Anders Hviid and colleagues affiliated with Denmark’s Statens Serum Institut reported the latest nothing burger on the link. Hviid’s study involved analysis of health outcomes for more than 650,000 children born in Denmark between 1999 and 2010. It found there was no relationship between vaccination status and autism diagnoses in 6517 of the children. Given the size of this and other studies, the non-relationship is striking.
But such research has been coming out for years, and people continue to worry that getting their kids vaccinated may mean they develop autism. In fact, according to the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study led by the University of Auckland, although two-thirds of us agree that the standard vaccination schedule is safe, about 5% strongly disagree. A quarter aren’t convinced. Given that you need more than 90% of the population to be vaccinated to protect everyone – the “herd immunity” you’ll have heard about – these figures are a concern and a likely reason for our 2019 measles spike.
The University of Auckland study shows sceptics are not all cut from the same cloth. Although family doctors and pharmacists are pretty much card-carrying vaccinators, midwives are somewhat more sceptical than the public. I won’t mention what self-identified alternative-medicine practitioners think.
The idea of targeting solo parents isn’t necessarily consistent with the Auckland study, which involved more than 16,000 people: being single and having no kids was associated with greater scepticism. Perhaps understandably, feeling that you’re in good health also means you’re less supportive of vaccination. Psychologically, people who are more “open”, but less conscientious and empathetic, also worry more about safety.
Australia introduced “no jab, no pay” benefit restrictions for parents who refuse to immunise their children in 2015, and some states make childcare enrolment subject to vaccination. How much support might there be here for following suit? Earlier this year, with students John Kerr and Samantha Stanley, I asked thousands of people what they thought about vaccination safety and whether there should be sanctions for not vaccinating your children. About 14% felt that the risks of vaccination outweighed the benefits. And people were evenly divided on whether banning unvaccinated children from childcare centres and preschools and withholding benefits were called for.
What of the politics? National supporters are just as opposed to restricting access to childcare and preschools as Green and Labour supporters, suggesting there may not be much mileage there. But National voters are statistically more sanguine about withholding financial assistance.
Science supports immunisation but given the traction that confusion has gained, taking a punitive line with non-vaxxers comes with some political risk.
People were evenly divided on childcarecentre bans and the withholding of benefits.