Found in a subway North Fitzroy, this anti vaxxer-graffiti is getting what it deserves – the facts!
Vaccination is a critical factor in the protection of the community from preventable diseases. Most diseases require vaccination rates between 93-96% to prevent outbreaks in the community. [current rates for immunisation of 5 year-olds in Australia are slightly less than 95%]
University of SA
So why is there is a movement in Australia claiming vaccination is harmful when the evidence shows otherwise?
Covid-19 will ignite evermore misleading and conspiratorial theories dressed up as fact. See SMN News.
The University of SA surveyed 604 pregnant women and, alarmingly, discovered that knowing the consequences of delaying or avoiding vaccination of their children had no impact on those who were choosing not to vaccinate.
This research found anti-vaxxers lacked trust in institutions and government, had no direct experience of children getting ill or dying from preventable diseases and were likely to go along with the views of family members, friends, the clergy and health professionals including GPs and pharmacists.
Social media has spread misinformation, including the disproved suggestion that autism is caused by vaccination. About 40% of youtube videos about vaccination oppose it. Celebrities and parents whose children have become sick or died have joined what has become a movement.
In 2015 Australia removed religious beliefs as grounds for exemption from vaccination and there are now only very limited exemptions for children in care, children at risk of family violence, and medical contraindication.
Anti-vaxxers formed the Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party, registered in 2016, and contested 8 Senate seats in the last federal election, attracting 17,000 votes across WA, Qld and NSW. It applied to the AEC in February to change its name to the Informed Medical Options Party, an objection to which has been made by Minister Hunt.
However, there is nothing in the Electoral Act that prevents misleading naming. The naming Section 129 is largely there to prevent a new party name that is too much like that of an existing party. See Electoral Act. In fact it is hard to see how ‘misleading’ might be defined or enforced. Is, for instance, the Liberal Party liberal? Well perhaps but only in some respects. So it appears likely the name change will proceed, deliberately misleading voters.