I believe the conversations need to be had. We are trying to prevent discrimination of minorities and those who react are minorities, so to not be seen to be trying to do something is not helping the case of the pro vaxxers. Then with the attitude at the moment that when families did have a child react to it instead of sympathy and discussion they get brushed aside and told they must continue, just get it done at the hospital in case they go into anaphylaxis, that's not helping those minorities gain more confidence in vaccines.

Yes, most reactions are mild, but when your baby ends up in a rash from head to toe, while its not life threatening it's not something you're going to want to be seeing every couple of months and it's hard to envision an invisible benefit when your seeing such visible distress. There's also no arguing that some have died or had permanent brain damage from them. Anyone who has experienced these things is going to want to share and warn others that this risk is real, just as anyone who had lost a child to one of the diseases would and they both should be allowed that. Seeing as we no longer get the diseases so much, then the vaccine injury stories and photos are going to be seen a lot more, so it makes sense why people would be jumping on that bandwagon more.

What the pro vaccine group needs to be showing is sympathy towards those who have experienced injuries, but also more openness and literature which compares the risks levels for both the diseases and the vaccines. Openness is the better approach rather than the approach currently being taken, which often seems to be to attack and deny any adverse reactions.

The idea of herd immunity was supposed to be to protect those who do react or are at high risk of reacting so they don't need to be risked again with further vaccines, but those people are finding that they are being bullied and coerced into continuing to vaccine despite reactions and their children being hospitalised.