The discussion regarding mandatory vaccination of children centers mainly around the question of whether producing public good has precedence over the freedom of individuals. In the core of this discussion lies the assumption that mass immunization has been proven as a public good, based on the experts' opinion that there is no proof of significant damage caused by vaccinations. We suggest, however, that this argument is insufficient. Namely, beside acute effects, vaccination (as any intervention) can shorten long-term life expectancy. If, for example, vaccination is intended to prevent an illness that causes 0.05% mortality or permanent disability population-wide (like in the case of measles), the population-wide vaccination can be considered as a public good only if the vaccination itself does not cause life shortening by 0.05%, that is, by about 15 days. Absence of such a small long-term effect has not been proven and cannot be proven in principle for several decades to come. The lack of proof of damage is not proof of lack of damage; in any dispute, the burden of proof lies with those who lay charges. Therefore, we conclude that it is inappropriate today to enforce mandatory immunization.

中文翻译：

---

疫苗：强制性还是自愿性？风险收益分析。

关于对儿童进行强制接种的讨论主要围绕以下问题：生产公共物品是否优先于个人自由。讨论的核心是基于专家的意见，即没有证据表明疫苗接种会造成重大损害，因此已证明大规模免疫已被证明是一种公共物品。但是，我们建议这种论点是不够的。也就是说，除了急性影响外，接种疫苗（如采取任何干预措施）均可缩短长期预期寿命。例如，如果疫苗接种旨在预防导致0.05％的死亡率或全人类永久性残疾（例如麻疹）的疾病，则仅当疫苗接种本身能够不会导致寿命缩短0.05％，即 大约15天。如此小的长期影响尚未得到证实，并且在未来几十年内原则上也无法得到证实。缺乏损害证明并不意味着没有损害。在任何争议中，举证责任都由提出指控的人承担。因此，我们得出结论，今天强制实施强制免疫是不合适的。