Carseats get brought up a lot in the vaccine debate. "Parents don't have a choice with carseats, so why should they have a choice with vaccines?"
It's a terrible analogy on many fronts, the biggest hole being that carseat manufacturers are liable for product defects.
But it got me wondering . . . why is there such vociferous opposition to vaccine mandates and almost no opposition to carseat mandates? What makes carseats so much more trustworthy than vaccines?
This is sort of a stretch, but could policy-makers look to carseats for ideas on how to gain public trust in the vaccine schedule?
If there were NO carseat mandates, I would still buckle my kids into age-appropriate carseats. Also, I don't see nasty online debates about carseat risks v. benefits, and there are no anti-carseat or anti-mandatory-carseat organizations.
If there were no vaccine mandates, I'd still get my kids some vaccines. Plenty of countries with no compulsory vaccination laws maintain exceedingly high vaccination rates. (Play around on the UNICEF site
with first world, non-mandate countries like Britain, Switzerland, Germany and Japan).
So why is there so much trust in carseat mandates and so little trust in vaccine mandates?
One likely answer I already provided above; carseat manufacturers are directly liable for defects and therefore more accountable for their products.
Any other possibilities?