Fact Checking Tucker Carlson’s Claims About Vaccines and School Attendance

His claim is false.

By
7
Tucker Carlson. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

In a segment of his Fox News show on October 18, Tucker Carlson claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school.”

Carlson’s claim comes in response to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) vote on October 20 to approve adding COVID-19 vaccine’s to the CDC’s recommended immunizations schedule for both adults and children.The committee voted unanimously to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine and booster for children 6 months and older. 

It’s true that the committee voted to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the 2023 immunization schedule, but Carlson’s claim that the COVID-19 vaccine would be a requirement for school attendance is false. The ACIP recommends, but does not mandate, vaccines for children and adults. 

William Schaffner, infectious disease specialist and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine professor, explained to The Dispatch that the 2023 immunization schedule is “a recommendation to practitioners of all kinds who care for children about what the routine immunization schedule is.”

“It has absolutely nothing to do with those obligations, mandates, requirements in the various states that are necessary for daycare, kindergarten, middle school, and high school,” Schaffner said.

According to the CDC, ACIP “comprises medical and public health experts who develop recommendations on the use of vaccines in the civilian population of the United States. The recommendations stand as public health guidance for safe use of vaccines and related biological products.”

In an October 20 statement, the CDC emphasized that the agency “only makes recommendations for use of vaccines,” and that “school-entry vaccination requirements are determined by state or local jurisdictions.”

“It’s important to note that there are no changes in COVID-19 vaccine policy, and today’s action simply helps streamline clinical guidance for healthcare providers by including all currently licensed, authorized and routinely recommended vaccines in one document,” the statement also said. 

If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.

7
By
Comments (7)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    Do all state public health agencies implement whatever the CDC recommends? If they do then the recommendations are not mere recommendations

    Collapse
  2. SHA

    After sharing this clip on social media I was confronted with a "partly false" fact check linking to this article. It is so galling to me that I joined this publication to register my disgust. It's more of the same biased and incomplete reporting that leaves independent thinkers feeling insulted. As noted by other commenters, the recommendation does have implications for state mandates, much as this piece would like to pretend it doesn't. But even more important than that is the legal implication of this move. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 "provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death..." once it is on the recommended childhood schedule. Many people don't know much about this. I certainly didn't until the pattern of "nudge coverage" became too widespread to ignore and I had to source better information elsewhere. It would certainly flesh out the reporting on this story. A deeper dive would include a critique of just what the recommendation is based on. But all of Dr. Makary's arguments are neatly ignored.

    Collapse
  3. Joolwl

    Again, a "fact check" that rings of cover fire. Not the type of reporting I expect to see on the Dispatch. If you're going to point out how statements like this are misleading, then you should also explain the seeds of truth they contain. That is the basis of objectivity. In this case, the CDC recommendations are used by states as guidance and justification for their own mandates. This article should at least explore this aspect of the story.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    3ld3r

    Please update with info about how many school districts follow in lockstep the CDC vaccine recommendation and turn them into their requirements.
    I'm certainly not trying to defend Carlson, but I genuinely believe that, like CDC COVID-19 recommendations, many localities blindly implement whatever CDC says out of pure bureaucratic risk aversion.

    Collapse
    1. BadgerBill

      Hmm. “Blindly implement whatever CDC says”. I’m wondering what expertise a school board has to implement vaccination standards other than those recommended by CDC or state health authorities. It seems to me it’s not “bureaucratic risk aversion” as much as sensible implementation of what health authorities recommend. As a father of a child (now grown), I wouldn’t ever want my school board “doing their own research” and implementing whatever they would come up with. Nope. Give me “blindly implement” CDC recommendations every time.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        3ld3r

        My use of of the term "school board" was obviously imprecise as you pointed out. "State health agency" would have been more accurate for me to use as a body that should be "doing their own research" which the school boards are then obliged to follow.
        However, whether you meant to or not, your post makes my point that this fact check is at best incomplete.

        Collapse
      2. SHA

        In which case, this already disingenuous "fact check" is completely moot wouldn't you say?

        Collapse