. . . to want to follow as policy seems to be unachievable. I wasn't asking you to make a decision: I was asking you to defend the practicality of handling the situation in the way that you seem to want to.
Beyond that, "largely unnecessary" is seemingly a pretty pat way to sweep the whole problem under the rug. Whether it is necessary or not depends on each person's knowledge of their immediate environment and all likely future environments. One mistake in that arena can lead to infection and to disease.
So, what percentage of 3.6 million would you willingly sacrifice yearly on the altar to personal choice you've erected? How many sick kids? Moreover, does this mean that you would be willing to pay for the medical care and coffins that might well result from your policy of 'wait until its too late to prevent the disease'?
Maybe I am taking your position incorrectly, but it seems as if you have an axe to grind against the entire notion of public health. In spite of the fact that we in this country cannot seem to achieve the wisdom or grace to establish universal healthcare for all in this country (and rid ourselves of the "health insurance industry" (rather, the health extortion racket would be a more proper name for them), we are truly in this together. Having a non-discriminatory public health system open to all is a critical part of that. So, if you act against the basic ideas of public health on some epistemically fanciful grounds wishing for some unachievable perfect knowledge to make the choices that you want to arrogate purely to the individual in spite of the lack of risk posed by safe and effective vaccines, you really do not want universal healthcare in this country, but seemingly rather some sort of libertarian hellscape of partial coverage based on preserving personal choice in the face of the needless deaths of others.
But, hey, maybe I am wrong about your position . . . and you're not really a libertarian or a secret anti-vaxxer.
= new reply since forum marked as read