I never said it's justified. I just told you the reason why large scale testing for a rare predisposition isn't done.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I never said it's justified. I just told you the reason why large scale testing for a rare predisposition isn't done.
I guess that's true. This is why I am a market anarchist. Things that are necessary to children not being maimed should be affordable. With the death grip the state has on everyone (assisted by the pharmaceutical industry) prices are gouged intentionally.
Still, even if children aren't regularly tested for this, vaccinations are very necessary. Because (as I let the AI say at the end of the story) a death by one of these preventable diseases is still worse than any suspected side-effects.
We tend to imagine kids 5 years and older with measles who might still pull through when discussing this topic, but it's more likely to be a newborn with whooping cough who wasn't yet vaccinated and picked it up from some unvaccinated older person.
Those who refuse to vaccinate endanger everyone who isn't able.
Not really, if you have read the actual package inserts.
Yes, and the fact that vaccine-conferred immunity generally wanes after 10 years (see vaccine package inserts) contributes to the false sense of security that leads to these tragedies. Also, we are now beginning to witness a lack of transmission of breastmilk conferred immunity as most young mothers now have never had wild-type measles, etc., and thus have no immunity to pass on, due to vaccination.
This is an assertion, and not an argument. As my immunocompromised friends and the folks at Johns Hopkins Hospital will tell you, the recently vaccinated also put these infant and immunocompromised populations at risk.
Instead of attempting to shame others (not saying you are) we should be having a discussion. Why? Because the reason the "debate" is so heated is because most genuinely care about the well-being of our inestimably precious and beautiful little ones.