>>>>>>I still don't understand the logic. If you choose not to be immunised against a particular disease and everyone else has been then to whom do you pose a threat?
>>>>>
>>>>>Once there is more than 1 person that didn't get a vaccination, there is a threat. Only if there is exactly one person that didn't get a vaccine in the entire world there is no threat to anyone (though we don't know if the vaccine is 100% effective).
>>>>
>>>>Don't think your argument holds up. If you choose not to be vaccinated then you accept the risk of getting the disease. You are still not a problem to those who did choose to be vaccinated.
>>>>If, OTOH, the powers that be are aiming for the complete erradication of a disease it's a different story - it pretty much worked for, for example, chickenpox. But it's not going to work for Tetanus so why make it compulsory? The only argument in favour is similar the motor-cyclist/crash-hat argument.
>>>>
>>>>Best,
>>>>Viv
>>>
>>>I think the real goal is to eradicate pertussis. It's highly contagious and lasts quite a while.
>>
>>I had to Google 'pertussis' to find out it was whooping-cough. Been there - done that!
>>OK, I accept the argument that it is acceptable, in some instances, to enforce vaccination for all for the greater good. But I don't see how tetanus falls in that category?
>
>It doesn't, but pertussis is a part of the shot.

I understand that. OK - let us accept hat there may well be a valid case for a whooping cough vaccine. But I don't see the same imperative for tetanus. Yet your government is using the one to foist the other. Me - I get the tetanus shot and I'm not too worried about whooping-cough. I might be wrong but it's my choice. I don't think I'm putting the rest of the populace at an increased risk. OTOH I might, at some stage, cost the government money to treat me for an otherwise avoidable illness - but if that's what they're worried about why don't they just own up and say so - or even better, pay me to have the jab in anticipation of the money they'll save <g>