>>>>>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.
>>
>>But there are some who can't be vaccinated, for whatever reasons (weakened immune system, for example). And having people choose not to be vaccinated increases the risk of infection to those who can't be vaccinated, and as others indicated, helps to create mutations.
>>
>>Vaccination isn't perfect and it works best when a significant percentage of the population is vaccinated.
>
>I wouldn't disagree with any of that. What I'm not sure about is the level of coercion employed by the authorities to persuade people to have the jab. Educate people as to the benefits - fine, but threatening to withold education (as appeared to be the case in some links posted by Tracy) seems a step too far.
>
>Regards,
>Viv

It's a CATCH-22. The law states that all children under the age of 16 must attend school (came about when the anti-child-labor laws were instituted, it can be a private, religious, or an approved home school). However, you cannot attend school without proof of vaccination... If a child wants their drivers license, then they will attend until they graduate, because unless they are enrolled in school and in good standing, have a GED or diploma, they cannot get a drivers license until age 18 in most states now.