>>I guess my reaction to those who want the right to choose not to vaccinate (as opposed to not vaccinating because of a medical condition) is that that's fine, but then you need to not take advantage of public goods, like schools, parks, etc. IOW, they should go live out in the wilderness where their personal choice doesn't have an impact on the lives of others.
>>
>>Living in society means giving up some of our personal freedom for the greater good.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>"Living in society means giving up some of our personal freedom for the greater good."
>
>Thats a can of worms. Living in a society means people should respect others choices.
>
>So if I want to medicate the water supply for some reason (say flouride for teeth) you'd be ok with that.

What about "Not endanger others."?

It's o.k. if somebody chooses. But he should pay the bill.
We have social circles (Waldorf education ....) that breed numbness but everybody in the insurance and the tax payer must pay. I'm not against personal freedom, but such folks need to be sued to starvation.

This risk of immunazation problems on measles is 1000 times less then without. This is like one in my close neighborhood compared to 0.5 in the town. It is payed by insurance.

Similar problems to Poliomyelitis. We had a rehab close to the town where I'm grown up. Those we saw on the streets where the lucky one. The one that could "walk".

I might follow with flu, since this is more like gambling.
This years season was complete mismatch.
Plus the doctor cheating. Former boss of mine was a great flu vaccacination friend. One day he figured out the doc has given him the same batch as the year before.

Water supply is altered anyway. chlorine, lime, name it. (They relay put lime into the water. The water starts to destroy the copper pipes without. Never head that problem with lead.)