There is a ** sort of ** logic here, but it all hinges upon there BEING a vaccine that is highly effective. Do you know of one?
And then, it also hinges upon there being a vaccine that is BOTH highly effective AND safe enough to present a null risk of causing a healthy child to become ill. Do you know of one?
Otherwise we tacitly argue that it is acceptable to cause an illness in one child in order to prevent an illness in another, and this ethic argument exists even when the existence of such an effective and safe vaccine remains a chimera. (This argument is usually couched as "the benefits outweigh the harms", considered as a statistical matter weighed up in population, not in individual, terms.)
Perhaps, before we get dragged into an unwinnable argument over which child it is acceptable to sacrifice for which other child, let us actually find a candidate vaccine that can be universally recognised as being both safe enough to cause no risk of illness in a healthy child, and effective enough to prevent the spread of illness to others.
Re: Thanks, gee, my blood pressure had been a bit low...
And then, it also hinges upon there being a vaccine that is BOTH highly effective AND safe enough to present a null risk of causing a healthy child to become ill. Do you know of one?
Otherwise we tacitly argue that it is acceptable to cause an illness in one child in order to prevent an illness in another, and this ethic argument exists even when the existence of such an effective and safe vaccine remains a chimera. (This argument is usually couched as "the benefits outweigh the harms", considered as a statistical matter weighed up in population, not in individual, terms.)
Perhaps, before we get dragged into an unwinnable argument over which child it is acceptable to sacrifice for which other child, let us actually find a candidate vaccine that can be universally recognised as being both safe enough to cause no risk of illness in a healthy child, and effective enough to prevent the spread of illness to others.