So, what's the big deal here? The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine. The rest of us can rest easy and let Darwin do his work.
Cancer patients, AIDS patients, organ recipients all have compromised immune systems. They'd all be at risk because of irrational choices their colleagues made.
Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that. Most cancer treatments end up wiping out or suppressing many different kinds of cells, and a temporary suppression of white blood cells is considered an acceptable side effect. AIDS will have to be cured. A strong immune system often attacks donor organ cells, so the immune system is intentionally weakened. We may eventually develop solutions for all three issues, but I don't expect it to happen in our lifetimes. Heck, I predict we'll be cloning body parts in labs to obviate the need for anti-rejection meds long before we learn to fine-tune our immune response.
> Nothing in medicine is as straightforward as that
Which begs the question, why do we make an exception with vaccines? It seems like vaccines are being presented as completely safe & completely effective by some proponents.
You see nuance in this issue, but then, why are critics of vaccines silenced & ridiculed? I thought "nothing in medicine is straightforward"...
> That begs the question, shouldn't we be more focused on promoting strong immune systems?
No. There's no general solution to the problem of compromised immune systems, because there are many different causes. Some of those causes are infectious diseases that can be controlled through vaccination, so translating your feel-good goal of "promoting strong immune systems" into specific courses of action will include using tools like mass vaccinations. There are no better or more cost-effective ways to prevent diseases like measles, and almost every unvaccinated person exposed to measles develops the disease even if they have a healthy immune system.
There are a collection of people who are unable to take vaccines for medical or age reasons. They rely on herd immunity. If herd immunity is compromised, then their risk increases. For someone considering to avoid vaccination for personal reasons, this is an example of moral hazard.
> The only people affected should be those who were too stupid to take the vaccine.
One dose (normally scheduled at 12-15 months) is 93% effective, two doses (the second usually scheduled at 4-6 years) are 97% effective, and there are people too young or with other non-stupidity reasons for not having (yet, in the case of age alone) even the first dose, so, no, it's not just stupid people at risk.