[lanstin]

As we also coerce babies into screening for various diseaaes and for vax against the diseases that afflict societies without this science. That is how it works. That is why we mostly don't die from infectious diseases for the first time since we built cities.

[gfodor]

Not for an emergency use drug that doesn’t maintain herd immunity for a disease that is minimally harmful to children and is under immense selective pressure to break out of the vaccine.

Maybe you’ve got a bad mental model because of the word “vaccine.” This is not a vaccine of the kind we give children, in terms of what it prevents and the extent of data and knowledge we have of its side effects.

[spacefracas]

This is incorrect. Of the vaccines that are given to children, none prevent infection. All significantly prevent disease and death.

[gfodor]

This feels like pure revisionism. The purpose of the vaccination programs for children is not to prevent severe disease or death, though that is a nice benefit. The purpose, and manifested effect, is to maintain population herd immunity due to the fact these vaccines radically reduce the chance of the child acting as a vector. The consequence is a vastly reduced incidence rate across the whole population due to this network effect vs a scenario with no mandate. This was widely understood to be the ethical justification for mandating these vaccines: it led to a collective benefit, counterfactually preventing massive suffering across many individual, a benefit which outweighs the risk to the individual from taking these drugs. This fundamental premise is entirely not the case for this vaccine program, which does not come close to helping with herd immunity for a disease we now acknowledge is endemic, and also happens to have a wildly different relative risk profile for children vs the other vaccines we mandate.