if the parent is doing their job
Most parents can and do get tested
So do you see the failure of your reasoning? Should we only require Hep B vaccines for the children of bad parents? Or maybe policy needs to consider more than all the happy scenarios and concern itself with the troubling scenarios as well. I'd go one farther and say that it should primarily concern itself with the troubling scenarios.
This exposure mechanism isn't even mentioned in the cdc documents
But it is mentioned several ways in the NIH document I provided earlier.
So we are doing something detrimental to kids health
Wait, what? How is a vaccine detrimental? I think you misunderstand the fundamental premise here.
Not if it leads to the death or disability of a larger portion of the population than the vaccination saves.
Do you have some figures to suggest that the net damage is greater pre-vaccination than post-vaccination? Keep in mind you can't compare rates between a country with frequent vaccination against a country with infrequent vaccination because of herd immunity. Do you even have figures about death or disability related to HepB vaccines? You're making a lot of unsupported claims here.
Actually, I was quoting the numbers from before the vaccine became recommended for infants.
I showed my sources, where are yours?
My kid has his own fingernail clippers. I thought most kids do.
Oh ok, so a common vector for Hep B according to the NIH should not be a consideration in vaccine policy because you personally aren't affected by it. Cool.
Given enough threats at one time, the immune system will be overwhelmed
I mentioned that. I also mentioned how vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system, and that immunocompromised patients are given higher doses than other patients - vaccines are inactivated or attenuated. They are enough for your immune system to learn from, but do not represent any significant strain on the immune system. Doses are carefully considered with that in mind.
Which of my arguments was debunked?
All of them, I addressed them point by point by citing an authority.
I believe all medical intervention involves some risk.
Without question. And particularly for diseases which have strong herd immunity due to significant vaccination rates, the individual risk of receiving a vaccine may in fact outweigh the risk of not receiving the vaccine. However the collective risk is substantially less because you benefit from the vaccinations received by others. In fact, that's what this whole article is about, by weakening members of the herd, we weaken the whole herd.
I know my wife and I don't have the virus, so I didn't include that in my risk analysis.
And should vaccination policy include clauses such as "Unless you're good parents, and promise to remain disease free"?