Comment: You are completely ignoring the epidemiology.

(See in situ)


You are completely ignoring the epidemiology.

For example, if the mother or baby were identified in an at-risk population, that's one thing.

However, if a regular person, who otherwise would have NO REASON to otherwise ever have been exposed to B or D, what is the probability of viral infection?

1%?
.1%?
.01%?
.001%
.0001%
.00001%
.000001%

How can you justify mandatory vaccination for this vaccine when the epidemiology shows a 1/100,000 or LESS rate of infection in non-at-risk populations?

I'm sorry, but it's completely inconsistent with any concept of liberty.