Comment: Immunizations are a balance of risks.

(See in situ)

Immunizations are a balance of risks.

Immunizations are a balance of risks.

They necessarily damage the body at least slightly to stimulate the immune system, while activating the immune system also has a small chance of damaging the body substantially more, even fatally.

But in return they provide substantial reductions of risk from diseases.

Further, despite their failure to provide immunity to all who are treated, by reducing the "k factor" of the exponential growth, they can make the difference between a disease outbreak rapidly petering out or exploding into a pandemic. This gets the government, which thinks of us as a herd of cattle, interested in keeping us healthy and productive.

The unimmunized can act as vectors, reservoirs, or even apparently-healthy carriers, spreading disease to others (including those whose immunization failed but who mightn't have been exposed to the disease if not for the presence of a large population of unimmunized and the resulting higher exposure risk). This amounts to imposing coercive involuntary risk on their neighbors, which also gets government interested in mediating the conflict of choices.

Yes, it's a bitch that the incompetent authoritarians are trying to make these decisions for you. But it's easy to see why they try.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.