Sure, but you're simply assuming away the real problem, specifically:
If there is an outbreak, and if you are within about five feet of a person who is plus-or-minus four days away from having detectable signs of measles, the chances are apparently about 90 to 95% that you also will get measles if you haven't either (a) been vaccinated or (b) don't have "leftover" immunity from a previous infection.
>> these statistics are only good for general assessments. If you know or suspect your child has risk factors one way or the other, that will have to factor into the decision <<
Exactly. If my child has a compromised immune system or otherwise has a high risk that a vaccine would have adverse effects on him, you and I both want him to be exempt from vaccination.
But at the same time, my child's vulnerability is all the more reason that your healthy child and all other "healthy" children should be vaccinated. Government coercion is rarely justified, but this case is one of those rare instances.
IMO, what it comes down to is this:
You and your child have the all of our historically guaranteed rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But at the same time, you and your child don't have the right to expose my children to the measles virus -- just as you don't have the right falsely to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.
And there we have it. So coercion for the measles. Under what penalty, pray tell? Jail? Loss of parental rights?
How about chicken pox/varicella? How about HPV/Gardasil? Government coercion for STD vaccinations too? What if someone thinks the CDC schedule is a little too much, or wants to delay some of it. What if it is made with fetal cells that I find morally objectionable?
You put the billy club in the state's hand, Hawthorn, and sooner or later you will find yourself at the business end of it.