7% hospitalization is not a small number.
Especially since giving the vaccines themselves have known risks associated with them?
Although all the needed data is not in this article, it appears that the risks of vaccination are far outweighed by the risks of not vaccinating.
Would it not be smarter and more cost-effective to target the vaccinations better so that, say, an infant who may have a high probability of contracting HepB be given the vaccines but the vast majority are not?
That would be a terrific medical advance, no question.
Oh but I forgot. The vaccine companies and the health industry make money with every administration, and the consumer is paying for it via a pool of insureds rather than his own pocket.
The insurance companies, who have skin in the game, think it's cheaper to pay for preventative vaccinations than to pay to treat the disease. Hm.
I don't think it'll take a medical advance necessarily, just a mmore judicious application of resources and (the kicker) a less litigious society.
I'm sure, for example, the varicella vaccine figures into the CDC's figures. We could probably take just about every kid off that vaccine and not suffer greatly for it health wise--they only selectively vaccinate for it in the UK.
Everything's a cost benefit analysis.
And yes, the CDC can talk about general risks, but that may not apply well to your specific kid. Individuals may have risk factors that tip the scales so, like you said, parents have to be able to make those determinations.