Hm. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but let's frame these same numbers from the CDC another way:
In 93% of these 322m cases, the infants and children would not have been hospitalized by these illnesses.
In 99.8% of these 322m cases, the infants and children would not have died from these illnesses.
Now of course you want to err on the side of caution. But does this not seem a *tad* strange that we are vaccinating all these infants and children, the vast majority of whom will have no serious complications? Especially since giving the vaccines themselves have known risks associated with them?
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?
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.
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.