[Movemout]

"There has to be hard intelligence driving this policy"

Hard intelligence is most often a bunch of caca. Intelligence is most often evaluated in terms of percentages of likelihood. Vaccinating the first responders is not a bad strategy. Vaccinating everyone is an even better strategy but because of the adverse reactions to the vaccinations, in some known small percentage, of an extremely large population it is not politically a viable solution. And that is what we are reduced to these days, politically viable solutions. Those of us who received vaccinations many years ago have some chance, depending on whose studies you believe, but those who have never been vaccinated will suffer the worst consequences if these idiots ever get their hands on smallpox. It is counter-intuitive that anyone would unleash a disease that will kill their own but it seems that counterintuition is a good way to deal with terrorists.

[aristeides]

What is politically unacceptable about the few deaths that would result from mass voluntary vaccination? I understand there is some miniscule risk of a person just vaccinated infecting another person, who just might happen to be one of those with a compromised immune system. But virtually all if not all of the few deaths that would result (one death in a million with the old vaccine) would be of people who had chosen to take the risk. What would be unacceptable about that?