[Question_Assumptions]

I would argue that antibiotics are more important than vaccines, but vaccines are big, too. But since it would be impossible to vaccinate every person for every possible disease that they might catch (assuming a vaccine is some day available for every disease), how does one decide which diseases warrant a vaccine and which warrant a government mandate? And is a vaccine that loses effectiveness over time really better for diseases that most people catch, fight off, and then have a lifetime immunity against like Chicken Pox? And I’m curious why the same arguments being made in these threads about “herd immunity” aren’t being made to justify giving the HPV vaccine to boys as well as girls since boys are generally the infection vector for the disease.

[houston1]

FYI Glaxo is now recommending Gardasil for boys as well, for just the reason you mentioned, they are usually the source for HPV

[jalisco555]

First chicken pox. While it's true that the disease is relatively benign in children it's less so in adults, especially people with immune disorders. Plus, zoster, which can be extremely unpleasant, occurs in people who have had chicken pox. As for the HPV vaccine, the main purpose of this vaccine is to prevent cervical cancer in women. If most women are vaccinated it's hard to argue that vaccinating boys adds much value, especially considering the very high cost of the vaccine. Although I expect the FDA to soon approve vaccinating boys it's arguably not cost effective

My main concern here is not with one particular vaccine or another. It's with the anti-vaccination movement in general. The arguments against vaccination are based on bogus science that has been thoroughly debunked. Withholding vaccination from children places them at risk of enormous suffering. There have been several recent mini-epidemics of measles in the past few years due to failure to vaccinate. I'd hate to see polio return to this country.