Decius wrote:

I'm not conceeding anything that I haven't stated I'm conceeding. Franky, I'm not interested in whether or not cervical cancer is a public health crisis. Furthermore, I never defined what I saw as a public health crisis nor did I ever say that things had to become a public health crisis before I felt the government could require vaccination. The criteria that I offered for whether or not I'm comfortable with government vaccine requirements are:

1. There is a safe vaccine.
2. A vaccine requirement costs less than the treatment of illnesses which would occur without a vaccine requirement.

I don't care how the disease is spread, what kind of disease it is, what population it impacts, or what complications it has. I don't have a problem with government vaccine requirement for STDs. HPV is an STD that lots of people get. I don't have a problem with them vaccinating for it.

So you are retracting your portion of the following dialogue:

Hijexx: What is your demarcation line between a disease that requires public health management and one that does not? You know where mine is.

Decius: Name a disease that can be managed through vaccination and impacts a significant percentage of the population that we do not manage as a public health problem. In my opinion the demarcation line is where we can.

Consider it retracted.

To summarize your position then, as best as I can distill (I am sincerely not trying to distort it:)

You hold that the State has the authority to dictate to its citizenry that they must receive vaccinations for any disease, so long as the State deems the vaccination safe and the cost of administering the vaccines is lower than treating the effects of illness that would result from not being vaccinated.

The one unknown in your position is who decides that the cost would be lower. Is it the State, a corporation, or some other sort of organization?

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls