Decius wrote:

Its not retracted. I said where we can. The criteria "significant precentage of the population" is not "as defined by hijexx" its as constrained by the notion that the vaccination ought to cost less than the disease.

I don't follow your line of reasoning. If I understand correctly, this is your check list:

[ ] Can the disease be managed through vaccination?
[ ] Is the vaccine safe?
[ ] Do we not currently manage the disease as a public health problem?
[ ] Does the disease impact a significant percentage of the population?
[ ] Is the cost of vaccinating for the disease less than the cost of treating the disease?

If all of the answers are yes, then the State should mandate vaccinations for the disease.

Item #4 on this check list directly contradicts your assertion that you "don't care how the disease is spread, what kind of disease it is, what population it impacts, or what complications it has." Unless you are being extremely didactic with what your meaning of "what population it impacts," this is the only conclusion I can arrive at. Percentages of population was the context of my assertion you were responding to.

When you say "the criteria of significant percentage of the population" should not be mine to define, I agree. I never said it was my sole authority. I am not a statistician, an elected official, a trained medical professional, or otherwise qualified to make those kinds of definitions.

You are saying that the criteria of significant percentage of the population should instead be defined as what you say it is, which is "as constrained by the notion that the vaccination ought to cost less than the disease." This makes no sense to me. You already said vaccination should cost less than treatment. What does that have to do with the definition of what constitutes a significant percentage of the population? A disease pays no attention to economics. How does the cost of a vaccine constrain what percentage of a population the disease affects?

Ultimately, its the state that decides these things. My preference would be that the decisions be based on independent study... the FDA for example.

The FDA is not independent, it is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls