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.

You are misinterpreting what I wrote. I did not mean in terms of percentages. I meant with respect to the "sort of people" who get sick. IE sexually permiscuous people, or poor people, or whatever the case may be for a particular virus.

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?

Obviously if a disease only effects one person the cost of vaccinating everyone in society would exceed the cost of treating that one individual, or perhaps loosing them. There is an obvious relationship between cost and scope.

Look, you seem to want to have an arguement with me and others on this board about this issue. I don't want to have an arguement with you. I've already tried to end it, because it isn't going anywhere and it isn't interesting. The fact that I'm not interested in continuing to discuss it with you is not a statement that I agree with you or that I think I'm wrong. I don't appreciate your attempts to pull me back in by accusing me of having made concessions. I don't want to continue this discussion because I'm sick of explaining what I meant to you over and over, I'm sicking of being forced to research patently obvious questions such as the constitutionality of coerced vaccination, and I'm sick of engaging in circular arguments.

I really don't understand why many preventable deaths sounds like a great idea to you, but at this point I don't fucking care. Have your deaths. Leave me alone.

RE: Texas Requires Cancer Vaccine for Girls