Yeah, but we're talking about not vaccinating your kids, here. It might be that we're all living in a computer simulation and none of this matters but we should still act on what we observe.

I'm personally convinced that vaccination is worthwhile; I've been convinced of that by my education, my experience, and my understanding of the scientific literature. The benefit to the individual and to society of vaccines is, to me, well-established.

I'm willing to compromise part of my herd's immunity for those who wish not to receive a vaccine, even if it increases my risk somewhat. I don't think that anti-vaccine activists are correct, but it's a hell of a thing to inject stuff into their children that they think could bring them harm. Though we do it every day as a society, I don't want to be a part of a herd that resorts to compulsion on ethical questions.

Inextricable from this discussion is the fact that the children won't reach majority before the decision must be made. If we could wait until people turned eighteen before presenting them with the choice of vaccination, this debate would be different.

As a final thought -- if everyone else is immunized, it may be to your advantage to skip vaccination to avoid a tiny risk of side-effects. There's an equilibrium here, and it's not at 100% vaccination rates, even if 100% vaccination could yield eradication.

There's the rub: it's not about you or what you want. There are already enough people who cannot be vaccinated -- people with egg allergies, people with compromised immune systems, etc. Furthermore, vaccines don't always take, so there may be more unvaccinated people out there than we actually know of. Herd immunity works by everyone who can participate participating; the more, the better.

What irritates me about anti-vax more than anything is the selfishness and privilege that goes along with it. "I don't need to put a vaccine in my child's body; if herd immunity really works, then my children won't be the problem!" Never mind the fact that every person this child comes in contact with now has a greater risk for infection, or even transmission of diseases.

Lastly, your usage of "convinced" really rubs me the wrong way. Granted, you have a "right" to believe whatever you want, but if you trust that evidence-based science is correct, it's really not a "take it or leave it" kind of situation.

> Do you want people to read up on the science, or to accept what's "settled"?

You're assuming that both of these things are possible / likely. I want people to stop killing each other but that's not necessarily realistic.

It's an interesting problem, trying to achieve the theoretical best situation (everyone understanding and accepting science) vs 'tricking' people (just getting them to accept what you say).

People who are inclined to actually study the issue, form an informed opinion, and be willing to change that opinion in the face new evidence, they absolutely should read up on science.

But everyone else, no, they should just accept the opinions of the experts if the issue is reasonably settled. They're not going to engage in the scientific process anyway, so their uninformed opinion really doesn't matter.