Actually, Bells already has, but that's not actually the wilful behavior I'm referring to. I suppose you could try pretending you never heard of a measles party or, in this case, a pox party. I suppose it's possible you could be a passionate advocate in this subject yet be completely unaware that this practice persists to at least some degree and it scares the hell out of doctors whenever they hear about it. I suppose it's possible to accept that it isn't really stubborn trolling but actual dangerous ignorance. You continue to conflate people who simply aren't up on their vaccinations with wilful abstention. I've tried to address it. You've refused the discussion. I've even given an example having to do with a prison facility. You have chosen repeatedly to not address this discussion while continuing to advocate fallacious equivalence. Your effort shoehorn everything into some mysterious propaganda template really is futile. Continuing to press your change of subject back to the template. Continuing to troll. Continuing to perform antivax advocacy. See, people have noticed that you can't actually discuss the subject at hand. Not that anyone knows why, but every sentence in #120↑ above strains to change the subject. Back to antivax advocacy. I even asked you to specifically consider the issue at hand↑, and you refused. You're clearly off topic. You're clearly trolling. You're clearly advocating harmful behavior. You say, "They are simply weighing the risk of jeopardizing their kids health with vaccines against the risk of them getting sick". No, that's not what they're doing. They are refusing the risk assessment for the sake of identity politics; it is antisocial behavior. But you might notice that this thread opened with consideration of someone who (A) was antivax, (B) changed their mind because her kids got really, really sick, and (C) found herself alienated by friends who would rather she not protect her children from future episodes of extraordinarily dangerous but easily preventable disease. And you? You can't get past (A). You're just running antivax advocacy. Would you prefer us believe this is because you're not smart enough to comprehend the issue, or because you just like being that kind of disruptive, antisocial agent? Recognize, Magical Realist, that most around here did not arrive online yesterday. They've been around at least a few virtual blocks, met at least a few trolls putting cardboard over the gutters to call a bridge, and they're generally neither fooled nor amused by this cheap, template advocacy so reminding of diverse notorieties. You do not get to conflate circumstantially unvaccinated with the wilful abstention known as antivax. You need to stop pushing that false equivalence. As the issue in Arizona reminds, the only way to close the gap is to make it mandatory. Try it this way: Even your argument about flu vaccine― ―reeks of specific antivax. I can cite a specific circumstance: It was the prior season's vaccine, reporting between seventeen and thirty-five percent efficacy, indicated for other people but not me, and other circumstances I was not engaging in. I have no problem skipping out on that vaccine for myself. To the other, if I'm working a classroom or recognize a proximal health concern like Bells noted I now have circumstantial reason to go get that shot. Oh, hey, how 'bout you? I'm not on PrEP; I can't afford it. I don't know how I'm going to feel when it gets to be like birth control―and it will be covered by insurance at that point―and gay men opt out for any but medical reasons. Which points back to an issue―health insurance―that, you know, you decided to skip out on in order to post template advocacy. You're not even putting any effort into your dangerous advocacy.