That was kind of snide, Turquesa. I feel I addressed the sense of the questions... and I actually did answer several of them, if not in the format you might have preferred. If you're asking questions and not getting the answers that you want, maybe you should examine the questions and the answers that you did get; maybe there's a reason that you're getting responses that the questions are sort of unanswerable.
For example, if the schedule hit a certain high number of recommended/mandated vaccines, (quite possible if even only a small fraction of those 300 made it to the market), would you start to question doing ALL of the vaccines and maybe prioritize which are most important to you? How many vaccines would have to be recommended or mandated for you to start considering pulling back a little?
Like I said, I'd consider each vaccine individually, so it depends. It's not a question of the number of vaccines, but what they're for and the details about them.
Would you start to question things if you saw more and more vaccines mandated for school....for diseases not casually transmitted in classrooms? (As just one example, a vaccine for Type I diabetes is in development).
Would a vaccine have to be for too mild or too rare of a condition for you to question it? What might that scenario look like?
Same. Though I admit I have a hard time believing that a vaccine for a condition I'd consider too rare AND too mild to bother with would actually crop up on the mandatory schedule. Tetanus, for instance, some consider too rare to bother with, but since it's so nasty when it happens, it seems worth it to me. If there was a condition as rare as tetanus, and yet as mild as, oh, say, the common cold, and yet they somehow put this vax on the mandated schedule, I might not get that vaccine. (I don't see the CDC recommending something that would fall into this category for me, let alone doing so repeatedly.) But again, it would depend on the specifics. And that wouldn't necessarily lead to me wanting to throw the entire schedule out the window--which is what I think you are asking--where is the point where I would decide the CDC are loons and I'm not listening to them at all about the vax schedule any more? And I don't see that point actually being reached. It would be a long way from where we are now and there are indications in the current schedule that it's not going to get anywhere near that far--like the fact that vaccines like typhoid, yellow fever, anthrax, etc. are NOT on the mandated schedule is an indication that they are actually considering the risk vs benefit of each vaccine rather than recommending all possible vaccines for everyone.
Would a vaccine have to reach a certain threshold of *non-safety* and/or ineffectiveness for you to question it? If so, numerically speaking, what would that threshold look like?
Sure, but I'm not necessarily sure now what that threshold would look like. I haven't seen anything that looks even close to it.
Would your breaking point maybe involve a more personal experience, like experiencing or witnessing a vaccine reaction?
No, like I've already said, if a vax reaction occurred in my family, I would consider that when deciding what vaccines to give to family members, but it wouldn't change my view on vaccines in general.
In the admittedly absurd scenario of 300 new vaccines required for school admission, (or, let's say, just 25-50 of them), would you remain compliant?
Again, depends on what they were.
Would you get them for yourself, whenever possible, to be consistent with what you're doing with your children?
Depends on what they were, and if they were recommended for my demographic group.
What factors would your answers to these questions depend on?
Same factors as I use now. Likelihood of disease, severity, likelihood of a reaction to the vaccine, etc.
Or is there no foreseeable breaking point for you? Do you simply hold faith that the powers that be will use sound science, work in your best interest, and mandate or recommend whatever vaccine for whatever reason?
Like I said, I start from the position that the CDC has a good point when they make their recommendations, and then go from there.