Computer ate my response again.
My 2 cents - and it involves speculation on my part, so if any pro-vaxxers think I got it wrong, please speak up.
Pro-vaxxers will often claim they vaccinate to protect their children, and the "greater good" is a secondary, but great, side benefit. I think this may hold true with many vaccines. It does not hold true with all of them though. I think some vaccines, if one has explored the issues rationally, are only given for the greater good. This is problematic, as there are ethical issue with asking children to accept a risk (no matter how small) for others.
Consider Polio. In 2013 there were 406 cases of polio in a handful of countries. (WHO). The last imported wild case of polio in the USA was in 1993. (CDC) Your child's chances of getting Polio in the USA are far less that 406 out of 7.7 billion. OTOH, all vaccines carry risk. IPV carries less than some AFAIK
, but it still carries a 1 in a million chance of a severe life threatenning allergic reactions. The current risk analysis for a child in the USA for Polio favours not giving the vaccine. Polio is given to support global eradication efforts - i.e. the greater good.
Rubella is another one. Rubella is an incredibly mild disease in children. 50% of kids are asymptomatic, and the Mayo clinic say the fever (if it occurs) is typically under 102 and symtoms only last 2-3 days. I genuinely do not see most people being afraid of their kids getting rubella.
Rubella, OTOH, is very dangerous for fetuses - and can cause birth defects.
So, rubella is given for others - it is given to protect the unborn.
I am not anti the rubella shot - at all. I think it is a great invention for targetted populations (teen girls who have never had rubella, if rubella is endemic). I think the routine use of rubella for all infants is nutty, however…and definitely done "for the greater good". And unlike IPV, MMR, IMHO, is a one of the most reactive vaccines around. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/...ements/mmr.pdf