1) Counting on the herd immunity provided by everyone else to keep them safe
2) Pretending that the diseases which are being vaccinated against "really weren't all that bad" or maybe "didn't happen often"
Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.
As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
What do you say to someone making poor choices when you know their choices are poor, and they are so convinced they are right that they won't listen?
> Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding.
You say that as you pound your chest about "informed opinion" without providing any information... so it's just (uninformed) opinion (right now).
Can you provide some examples (three or four would be ok, that should count as "some") of these vaccines, backing your results with real, reputable research?
I disagree; the people I've encountered who claim to be making this kind of selection are not doing it based on current research. They're doing it based on (often slightly hysterical) websites, niche talk shows, celebrity opinion and op-ed pieces designed to sell newspapers. Doing it based on current research would require a great deal more effort, knowledge and time.
Citation needed, and also important to share if you really believe that unicorns like this exist.
>As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
No, it's a fallacy to expect that the right answer must always be in the middle of two sides of an argument. The Law of Averages isn't really a law, it's a mistake.