The principle that individuals must sacrifice for the good of the group has no end point--any amount of risk can be justified by it.
We're currently engaged in a huge experiment to discover how much pressure you can put on an infant's immune system without causing permanent damage. Children are getting shots earlier in life, more shots simultaneously, and shots for less dangerous diseases, because the good is always assumed to outweigh the risk.
This link shows the US recommended immunization schedule. That's 20 shots in 18 months, when a baby's immune system is so weak it relies on mother's milk for antibodies. Five of them are actually 3 in 1 shots, so that's 30 total vaccinations. I'd be scared to get that many shots that fast as an adult given how I react to a single flu shot. There's discussion of adding more shots to that list, despite a lack of new epidemics. To me this really looks like going past the point of diminishing returns to where the small risks add up to more than the benefit gained.
Unfortunately getting solid data on how many children are hurt by vaccines is difficult. The Federal compensation program only recognizes immediate effects. Many parents complain that deaths have been listed as SIDS by doctors unwilling to recognize the possibility of vaccine side-effects. Researchers can't get funding for studies that would conflict with the 100% vaccination policy. So we're left with anecdotes and emotional arguments.
This I am sure of--other people can participate in the experiment. My children will be in the control
group. They can get vaccinated at 6 and 12 years old--not months.
PS. If you can't get enough of this I can supply speculation on autism, genetics, autoimmune
disorders, etc. as well as links to some books on immunization dangers by MDs. I mostly wanted to point out another aspect of the problem USS Clueless discussed in