I think there's a lot of fear because genuine allergic reactions are denied by the medical establishment as such and that creates conspiracy theories
I agree with this.
So if vaccination is so safe, why is there vaccine damage legislation www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/overview? I don't really know why this always has to be pointed out on these threads but here we go.
Vaccination is an economic argument. It is cheaper to vaccinate and deal with a few side-effects, than it is to look after sick children and any after-effects (and it's better for the economy to have parents in work rather than looking after sick children).
Some children have bad reactions to vaccinations. In some cases those can be predicted, so the kids are not vaccinated. In some cases they can't. Those children may then have permanent disabilities.
Apparently, it is ok for a parent to risk their child being permanently disabled, in fact it is selfish for them not to. Yet if their child is the disabled one, I wonder how many of the other parents whose children thankfully came through the vaccination process unscathed, would help to look after those disabled children? Who turn into disabled adults.
Vaccination should always be a choice, never a compulsion. Personally I think, in most cases, it's a no-brainer especially eg when it comes to something like meningitis. But not everyone agrees with me.
Going on about selfish parents is not ok unless you would be happy to help look after a vaccine-damaged child. Go and read the threads on here about the problems people with disabilities face. Then come back and say it's the job of the State to remove a parent's choice as to whether to risk that or not.
If vaccines were 100% safe we would not need the vaccine damage legislation. We allow choice in medical treatment unless someone has lost capacity, I can't see what vaccination should be any different. We don't force people to take drugs to cure them. And before someone says "herd immunity" I refer you back to the paragraph above. There is no such thing as social responsibility unless it cuts both ways. And sadly it doesn't.