The vaccination debate that currently rages in some circles regarding school age children points to the trickiness of the proposal of mandatory vaccination.
On the one side, proponents for vaccination feel that everyone is safer from disease if vaccination is carried out on a 100% level with everyone being vaccinated. Vaccinating school kids keeps everyone's children safer from certain illnesses.
Opponents for mandatory vaccination say that it is a fundamental right to choose whether or not to vaccinate. Certain people believe that preemptive medication is misguided, that disease predictions can be overblown, or harbor significant concerns about the mechanisms of vaccination and the safety of these mechanisms.
I think I have to side with those who claim the right to withhold themselves and their children from vaccination, even if, in the school setting, this mayput other people in a position of increased risk. Because the increased danger is only probablistic and not definite, the argument for enforcing vaccination seems less than persuasive.
In order to mandate vaccination, the benefits of vaccination and the risks of not vaccinating would need to be entirely clear, based on definite evidence, and not anchored on probability. That's my opinion, but it may be worth pointing out my opinion on this is not exactly set in stone. This is a tricky issue. For sake of conversation though, this is my position today.
When it comes to the possibility of chemical warfare, there would seem to be many options available to protect the public outside of mandatory vaccination, such as safe-houses, face-masks, underground shelters, etc.