For a start "Good data" is data from independent sources, not merely clinical trial data provided by manufacturers. The need to collect "Good Data" doesn't stop after the clinical trial ends because there are many opportunities to screw up between the end of clinical trials and mass vaccination.

>what's the effective benefit?

It closes the loop. Researchers and manufacturers get data with which to improve their products. Patients get more confidence in the products they are administered. Increased confidence means more vaccinated people, and better herd immunity.

>Which was an outbreak mostly among those who have not been vaccinated.

It was also mostly fear mongering, and there were a fraction of those who contracted Pertussis who were vaccinated. Ped's shouldn't be surprised if this sort of thing biases the opinions of worried parents. I think baby's cough happened after the first or second of the series. Can't remember exactly, doesn't really matter. Baby is doing fine.

>Why do you think it's 'near miraculous' any more than having potable fresh water come out of your tap?

Because manufacturing and distributing pharmaceuticals is more complicated than digging a hole, pumping water through sand filters and adding Chlorine, a task that is routinely accomplished by people without even a high school education.

> A clean water supply has probably saved more lives than all the vaccinations ever done in the US.

Yes, I know, isn't it great? But vaccines often get the credit.

>We bathe in drinking water!

The significance of this isn't lost on me. I have visited developing countries, and lived in China, where tap water is usually not considered safe to drink.

>My argument is that your demands on the quality of the information you expect - personalized tests after every vaccination, for example - is not possible. It's expensive, even if feasible, and the major benefit seems to be that it makes people like you more confident.

It probably is too expensive to achieve 100% testing, that's a high bar. Continuous sampling? I think it not too big a challenge or too expensive. I'd bet that some people would even pay extra for it if they had too.

>the major benefit seems to be that it makes people like you more confident.

Do you want herd immunity or don't you? It's not as though I am the last doubter.

>But that data will also have vague and uncertain parts. It won't be a simple statement of "the last vaccine did not provide enough immunization" but "the number of antibodies is 10% lower than the recommended level. This may increase the risk that your child will be infected in the future by between 1% and 15% compared to full immunization. Enough other children have been immunized so the overall probability is very low, unless <list of circumstances>. Should you wish a booster shot, please contact your physician."

We need some meeting place between the raw data in .csv vs "Just Take, All The Vaccines" Maybe I'd trust Nate Silver to tell me, if he showed me some pretty charts. It needs to be understandable by a lay-person.

>You complained about "waving more CDC pamphlets at us"

Well, obviously, they aren't effective on everyone. Why would more of them be more effective?

>For that matter, there are failure rates, just not at the level where you're looking. People get the wrong shots, last year "160,000 doses of the Novartis vaccine, Agrippal, [were] recalled after 'particles' were found in the vials", and this year Merck recalled "1 lot [27,000 vials] of Recombivax HB hepatitis B vaccine (adult formulation, 10 μg/mL) because some of the vials may be cracked."

No, that's exactly the sort of thing that worries me. And no amount of historical safety data can prevent a mishap like those you mentioned from occurring.

>Why does any of this require you have "unreserved faith in the manufacturers of vaccines, and the government", any more than you have faith in the builders of your car, the maintainers of the traffic lights, or the pilots and builders of the plane you fly?

Cars are not a great example, I can choose not to buy a crappy car because they performed poorly in crash tests. Planes are a little better, and you know what? I don't really want to ride in a 787 until they fix those batteries, and I can choose not to fly Northwest because of their maintenance problems (well before they went under). But in general, I am mostly unimpressed with the FAA. But, I have very small latitude WRT my choices of vaccines. A gov't agency purposefully crashes example cars to prove their safety, it is unethical to try the same thing with people. But neither the FDA nor the CDC appear to take much interest in providing better oversight. I expect more. Sorry if you think it is too expensive or not worth it. I don't agree.