It isn't empathy when you force it on someone, now is it? It certainly isn't empathy when you put your vaccine agenda on everyone else to sate a minority of the population.
Everyone will get sick at some point in their lives, vaccinated or not. You have a hardon for this small subset of illnesses for which there are preventative drugs.
I'm done arguing with you, simply because you ignore any points and questions that don't suit your viewpoint, so this is my last response to you on this topic. I and others have already pointed out what the stakes are and so why mass inoculation is a good thing, yet you're arguing for a consequence-free right for which you haven't made any basis for whatsoever. You're basically advocating that ignorant people making an ignorant decision that endangers the lives of others are more important than those who don't have that option.
Furthermore, the fact that you basically have said "fuck 'em" with regard to those that can't be inoculated makes me not even vaguely interested in the rest of your opinion. If people live in seclusion in a modern society then they will get sick for other reasons; people need to be active, mobile and social.
But I'll tell you what, I'll give you responses to the questions that you feel are so very important to your argument:
First you say they're "temporarily" out of school, then you say they're out of school for "a while." Which is it? Either way, they're being denied an education. Sugarcoat all you want.
I would define "being denied an education" as way more than a week or two. Kids get ill or injured all the time and are out of school for a week or two. Parents take their kids on holidays in term time sometimes. Kids sometimes are suspended from school for bad behaviour for a week or two. If that was a problem then schools would not be able to effectively function. This is business as usual. If that school was suspending kids for several months even though their vaccination records had been put in order within say a week then I would have a problem with it.
I'll ask again since you dodged my question the last three times, who's paying for all these vaccinations?
It'll be different depending on the country, surely? The UK has the NHS so the NHS will likely be footing the bill, just as they would be footing a bill (indirectly through taxes) that is likely to be thousands of times greater in the event of an epidemic. The US mostly has a private insurance system so either citizens are paying through insurance or they're paying through taxes and the government foots that particular bill, but again, the bill would likely be thousands of times greater in the event of an epidemic.
Now that I've answered the questions that you felt I was ignoring, how about you go back and answer all the points that I've made that you have so far ignored?
"I got mine, so fuck you" mentality, awesome
I think this guy nailed your opinion early on. You're advocating a point of view that entitles some people to be ignorant, selfish assholes who refuse inoculation for no good reason and they should be allowed to do so because enough other people have been immunised in order to make an mass epidemic scenario more or less hypothetical. Have you considered what would happen if your ignorant point of view caught on in the general population?
I don't think this is really about mass immunisation at all, but your narrow-minded, selfish perspective through which you're viewing this topic. Epidemics are problems that other countries have because most people in your country don't share your opinion. The immunocompromised should live in seclusion away from people like you. Little details like "why mass immunisation is a good thing", "what would happen if mass immunisation wasn't possible", are like hypothetical annoyances that you'd prefer not to worry your pretty little head about.