"They KNOW the consequences of their action/inaction will be to allow their children to have a marked increase in susceptibility to broadly preventable diseases."
No, we don't know that. Neither do you. They aren't tested for efficacy. If half of my daughter's class acquired whooping cough then it's clearly not very effective. There are other well documented examples from the CDC of outbreaks of "broadly preventable diseases" in 100% vaccinated populations.
"If a baby get it, it has a 6% chance of being lethal. Does that not trouble you at all?"
No, it doesn't. What does concern me is people like you and many other health officials lying through their teeth to discredit non-vaccinators. Here's the official spin from the Victorian Health Dept:
"Whooping cough is a distressing and often serious illness, particularly in children under 1 year of age. The mortality rate is 0.5 per cent in infants under 6months. High immunisation levels reduce the number of cases, and good nutrition and medical care reduce case fatality. Many vaccinated adults may have mild infection and act as a source of infection for younger children."
I would add to the "good nutrition and medical care reduce case fatality." that parents shouldn't be exposing their babies to the risk of infection as much as they do nowadays. The urge to show off a new baby, childcare from six weeks and taking it everywhere - shops, schools with siblings, doctors surgeries - couldn't be better designed for a low immune system to become infected. This never happened fifty or sixty years ago. At least there seems to be a push to return to breast feeding.
