https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/opinion/maha-vaccines-kennedy-denmark.html\
And what this implies is rather striking, and rarely discussed by those outside of public health: that among their many purposes and benefits, vaccines have served now for decades as a kind of substitute health safety net in America. They are a way of limiting the downside consequences of all of our country’s notorious shortcomings: its lack of universal or free health care, its imperfect health insurance system, its lack of robust disease surveillance and screening, its declining trust in medical institutions and practitioners, its yawning gaps of economic inequality and equally horrifying disparities in morbidity and mortality.
Elsewhere, these problems might be addressed in other ways, through various forms of redistribution, welfare policy and social spending. In the United States, it seems, the best we’ve been able to do is to protect against some of the health manifestations of those problems with a few shots. Give a pregnant mother an R.S.V. vaccine and you can worry less about whether her child will have easy access to care and treatment for respiratory infections. Give a newborn a hepatitis B shot and it matters much less whether someone in the family is an intravenous drug user who might be carrying the disease. Give a full course of M.M.R. protection and you don’t need to worry quite as much about the way measles is much more punishing for those suffering malnutrition. And if you don’t do any of these things, or you make it harder for others to — well, all those problems start to loom a bit larger.