The "myth" of herd immunity

[rjh01]

I think the government should pay parents to get their children vaccinated. No vaccination, no payments. This should be the major direct payment to parents, so it can be a large payment. Vaccinated people give a benefit to society (herd immunity), so they should get something back for this.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

The government uses our taxes to get the vaccines, and would just be using our taxes to bribe parents into getting them, so our taxes would just go up more.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know. It's silly, huh? Herd immunity is something that's so obvious, but I felt like I should be a good little skeptic and ask around.

Also that if their argument were true all it would mean is that you would get regular booster shots for vaccines. But where are all the adults with measles anyway? There should be a high number of adults who get measles in the recent measles outbreaks who were vaccinated as children, but it seems to be primarily in unvacinated children. Funny that, as it contradicts their point...

 

[Samon1985]

Herd Immunity Does Have SERIOUS flaws

Herd immunity is the concept that a disease is less likely to attack because a large proportion of the members are immune, thus lessening the likelihood of a patient coming into contact with a susceptible individual.

Firstly, vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying the disease - you can still carry it in your throat, intestines, airways, skin etc. - BUT many people believe that if you're vaccinated you don't carry the disease! So although 90% of the population may be vaccinated they still carry the disease!

Second, in vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated - and this has NOT been shown to be true, because true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE disease, and we know that despite what you may have been taught, vaccination does not mimic natural disease.

Thirdly, the concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the virus/bacteria - & what turns them on & off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.

All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn't infect 70-80% of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20-30% that didn't get the disease. There wasn't herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.

it is crazy to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria/virus that they have been vaccinated against.

You can't vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

 

[Cavemonster]

You can't vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

You're skipping some essential mechanics here.
In an non-vaccinated person, the disease is allowed to multiply and mutate, it gains strength through the bodies failed attempts to fight it off, accelerated selection pressure.
In a vaccinated person, ideally they possess the antibodies to neutralize most of the disease.

Someone vaccinated may still indeed carry a virus, but they will be carrying far less of it than an infected person, and their bodily reactions that viruses seize on to spread (sneezing, runny nose, coughing etc) will not be activated. Even to the extent that an successfully vaccinated subject can carry the disease, they are hugely less effective at spreading it than an infected person.

The more unvaccinated there are, the more chances the disease has at those hyper selective pressures to mutate quickly, possibly into something that can get through the immunity of those vaccinated.

So, yes, vaccinated people make themselves far less effective carriers. And yes, non-vaccinated people may indeed create danger for those who were vaccinated.

You seem to act as though the fact that herd immunity doesn't offer 100% protection is a failure of some kind, when I've never heard it claimed that it did.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Herd immunity is the concept that a disease is less likely to attack because a large proportion of the members are immune, thus lessening the likelihood of a patient coming into contact with a susceptible individual.

Firstly, vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying the disease - you can still carry it in your throat, intestines, airways, skin etc. - BUT many people believe that if you're vaccinated you don't carry the disease! So although 90% of the population may be vaccinated they still carry the disease!

Well what virus are we talking about so that we can know how long a contaminated but uninfected object like a doornob or an immune person will remain infectious?

Second, in vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated - and this has NOT been shown to be true, because true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE disease, and we know that despite what you may have been taught, vaccination does not mimic natural disease.

??? We need to worry about polio and smallpox in the US like we did 70 or 200 years ago? Seems some viruses have been very much removed often in large part because of herd immunity.

Thirdly, the concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the virus/bacteria - & what turns them on & off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.

What is this even claiming? No herd immunity will not prevent new viruses, but so what? Are you arguing that because of the cyclical nature of diseases that it disproves vaccines?

All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn't infect 70-80% of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20-30% that didn't get the disease. There wasn't herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.

So? We just needed to wait for polio to die out on its own then? All that crap about vaccines was a waste?

it is crazy to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria/virus that they have been vaccinated against.

No just playing the odds.

You can't vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

Um you are wrong. Not all those vaccinated have a strong enough immune responce to the vaccine to be protected. A certain percentage of those vaccinated will still be able to get infected. There is also the issue of kids too young to get the vaccine, but hey if a child dies at 4 months it is not like the parents had enough time to bond with it anyway right? So who cares.

 

[Estellea]

Herd immunity is the concept that a disease is less likely to attack because a large proportion of the members are immune, thus lessening the likelihood of a patient coming into contact with a susceptible individual.

Overly simplistic but yes.

Firstly, vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying the disease - you can still carry it in your throat, intestines, airways, skin etc. - BUT many people believe that if you're vaccinated you don't carry the disease! So although 90% of the population may be vaccinated they still carry the disease!

That is simply not so for most VPDs and their vaccines. The statistics for polio, measles, rubella, (to a lesser extent) mumps, Hib, diphtheria and even S. pneumoniae vaccine serotypes bear this out. Although pertussis vaccine is one of the least effective, there is still a herd effect that is created by high vaccine uptake. Rabies vaccinations in animals confers herd immunity to other animals and humans.

Second, in vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated - and this has NOT been shown to be true, because true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE disease, and we know that despite what you may have been taught, vaccination does not mimic natural disease.

Examples please. Just because vaccines don't mimic wild-type disease (that's kind of the point you know), doesn't mean that protective immunity is not conferred by most vaccines.

Thirdly, the concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the virus/bacteria - & what turns them on & off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.

I don't think you know what the principles of herd immunity are. Perhaps you would like to clarify this.

All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn't infect 70-80% of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20-30% that didn't get the disease. There wasn't herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.

The virus hasn't died out; it is still there and just because some pathogens have dramatic cycles of infection, disappearance, and re-emergence, doesn't mean that all pathogens are created equal. You get into a bit of trouble when you try and make blanket statements about disease epidemiology such as this.

it is crazy to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria/virus that they have been vaccinated against.

Says who? Again, it is prudent to refer to specific VPDs as it is pretty safe to say that most who seroconvert to protective levels for most vaccines are not carriers.

You can't vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

The tiresome 'if vaccines are so effective then what do you have to fear' argument. Please refer to recent measles outbreaks and rubella outbreaks where the vast majority of infected people were unvaccinated. Vaccines are not 100% effective.

 

[Deetee]

Herd immunity.

Another obvious clue to its existence.

Most of the childhood infections have their own "cycle", with peaks in incidence every few years. EG:
Pertussis
Measles

Why is this?
Answer: Herd immunity.

These infections tended to spread in outbreaks, and cases peaked quickly, dropping off again when there were few susceptibles in the population available to infect. Spread of the infection stuttered and died, because the infected were immune, and comprised a herd of immune individuals protecting the small number of susceptibles.

This kept outbreaks of disease at bay, but as the years went by, more and more children were born, eventually raising the number of suceptibles to a point where, with low immunity in the herd, a futher outbreak occurred.

Hence the cycles we used to see in these diseases.

Herd immunity. It's a fact.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I gotta love all these new antivax claims. Now vaccinated people are carriers even though they aren't even hosts! Hello!! You have to let the virus party hardy with your dna and make a bunch more of themselves before you can be someone who is spreading the disease around. Disease carriers are unvaccinated people, whether they are showing symptoms or not, because the viruses are actively replicating. In vaccinated people this is stopped, very effectively.

It's highly unlikely anyone will ever catch a disease from a vaccinated person since their systems will be actively "attacking" the virus because of the immunity they built up from getting vaccinated. A vaccinated person's body doesn't ignore the virus after vaccination, and that is the whole point.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Here is a definition of a carrier again:

asymptomatic carrier,
n an individual who serves as host for an infectious agent but who does not show any apparent signs of the illness; may serve as a source of infection for others.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/asymptomatic+carrier

Sure, some people who are vaccinated can still get sick (but get sick less severely and for a shorter duration, not playing host for as long as the unvaccinated), but for the most part, in those people that gain good immunity from a vaccine, they will NOT be carriers for the disease, and will stop the spread of it since those viruses won't be using them as hosts. Hence herd immunity.

That is how smallpox was stopped, and why polio is no longer around, and why vaccinated people don't get sick---they have immunity caused by the vaccine and have that little army standing by to attack at the next encounter of the disease.

 

[Samon1985]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Interesting points raised.

There are 3 types of lies:
White lies
Black lies
Statistics

I'm not saying herd immunity doesn't work - I'm saying it does have serious flaws. It is not a simple answer. For example, most people seem to think that vaccines are the main contributer to decline in mortality of diseases such as measles. Well we know that before the vaccine was introduced mortality decreased by 90% in the UK & USA - why? Largely due to improvements in public health measures & improved nutrition. Herd immunity may have an effect, but don't tell me it's more important than proper nutrition & sanitation. Some seem to be implying it is herd immunity alone that is preventing the disease from taking hold. A healthy person is able to fight the disease off. For example, why do I never get a cough, cold or flu? Is it because I have been vaccinated? No, I have not. Is it because we have herd immunity? No, not yet. It's probably because I actually look after my body. 50% raw food intake,appropriate Vitamin D levels, low sugar intake etc.

I would encourage you to look at the city of Leicester in regards to Smallpox.

"Down to 1872 Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in the UK, the
number of vaccinations, owing to alarm after epidemics, several times exceeding the number of births. Yet in 1871, at the very height of its good vaccination record, it was attacked by the epidemic with extreme severity, its small-pox deaths during that year being more than 3,500 per million of the population, or about a thousand per million more than the mortality in London during the same epidemic. If ever a test experiment existed it is this of Leicester, where an almost completely vaccinated community suffered more than unvaccinated and terribly insanitary London, on the average of the last forty years of the eighteenth century. That fearful mortality destroyed the faith of Leicester in vaccination. Poor and rich alike, the workers and even the municipal authorities began to refuse vaccination for their children. This refusal continued till, in 1890, instead of 95 per cent. the vaccinations reached only 5 per cent. of the births! As this ominous decrease of vaccination went on the doctors again and again prophesied against it, that once small-pox was introduced it would run through the town like wildfire and decimate the population. Yet it has been introduced again and again, but it has never spread; and from that day to this no town in the kingdom of approximately equal population has had such a very low small-pox mortality as this almost completely unvaccinated and--as the doctors say-- unprotected population! Surely this completes the demonstration that vaccination, instead of preventing, increases the liability to small-pox, and that the only way to abolish the disease is to do as Leicester did, leave off vaccination altogether and devote our energies to sanitation, and the isolation of such rare cases as do occur."

It's not as simple as many people think. We just don't know enough yet!

Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More & more studies are showing that:
the proper studies haven't been done
antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
there is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection.

it's important to understand that the natural illness has a greater influence on the health of your body. When you have the active illness it actually imparts a certain boosting to the immune system. Also, exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot has to do with the overall status of your immune system.

Many seem to be missing that most of the population doesn't have herd immunity. We know that vaccines last only 3-10 years at best. While most people may think they are immunised, the vast majority have no immune protection - so for the past 40 years or so we have been living without herd immunity.

You don't need to be replicating the virus to be a carrier! Anyone can carry the virus. This is why someone who has no symptoms of swine flu & is immune can have a nose swap taken & be found to be carrying the virus. I agree that when the virus is replicating you may have more chance of passing it on, but there is still a chance that it can be passed on because they are carrying it.

Many seem to think that antibodies are the best way for protection, but the immune response is far more complicated than that.



If I said to you I'm going to put you in a room with a disease, but don't worry because we have herd immunity. How many of you would be willing to go in the room? Clearly there are other issues that need to be looked at.



The science is just not there at the moment. When it is there it is interesting. A study was conducted showing if there was a relationship between atopic diseases in children and whether they were or were not vaccinated. Results: vaccinated children had a significantly higher incidence of atopic diseases. (J All Clin Imm 2005)

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Herd immunity is the concept that a disease is less likely to attack because a large proportion of the members are immune, thus lessening the likelihood of a patient coming into contact with a susceptible individual.

Firstly, vaccination does NOT stop you from carrying the disease - you can still carry it in your throat, intestines, airways, skin etc. - BUT many people believe that if you're vaccinated you don't carry the disease! So although 90% of the population may be vaccinated they still carry the disease!

Second, in vaccine science, we are extrapolating or concluding that if we vaccinate a certain percentage of people, we are imparting protection on those who have not been vaccinated - and this has NOT been shown to be true, because true herd immunity in theory is based on an ACTIVE disease, and we know that despite what you may have been taught, vaccination does not mimic natural disease.

Thirdly, the concept of herd immunity fails to acknowledge that there is a life cycle of the virus/bacteria - & what turns them on & off may have nothing to do with the percentage of people who have been infected.

All you have to do is look at the SARS outbreak. That virus that we were supposed to fear didn't infect 70-80% of the population, which would then impart herd immunity on the 20-30% that didn't get the disease. There wasn't herd immunity, and yet the virus died out on its own.

it is crazy to think that a child who is vaccinated no longer carries the bacteria/virus that they have been vaccinated against.

You can't vaccinate believing that your children are protected and then feel that your children are not protected because somehow, some non-vaccinated child is carrying some secret organism that no one else is carrying.

That's all very interesting, but do you have any references for your assertions, or are we expected to trust you?

E.g.,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Reduction of oropharyngeal carriage of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) in children immunized with an Hib conjugate vaccine.

The oropharyngeal carriage of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) was studied among 725 healthy 3-year-old children who had or had not been immunized with an Hib conjugate vaccine. Oropharyngeal swabs were collected during the childrens' well-child visit to their local child health center. Fourteen (3.5%) of the 398 unvaccinated children were oropharyngeal carriers of Hib, whereas none of the 327 children who had received Hib conjugate vaccine carried Hib (P less than .001). Carriage rates of non-type b H. influenzae (19%) or Streptococcus pneumoniae (18%) were the same irrespective of the Hib vaccination status of the children. Thus Hib conjugate vaccine, unlike Hib polysaccharide vaccine, seems to be able to prevent oropharyngeal colonization by Hib.

This is evidence *against* your claim that vaccination does not affect a vaccinated individual's likelihood of being a carrier.

Other research has shown that some vaccinations have been so good at priming people's immune system against a specific pathogen that similar pathogens which were out-competed by it in the past are now starting to take over (to a much lesser extent) as causes of disease.

E.g.,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...med_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

Invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease: changing epidemiology and host-parasite interactions in the 21st century.

Introduction of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccines in late 1980s-early 1990s made a dramatic effect on the incidence of invasive Hib disease among children in many industrialized countries with routine Hib immunization programs. However, cases of vaccine failure and an increased susceptibility to invasive Hib as well as non-type b H. influenzae disease have been consistently reported among individuals with various congenital and acquired immunodeficiencies. Remarkably, in the 21st century, diseases due to non-type b strains of H. influenzae are becoming relatively more frequent than before. Despite the overall successful immunization against Hib, some indigenous populations, i.e. Australian Aboriginal and North American Indian children still experience increased rates of invasive H. influenzae disease. In order to monitor the evolving nature of invasive H. influenzae disease, carefully documented surveillance data is required to capture the true magnitude of the problem. Developing new vaccines against non-type b H. influenzae is a potential solution to protect some vulnerable populations against the invasive disease.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If I said to you I'm going to put you in a room with a disease, but don't worry because we have herd immunity. How many of you would be willing to go in the room? Clearly there are other issues that need to be looked at.

<snip>

If you did say that I'd think you didn't understand what you're talking about.

You're not saying that, are you?

 

[Samon1985]

No, I'm saying its far more complex.

This is evidence *against* your claim that vaccination does not affect a vaccinated individual's likelihood of being a carrier.
Bearing in mind this is only 1 vaccine, not a lot can be extrapolated from this. I don't know the methodology of the study so I cannot really comment. But 96.5% of the unvaccinated group were not carriers either. Down to chance? Possibly. Statistics can be manipulated to the answer you want.

seems to be able to prevent oropharyngeal colonization by Hib.
"seems" - not even the authors are that convinced.

 

[paximperium]

There are 3 types of lies:
White lies
Black lies
Statistics

What nonsense. Statistics are "lies" only to those who don't understand it.

I'm not saying herd immunity doesn't work - I'm saying it does have serious flaws. It is not a simple answer.

The only ones who seem to ever claim this nonsense are anti-vaxers. Doctors and the medical community don't do so.

For example, most people seem to think that vaccines are the main contributer to decline in mortality of diseases such as measles. Well we know that before the vaccine was introduced mortality decreased by 90% in the UK & USA - why? Largely due to improvements in public health measures & improved nutrition.

Sure...so? Would you like to get rid of antibiotics as well? Vaccines work. Sanitation work. You don't get rid of one just because the other works.

Herd immunity may have an effect, but don't tell me it's more important than proper nutrition & sanitation.

Nobody seems to be doing that except for anti-vaxxers.

Some seem to be implying it is herd immunity alone that is preventing the disease from taking hold.

That seems to the anti-vaxxers again. Why is that?

A healthy person is able to fight the disease off. For example, why do I never get a cough, cold or flu? Is it because I have been vaccinated? No, I have not. Is it because we have herd immunity? No, not yet. It's probably because I actually look after my body. 50% raw food intake,appropriate Vitamin D levels, low sugar intake etc.

Tell that to the few thousand healthy individuals and children who have died from H1N1Novel Influenza.

I would encourage you to look at the city of Leicester in regards to Smallpox.

I have. Great tyrannical public sanitation and quarantine program works in controlling disease. Whoop.

It's not as simple as many people think. We just don't know enough yet!

Actually it is very simple. Vaccines work to decrease the risk of disease transmission.

Is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?
More & more studies are showing that:
the proper studies haven't been done
antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected

Yes, must be the reason that doctors and scientist seem to have missed the multitude Lymphocytes, Neutrophils, macrophages cells etc etc etc and other immunological pathways that works in the immune system that they learn in basic college biology.

there is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection.

Yes. It has been studied. So?

it's important to understand that the natural illness has a greater influence on the health of your body. When you have the active illness it actually imparts a certain boosting to the immune system. Also, exposure does not necessarily lead to infection. A lot has to do with the overall status of your immune system.

No. Making things up does not magic them into reality.

Many seem to be missing that most of the population doesn't have herd immunity. We know that vaccines last only 3-10 years at best. While most people may think they are immunised, the vast majority have no immune protection - so for the past 40 years or so we have been living without herd immunity.

What complete nonsense. Different vaccines have very different efficacy rates and length of effect.

Do you think doctors don't know these numbers? Do you think that when doctors recommend adults get boosted vaccinations for Tetanus or Pertussis or the yearly seasonal flu it is for fun? Do you think everyone got one major bolus of vaccines and they stopped vaccinating after that?

But you are definitely correct in one thing. We no longer have any herd immunity to smallpox. Guess why the government is so worried about it?

Many seem to think that antibodies are the best way for protection, but the immune response is far more complicated than that.

Yes. We know. You are the one who don't seem to.

If I said to you I'm going to put you in a room with a disease, but don't worry because we have herd immunity. How many of you would be willing to go in the room? Clearly there are other issues that need to be looked at.

This is clear evidence you don't know.

The science is just not there at the moment. When it is there it is interesting.

Sorry but your post shows your opinion on this subject is suspect and therefore irrelevant. You don't seem to understand the immune system or diseases or vaccines. Why should anyone care about your conclusion?

A study was conducted showing if there was a relationship between atopic diseases in children and whether they were or were not vaccinated. Results: vaccinated children had a significantly higher incidence of atopic diseases. (J All Clin Imm 2005)

Please post a direct link to the study.

 

[paximperium]

Bearing in mind this is only 1 vaccine, not a lot can be extrapolated from this.

No. 1 vaccine against a disease that works is 1 vaccine against a disease that works. There is no extrapolation needed.

I don't know the methodology of the study so I cannot really comment. But 96.5% of the unvaccinated group were not carriers either. Down to chance? Possibly. Statistics can be manipulated to the answer you want.

BS. If you don't know anything about the study, you don't get to slander the authors of the study.

If you can't refute the findings, you can't refute it. You don't get to make things up.

"seems" - not even the authors are that convinced.

Yes. Seems is an honest description. Science is like that. It is honest. They don't make things up.

 

[SezMe]

"Down to 1872 Leicester ...

It's good practice to include links when quoting like this. As a n00b, you have to include spaces or leave off the www part but please do so. Thanks.

 

[paximperium]

Atopy and Vaccinations:
Samon, thanks for making me look up atopy and vaccinations.
The conclusion of multiple papers conclude the complete opposite of your claim. It seems to have a mild protective affect against atopy.

Thanks for showing me the additional benefits of vaccines

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
The effect of neonatal BCG vaccination on atopy and asthma at age 7 to 14 years: An historical cohort study in a community with a very low prevalence of tuberculosis infection and a high prevalence of atopic disease
Volume 111, Issue 3, Pages 541-549 (March 2003)
Conclusion: We conclude that neonatal BCG vaccination has an effect on T-cell allergen responsiveness 7 to 14 years after vaccination and that among a subgroup of subjects with an inherited predisposition to allergic disease, this is associated with clinically relevant beneficial effects. The findings of this study encourage the view that external influences on the immune system in the neonatal period have consequences that extend into later childhood and influence the expression of asthma. Genetic factors are likely to modify the effect of those external factors. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;111:541-9.)


PEDIATRICS Vol. 111 No. 3 March 2003, pp. e282-e288
Transient Suppression of Atopy in Early Childhood Is Associated With High Vaccination Coverage
Conclusion. Children with a higher vaccination coverage seemed to be transiently better protected against development of atopy in the first years of life.

From American Journal of Epidemiology
Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination and Asthma-like Disease in Early Childhood
These results are compatible not with an increased risk of asthma following MMR vaccination but rather with the hypothesis that MMR vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of asthma-like disease in young children.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/585675

More:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1126
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/3/e36

 

[paximperium]

It's good practice to include links when quoting like this. As a n00b, you have to include spaces or leave off the www part but please do so. Thanks.

It's a well known clarion call among the anti-vaxxers. The UK had a mandatory vaccination program but Leicester in the late 1800s, decided to refuse to vaccinate its citizens. Instead it put into place a very strict and effective quarantine and hygiene program. It worked, to a degree. But then well known hygiene programs were already coming into their own during that time period. It is of course a false dichotomy. Their deaths from disease would've have been more effective with both quarantine, hygiene and vaccinations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Interesting points raised.

There are 3 types of lies:
White lies
Black lies
Statistics

I'm not saying herd immunity doesn't work - I'm saying it does have serious flaws. It is not a simple answer. For example, most people seem to think that vaccines are the main contributer to decline in mortality of diseases such as measles. Well we know that before the vaccine was introduced mortality decreased by 90% in the UK & USA - why? Largely due to improvements in public health measures & improved nutrition. Herd immunity may have an effect, but don't tell me it's more important than proper nutrition & sanitation. Some seem to be implying it is herd immunity alone that is preventing the disease from taking hold. A healthy person is able to fight the disease off. For example, why do I never get a cough, cold or flu? Is it because I have been vaccinated? No, I have not. Is it because we have herd immunity? No, not yet. It's probably because I actually look after my body. 50% raw food intake,appropriate Vitamin D levels, low sugar intake etc.

I would encourage you to look at the city of Leicester in regards to Smallpox.

"Down to 1872 Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in the UK, the
number of vaccinations, owing to alarm after epidemics, several times exceeding the number of births. Yet in 1871, at the very height of its good vaccination record, it was attacked by the epidemic with extreme severity, its small-pox deaths during that year being more than 3,500 per million of the population, or about a thousand per million more than the mortality in London during the same epidemic. If ever a test experiment existed it is this of Leicester, where an almost completely vaccinated community suffered more than unvaccinated and terribly insanitary London, on the average of the last forty years of the eighteenth century. That fearful mortality destroyed the faith of Leicester in vaccination. Poor and rich alike, the workers and even the municipal authorities began to refuse vaccination for their children. This refusal continued till, in 1890, instead of 95 per cent. the vaccinations reached only 5 per cent. of the births! As this ominous decrease of vaccination went on the doctors again and again prophesied against it, that once small-pox was introduced it would run through the town like wildfire and decimate the population. Yet it has been introduced again and again, but it has never spread; and from that day to this no town in the kingdom of approximately equal population has had such a very low small-pox mortality as this almost completely unvaccinated and--as the doctors say-- unprotected population! Surely this completes the demonstration that vaccination, instead of preventing, increases the liability to small-pox, and that the only way to abolish the disease is to do as Leicester did, leave off vaccination altogether and devote our energies to sanitation, and the isolation of such rare cases as do occur."

Oh annecedote is there nothing you can't prove? CLearly you value annecedote much more highly than studies, as those involve statistics.

It's not as simple as many people think. We just don't know enough yet!

Clearly, I mean look at the severity of smallpox outbreaks in the past year.

You don't need to be replicating the virus to be a carrier! Anyone can carry the virus. This is why someone who has no symptoms of swine flu & is immune can have a nose swap taken & be found to be carrying the virus. I agree that when the virus is replicating you may have more chance of passing it on, but there is still a chance that it can be passed on because they are carrying it.

You know that you are considering people just like inanimate objects here right? Well there are many diseases that simply die with in minutes outside a host body, so for those diseases you need a replicating virus to infect people.

Also as an inanimate object airborne infection routes are not going to apply for example so this is another way that vaccinated people aren't going to infect people.