Immunisation, right or wrong?

[Value Collector]

You raise an interesting point.

I have on occasions read that breastfeeding infants gain some benefit from the mother's immunities.
However, I am uncertain as to the extent to which those claims have been scientifically substantiated.
So in the absence of further corroborative information regarding the aforementioned claim/s, I presume that there would indeed be some vulnerability.

Having said all that, how exactly does this alter the point I was raising?

"If they [vaccines] only work for some children, then any impervious child will surely pose equal risk to others.

Are we to alienate those children also?"

Are infants under vaccination age vulnerable?

If so then the warped logic (behind proposals to alienate members of the community) could equally apply to those infants!

the video I uploaded above talks about this point, the vaccinations will not work on about 3% of people, however herd protection will still protect these children most likely, however adding unvaccinated children into the mix greatly increases the chance that the unvaccinated will act as an unnecessary vector and break down the protection of the herd.

 

[cynic]

the video I uploaded above talks about this point, the vaccinations will not work on about 3% of people, however herd protection will still protect these children most likely, however adding unvaccinated children into the mix greatly increases the chance that the unvaccinated will act as an unnecessary vector and break down the protection of the herd.

Yes that was quite an amusing little video!

However, the information presented did not offer compelling substantiation of the concept/theory of herd immunity.

For example, the beneficial impact of dramatic improvements to sanitation etc. seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the interpretation of statistics offered in support of this somewhat questionable herd immunity theory.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes that was quite an amusing little video!

However, the information presented did not offer compelling substantiation of the concept/theory of herd immunity.

For example, the beneficial impact of dramatic improvements to sanitation etc. seem to have been conveniently overlooked in the interpretation of statistics offered in support of this somewhat questionable herd immunity theory.

Improvements in sanitation? how does this effect the recent out break?

The recent outbreak was linked back to Disneyland, it is likely that a single infected individual brought the virus into Disneyland, if this person had immunity from a vaccination it wouldn't have happened. the other 100 people would have been protected by this individual being immune.

that is herd protection.

50% of the people that later got infected due to this one individual, were not vaccinated, if those 50% had been vaccinated, then they would not have been infected, and would not have continued passing on the virus to other unprotected people.

due to the high level of vaccination, there is only 100 reported cases, no doubt this number would have been higher if people were not vaccinated, and the people who were vaccinated, have saved people that weren't.

eg. little Timmy that didn't get sick because of his vaccination, no doubt saved little sally at school that wasn't vaccinated or had an ineffective response to vaccination.

it has spread to 17 states, if the 17 vectors had been vaccinated, they wouldn't have continued spreading the virus.

 

[cynic]

VC, I do understand that some people like to believe that certain cherished opinions are grounded in (or perhaps even synonymous with) proven facts.

I've yet to see a compelling proof of the truth behind this herd immunity concept. The only fact that I can confidently derive, from recently reported events, is that some people were vulnerable to measles and an outbreak subsequently occurred.

Conflicting theories have surfaced regarding the cause (and attribution of blame).

One unpopular theory is that the outbreak may have resulted from a child having been previously infected via a faulty vaccination batch!

 

[Value Collector]

VC, I do understand that some people like to believe that certain cherished opinions are grounded in (or perhaps even synonymous with) proven facts.

!

What part of herd protection do you doubt?

Do you think a person who has immunity, has the same chance of becoming a vector as a person who has no immunity?

 

[cynic]

What part of herd protection do you doubt?

Do you think a person who has immunity, has the same chance of becoming a vector as a person who has no immunity?

8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.

But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!

 

[SirRumpole]

8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.

But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!

Well, smallpox is gone, apart from the samples that the US and Russia still keep. I suppose it could rear up again but so far it hasn't been seen since 1979.

 

[Value Collector]

8% of any large population is a lot of people!!! I fail to understand how the extinction of any communicable disease could be guaranteed (let alone proven!), especially considering the speed with which people are now able to travel and interact.

But hey, some people like to believe that "when you wish upon a star - dreams come true"!

The point I am making is that vaccinations have been proven to work in the vast majority of people, that's a fact.

Also, when a person has immunity because they have been vaccinated, they have far less chance of becoming a vector, that's a fact.

So, when a person is vaccinated and they come in contact with an infected person, the fact that they are immune, means they have extremely reduced chance of carrying that virus from the infected person, to other none infected people.

That's herd protection right there.

If you want to prove herd protection wrong, all you have to do is show that being immune to a disease, does not reduce your risk of passing it on, However all the evidence suggests that being immune does infact reduce your chance of passing on the virus.

If you knew that you were personally vulnerable to a disease, and had absolutely no immunity, would you prefer to live in a society where 95% of other people were immune and won't spread the disease, or a society where 100% of the population had no immunity and all could be vectors?

If you said you would rather live in the society where 95% of people can't pass the disease to you, then congratulations, you understand herd protection.

 

[cynic]

Well, smallpox is gone, apart from the samples that the US and Russia still keep. I suppose it could rear up again but so far it hasn't been seen since 1979.

Yes! That is an interesting observation!

However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.

I've no doubt that you've also observed the extent to which society and human activity has changed during the last century.

I'm sure that other equally interesting statistical correlations may be drawn between disease reduction and technological and/or societal changes that have occurred during this past century.

 

[cynic]

The point I am making is that vaccinations have been proven to work in the vast majority of people, that's a fact.

Also, when a person has immunity because they have been vaccinated, they have far less chance of becoming a vector, that's a fact.

So, when a person is vaccinated and they come in contact with an infected person, the fact that they are immune, means they have extremely reduced chance of carrying that virus from the infected person, to other none infected people.

That's herd protection right there.

If you want to prove herd protection wrong, all you have to do is show that being immune to a disease, does not reduce your risk of passing it on, However all the evidence suggests that being immune does infact reduce your chance of passing on the virus.

If you knew that you were personally vulnerable to a disease, and had absolutely no immunity, would you prefer to live in a society where 95% of other people were immune and won't spread the disease, or a society where 100% of the population had no immunity and all could be vectors?

If you said you would rather live in the society where 95% of people can't pass the disease to you, then congratulations, you understand herd protection.

I do not share your confidence in many of these things that you seem to confidently assert as fact.

To the best of my understanding, herd immunity might be achievable for some diseases depending upon the nature of the disease and the typical behavior of the herd species.

However, 8% of a human population that likes to commute on crowded transport through highly populated cities and fly all around the globe - dream on!!!


"To dream the impossible dream..."

 

[Value Collector]

Yes! That is an interesting observation!

However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.

I've no doubt that you've also observed the extent to which society and human activity has changed during the last century.

I'm sure that other equally interesting statistical correlations may be drawn between disease reduction and technological and/or societal changes that have occurred during this past century.

Yes, it was a coincidence that small pox disappeared just after a massive global vaccination push with the aim to eradicate it

And it's an equal coincidence that the only remaining polio cases are in an area where vaccinations are impossible due to religious conflict that lead to aid workers attempting to vaccinate people being killed.

There are lots of areas where sanitation etc remain relatively unchanged, however they no longer have polio or small pox,

If herd protection didn't work, we wouldn't beable to eradicate disease, and we wouldn't have such low number of cases of other diseases.

 

[Value Collector]

I do not share your confidence in many of these things that you seem to confidently assert as fact.

To the best of my understanding, herd immunity might be achievable for some diseases depending upon the nature of the disease and the typical behavior of the herd species.

However, 8% of a human population that likes to commute on crowded transport through highly populated cities and fly all around the globe - dream on!!!


"To dream the impossible dream..."

So I ask again, would you want to be on the train or plane with the 95% with immunity, or the 100% unvaccinated?

Just a simple straight answer would be nice.

 

[cynic]

So I ask again, would you want to be on the train or plane with the 95% with immunity, or the 100% unvaccinated?

Just a simple straight answer would be nice.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to corner me here!

I've often used crowded public transport and can honestly say that, until recent times, the question of other's vaccination history did not concern me at all.

However, now that I know that some vaccinations for some diseases can result in a person being infectious to others, my preference would lean towards being amongst the unvaccinated.

 

[needsajet]

If we stop vaccinating, saving and planning for retirement will get easier as life expectancies drop back to where they were before vaccines. Can you get a better return on an annuity if you're unvaccinated?

 

[SirRumpole]

However, 8% of a human population that likes to commute on crowded transport through highly populated cities and fly all around the globe - dream on!!!

Hopefully that may change as the increasing prices of aviation fuel and the diminishing cost and greater availability of teleconferences and work from home arrangements makes it less necessary to travel.

Paradoxically, the increasing threat of terrorism may discourage travel as well, although we obviously wouldn't want that.

 

[Value Collector]

However, now that I know that some vaccinations for some diseases can result in a person being infectious to others, my preference would lean towards being amongst the unvaccinated

.

Cynic, you truely are very silly, for someone who tries to act like they understand science and simple maths, you say some really stupid things.

 

[cynic]

.

Cynic, you truely are very silly, for someone who tries to act like they understand science and simple maths, you say some really stupid things.

{Heavy sigh!}

It seems that some posters simply never change!

As has been said so many times before:

Those unwilling to receive answers shouldn't ask questions!

 

[Value Collector]

{Heavy sigh!}

It seems that some posters simply never change!

As has been said so many times before:

Well what else am I to think, to say you would prefer to take your chances with unvaccinated people rather than those who have been vaccinated, when it's been proven that vaccinations work and people with immunity have almost no chance of spreading the disease is, just dumb.

And the fact that you don't have to be concerned about disease on public transport anymore is a testament to the fact the herd protection works.

if herd protection didn't work, a lot more than 37 people in the USA would get measles each year. Because as you said a portion of the populace don't get effective immunity from vaccinations, without herd immunity this portion of hhe population which represents millions of people, would have a lot more cases than 37.

As I said, all you have to prove is that immune people don't have a reduced risk of passing on the virus, but the science is against you. And if you accept that immune people have an almost zero chance of passing on the disease, then simple math proves that herd protection exists.

 

[cynic]

VC,

Are you denying the presence of the actual disease within the vaccine?!!

Are you further denying the possibility that even when a person is safely vaccinated, they can be infectious to others for a period of time post vaccination?!!

 

[sptrawler]

Yes! That is an interesting observation!

However, does the recognition of one such statistical correlation conclusively prove that vaccination was the only factor contributing to the extinction of any particular disease.

I've no doubt that you've also observed the extent to which society and human activity has changed during the last century.

I'm sure that other equally interesting statistical correlations may be drawn between disease reduction and technological and/or societal changes that have occurred during this past century.

You could throw in cholera, hooping cough, polio, diphtheria. Yes it is all pure ar$e, that they have reduced to the point of being non existent, in first world countries.

Maybe you can draw the same correlation between antibiotics and technology and social changes.
It makes for a great baseless argument.