6 ms·

This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is

This means EVERYONE needs to be vaccinated for the disease to not continue to find hosts to pass along to. This is not correct. In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread. If there are two left unvaccinated, the chances of one having the disease and the other being initially uninfected and then subsequently infected by the one possible vector is astonishingly small. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Moreover, vaccines based on attenuated vaccines (e.g., the polio vaccine) actually infect the recipient with an impotent version of the virus. This virus will be transmitted to others in the community through normal contact, thus conferring immunity to many that did not receive the vaccination directly. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated)

gte910h 16y ago
"In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread." Vaccines don't necessarily grant immunity. They give you a 70%-85% chance to gain immunity. So even if 0 are left unvaccinated, 30% of the population has no immunity. It is unlikely to infect a large portion of the population, but especially for vaccines which are only 70% effective, it's highly likely 1 or 2 others will get infected who were vaccinated but it didn't take. In addition to the 30% of people who do not have immunity, immunocompromised people often time can lose immunity to certain viruses based on their condition. They are the 1 or 2 people our society has chosen to be effectively infectable in spite of vaccination. That's why its very important everyone else gets vaccinated. The likelihood of a huge outbreak is still relatively small, but you're wrong on the statistics of the small infection, as you'd see from a friend coming by or out to dinner with you or going to day care. Roughly 15% to 30% will get many of the diseases when "intensely exposed". The chance of a small outbreak is moderately large with 70% vaccines and even moderate lack of vaccinations. Your argument, in addition to be attempted technical nitpicking which is wrong, is very dangerous as other posters have made. The effect of one additional unvac on a given population is extremely noticeable on small populations, such as groups of friends and daycares and businesses, aka the very places I suggested ostracizing people from.
trunnell 16y ago
In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must target 100% vaccination. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated) You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this argument is ethically dubious. My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder. If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond "not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.
- rmk 16y ago
  Well-put... I completely agree with you on this. Name them and shame them!
  - yourmomcalled 16y ago
    I'm sure your plan sounds better in the original German. Something must have been lost in the translation.
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Meant to downvote, accidentally upvoted. Hello, Godwin.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Believe it or not (because of my arguments in the parallel sub-thread) I agree with you. Government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force me to do this. But there's nothing wrong with each individual in the community attempting to persuade those who don't want it. By analogy: the government doesn't have the authority to endorse any religion, but I'm certainly free to tell you about mine (if I had one).
shajith 16y ago
"In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%." I'm curious to know if there have been results that show what sort of percentages of vaccination are needed to be safe from specific diseases. I presume this will vary between diseases as well as demographics.
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Yes, it's called Herd Immunity, a quick glance at the Wikipedia article show some percentages for common diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

gte910h 16y ago

"In an extreme case, if there is only 1 left unvaccinated, the disease won't spread." Vaccines don't necessarily grant immunity. They give you a 70%-85% chance to gain immunity. So even if 0 are left unvaccinated, 30% of the population has no immunity. It is unlikely to infect a large portion of the population, but especially for vaccines which are only 70% effective, it's highly likely 1 or 2 others will get infected who were vaccinated but it didn't take. In addition to the 30% of people who do not have immunity, immunocompromised people often time can lose immunity to certain viruses based on their condition. They are the 1 or 2 people our society has chosen to be effectively infectable in spite of vaccination. That's why its very important everyone else gets vaccinated. The likelihood of a huge outbreak is still relatively small, but you're wrong on the statistics of the small infection, as you'd see from a friend coming by or out to dinner with you or going to day care. Roughly 15% to 30% will get many of the diseases when "intensely exposed". The chance of a small outbreak is moderately large with 70% vaccines and even moderate lack of vaccinations. Your argument, in addition to be attempted technical nitpicking which is wrong, is very dangerous as other posters have made. The effect of one additional unvac on a given population is extremely noticeable on small populations, such as groups of friends and daycares and businesses, aka the very places I suggested ostracizing people from.

trunnell 16y ago

In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%. Irrelevant. In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, public policy must target 100% vaccination. (this isn't intended to be an endorsement of those who refuse to get vaccinated) You may not be endorsing it, but it's important to point out that this argument is ethically dubious. My favorite ethical test is Kant's categorical imperative, which is briefly that an act is ethical if everyone else can act the same way. For example, if you're wondering whether it's ok to slip onto the subway just as the doors are closing, delaying the train by just a second, you can ask: what if everyone boarded the train that way? Of course, the train would never depart, being constantly delayed by each as-the-doors-close boarder. If everyone thought that vaccines are ok for others but not themselves, then no one would be vaccinated. Thus this argument is unethical. Let's go beyond "not endorsing" it-- let us all actively condemn it.

rmk 16y ago
Well-put... I completely agree with you on this. Name them and shame them!
- yourmomcalled 16y ago
  I'm sure your plan sounds better in the original German. Something must have been lost in the translation.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Meant to downvote, accidentally upvoted. Hello, Godwin.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Believe it or not (because of my arguments in the parallel sub-thread) I agree with you. Government doesn't (or shouldn't) have the power to force me to do this. But there's nothing wrong with each individual in the community attempting to persuade those who don't want it. By analogy: the government doesn't have the authority to endorse any religion, but I'm certainly free to tell you about mine (if I had one).

shajith 16y ago

"In reality, for a vaccine to be effective, the portion of the population that needs to receive that vaccination is significantly less than 100%." I'm curious to know if there have been results that show what sort of percentages of vaccination are needed to be safe from specific diseases. I presume this will vary between diseases as well as demographics.

henrikschroder 16y ago
Yes, it's called Herd Immunity, a quick glance at the Wikipedia article show some percentages for common diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity