4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity (in case it is the misspelling that is keeping you in the dark). It is a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity (in case it is the misspelling that is keeping you in the dark). It is all about reducing the probability to almost zero once you hit a threshold.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
Yes, "probability" but does it "transfer immunity"? The article says "...large percentage of a population..." This means hurd immunity is enough so that any child that doesn't get vaccines can safely go to school as long as a "large percentage" does. But "hurd immunity" is often stated as a way to make others "immune" or protected, but it doesn't seem to be the case at all if it's just percentages? Edit: I notice down votes with no logical responses?
- mcculley 8y ago
  No, it does not "transfer immunity". It simply makes the environment of other potential carriers much safer for children who are unvaccinated, not yet vaccinated (e.g., for age reasons), or whose vaccination is not completely effective (vaccinations can fail).
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    So it only protects based on "spreading" of disease? Wouldn't this mean that the only people who are at risk are other unvaccinated kids? (because the vaccinated ones are protected already?) And if vaccinations can fail, what is the failure rate? (is there a number, how do we know how much a concern this is?) I've never seen any data on this or proof of how/why this would work.
    - strictnein 8y ago
      > I've never seen any data on this Google exists. Stop moving goalposts and asking endless questions. Measles: 97% effective https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        That wasn't the question I asked, I asked this: "...what is the failure rate?" I didn't ask what the "success" rate was, and there's a huge difference because without details 97% is a nearly meaningless number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
        nitrogen 8y ago
        100% - 97% is 3%.
    - chris_wot 8y ago
      Your questions are easily answered via Google. You clearly have an agenda here.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        I have been wrong about a lot of stuff in the past. The reason I like discussing things here on HN is because there's a higher threshold of logic over emotions. An agenda means I am somehow spreading misinformation. But I am not. Read all my comments, I am asking a logic questions challenging some old historical beliefs that have changed and emotional reactions.
        chris_wot 8y ago
        So you are asking questions to challenge beliefs. That’s called the fallacy of many questions. [1] I wouldn’t vote you down or have commented if you would just say you don’t believe there is any data to substantiate a claim. But you are clearly trying to ask questions not to illuminate, but to try to advance your agenda. I will straight out ask you - do you believe vaccines are effective? And do you believe they are dangerous and shouldn’t be given to children? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
      - mcculley 8y ago
        Maybe I am interpreting him too charitably, but I don't assume he has an agenda. I am wondering if the Wikipedia article needs to point out how the game theory works for those who are unfamiliar with such things.
        RobertRoberts 8y ago
        I appreciate you even taking the time to comment. I don't know much about game theory, but how does that apply to vaccines?
        mcculley 8y ago
        I cannot reply to your other questions in replies to me because your submissions are flagged. In one of your replies you ask, "Other comments state that anyone can carry the virus, even vaccinated people though..." Vaccinated people will fight off the virus and reproduce a lot fewer copies before their immune system knocks it out. This is effectively near zero compared to a vaccinated person. As for game theory, every person is making a choice (or his parents are). One can be a "free rider" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Free_riding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Free_riding). If there are too many free riders in the population, any infection will ripple through it into those who are not vaccinated. It's totally fine for a small number of people to be unvaccinated. When they start using Twitter and it becomes a large enough number, the population crosses the tipping point, infecting the unvaccinated who benefited from the herd immunity.
    - mcculley 8y ago
      > So it only protects based on "spreading" of disease? Yes. If there are fewer carriers around, the unvaccinated person is at lower risk. A virus depends on carriers to reproduce itself. > Wouldn't this mean that the only people who are at risk are other unvaccinated kids? (because the vaccinated ones are protected already?) Yes. I think maybe the part that is evading you is that this is a game theory problem. One needn't vaccinate every person in order to stop the contagion. There is a tipping point. If enough people opt out of vaccinations, the population crosses the tipping point. > And if vaccinations can fail, what is the failure rate? I have no idea. I have read that it is non-zero for various vaccines. Maybe somebody else can help you with this.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        >A virus depends on carriers to reproduce itself. Other comments state that anyone can carry the virus, even vaccinated people though... >One needn't vaccinate every person in order to stop the contagion. My original question needed to be clarified, forgive me for confusing things. My question was about protection more the "spreading". Shouldn't a disease only spread to unvaccinated people? And that all vaccinated people should be fine? Again, I reference the idea that a single US traveler needs their shots before entering a country with certain diseases. (a single person surrounded by unvaccinated)
        mcculley 8y ago
        > Shouldn't a disease only spread to unvaccinated people? Yes, and there are, by necessity and previously discussed, always going to be some unvaccinated people. In some cases this is because the vaccine cannot be administered until a certain age. In some cases, it is because the vaccine fails. A small amount of "free riders" can work. It is when parents put too many free riders into a population that it crosses a tipping point.

RobertRoberts 8y ago

Yes, "probability" but does it "transfer immunity"? The article says "...large percentage of a population..." This means hurd immunity is enough so that any child that doesn't get vaccines can safely go to school as long as a "large percentage" does. But "hurd immunity" is often stated as a way to make others "immune" or protected, but it doesn't seem to be the case at all if it's just percentages? Edit: I notice down votes with no logical responses?

mcculley 8y ago
No, it does not "transfer immunity". It simply makes the environment of other potential carriers much safer for children who are unvaccinated, not yet vaccinated (e.g., for age reasons), or whose vaccination is not completely effective (vaccinations can fail).
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  So it only protects based on "spreading" of disease? Wouldn't this mean that the only people who are at risk are other unvaccinated kids? (because the vaccinated ones are protected already?) And if vaccinations can fail, what is the failure rate? (is there a number, how do we know how much a concern this is?) I've never seen any data on this or proof of how/why this would work.
  - strictnein 8y ago
    > I've never seen any data on this Google exists. Stop moving goalposts and asking endless questions. Measles: 97% effective https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      That wasn't the question I asked, I asked this: "...what is the failure rate?" I didn't ask what the "success" rate was, and there's a huge difference because without details 97% is a nearly meaningless number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
      - nitrogen 8y ago
        100% - 97% is 3%.
  - chris_wot 8y ago
    Your questions are easily answered via Google. You clearly have an agenda here.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      I have been wrong about a lot of stuff in the past. The reason I like discussing things here on HN is because there's a higher threshold of logic over emotions. An agenda means I am somehow spreading misinformation. But I am not. Read all my comments, I am asking a logic questions challenging some old historical beliefs that have changed and emotional reactions.
      - chris_wot 8y ago
        So you are asking questions to challenge beliefs. That’s called the fallacy of many questions. [1] I wouldn’t vote you down or have commented if you would just say you don’t believe there is any data to substantiate a claim. But you are clearly trying to ask questions not to illuminate, but to try to advance your agenda. I will straight out ask you - do you believe vaccines are effective? And do you believe they are dangerous and shouldn’t be given to children? 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
    - mcculley 8y ago
      Maybe I am interpreting him too charitably, but I don't assume he has an agenda. I am wondering if the Wikipedia article needs to point out how the game theory works for those who are unfamiliar with such things.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        I appreciate you even taking the time to comment. I don't know much about game theory, but how does that apply to vaccines?
        mcculley 8y ago
        I cannot reply to your other questions in replies to me because your submissions are flagged. In one of your replies you ask, "Other comments state that anyone can carry the virus, even vaccinated people though..." Vaccinated people will fight off the virus and reproduce a lot fewer copies before their immune system knocks it out. This is effectively near zero compared to a vaccinated person. As for game theory, every person is making a choice (or his parents are). One can be a "free rider" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Free_riding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Free_riding). If there are too many free riders in the population, any infection will ripple through it into those who are not vaccinated. It's totally fine for a small number of people to be unvaccinated. When they start using Twitter and it becomes a large enough number, the population crosses the tipping point, infecting the unvaccinated who benefited from the herd immunity.
  - mcculley 8y ago
    > So it only protects based on "spreading" of disease? Yes. If there are fewer carriers around, the unvaccinated person is at lower risk. A virus depends on carriers to reproduce itself. > Wouldn't this mean that the only people who are at risk are other unvaccinated kids? (because the vaccinated ones are protected already?) Yes. I think maybe the part that is evading you is that this is a game theory problem. One needn't vaccinate every person in order to stop the contagion. There is a tipping point. If enough people opt out of vaccinations, the population crosses the tipping point. > And if vaccinations can fail, what is the failure rate? I have no idea. I have read that it is non-zero for various vaccines. Maybe somebody else can help you with this.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      >A virus depends on carriers to reproduce itself. Other comments state that anyone can carry the virus, even vaccinated people though... >One needn't vaccinate every person in order to stop the contagion. My original question needed to be clarified, forgive me for confusing things. My question was about protection more the "spreading". Shouldn't a disease only spread to unvaccinated people? And that all vaccinated people should be fine? Again, I reference the idea that a single US traveler needs their shots before entering a country with certain diseases. (a single person surrounded by unvaccinated)
      - mcculley 8y ago
        > Shouldn't a disease only spread to unvaccinated people? Yes, and there are, by necessity and previously discussed, always going to be some unvaccinated people. In some cases this is because the vaccine cannot be administered until a certain age. In some cases, it is because the vaccine fails. A small amount of "free riders" can work. It is when parents put too many free riders into a population that it crosses a tipping point.