3 ms·
No. That doesn't make sense. See my comment above. You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution.
by pragmatic 15y ago
No. That doesn't make sense. See my comment above.
You have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution.
- CWuestefeld 15y agoYou have to guarantee 100% effective vaccines with 100% distribution. This is false. A vaccine can effectively stop a virus with far fewer than 100% actually receiving the vaccination. First, depending on the type of vaccine, the immunity may be communicated to other people through contact. Other people in the household, work, school, etc. are contaminated with the attenuated virus (in such a vaccination, as with the Salk polio virus). Second, with a sufficient portion of the population immune, they act as firebreaks interfering with the transmission of the virus through the population. This is called "Herd Immunity" [1]. According to the linked article, for example, smallpox is effectively stopped with 83%-85% of the community vaccinated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity