4 ms·

The number of people harmed by the vaccine is much lower than the number harmed by an infection. Vaccines are ineffective if even a small percentage opt out.

kordless 13y ago
That's not necessarily always true. The halo effect varies depending on the transmissibility of the disease AND the number of people vaccinated. Even small numbers of vaccinations can decrease the spread of an infectious disease.
- bsder 13y ago
  > Even small numbers of vaccinations can decrease the spread of an infectious disease. Only of the vaccine is particularly effective in individuals (95%+). Pertussis seems to be a good counterexample. You really do need the herd immunity to keep it under control since individual immunity seems to be below 70% or so. In addition, non-vaccinated people tend to be clustered since anti-vaccination is a function of shared social situation (shared belief, religious affiliation, or low socioeconomic status). Consequently, you need MORE people vaccinated to control it, not fewer.
- Fomite 13y ago
  Specifically, the critical % of people needed to be effectively vaccinated is 1 - (1/R0), where R0 is the "Basic Reproductive Number" of the disease. In English, how many people a single infective individual can be expected to infect in an entirely susceptible population.
MikeTLive 13y ago
If an evenly distributed percentage opt out, i can see where a vaccine may be less effective. like widening the holes in a net. However, is there a partial vaccination protocol which would strategically place an immunization net around an area of insufficient vaccination which could combat nonvaccination impact and thus prevent or limit spread?
- Fomite 13y ago
  The process you're referring to is "ring vaccination", and is quite commonly used in epidemiology to limit the spread of outbreaks from a known point source. They are however quite resource intensive to implement - you have to do tons of contact tracing to know who belongs in the net. It would be extremely difficult to do something like that for those avoiding routine childhood vaccinations.
Domenic_S 13y ago
> The number of people harmed by the vaccine is much lower than the number harmed by an infection. This this this this this. This is the way vaccines should be presented. But in my experience as a new father vaccines seem to be presented as a magic cure that never does any harm. When's the last time your doctor/nurse discussed the potential side-effects with you? If the number of folks hurt by vaccines was infinitesimally small, as some would have you believe, we wouldn't have the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html)
- Houshalter 13y ago
  >When's the last time your doctor/nurse discussed the potential side-effects with you? On the one hand your right and doctors should be honest about the risks and it should be your choice. On the other hand it's just going to get kids killed when parents hear the doctor tell them about the potential side-effects and decide not to vaccinate. >The thought that occurred to me was that, innumeracy being so widespread, no one would dare put numbers on that sheet of paper. If "amputation" is listed as a consequence with a probability of 0.0001%, patients will run screaming out of the office, crying, "Not my toe! I don't want to lose my toe!" No amount of patient explanation will suffice to convince them that they ought to diminish the emotional force of their fear by a factor of one million. Each extra zero after the decimal point would only be one more symbol for their eyes to glaze over; it would not diminish the emotional force of the anticipation by an additional factor of ten. (source http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4/useless_medical_disclaimers/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4/useless_medical_disclaimers/)

kordless 13y ago

That's not necessarily always true. The halo effect varies depending on the transmissibility of the disease AND the number of people vaccinated. Even small numbers of vaccinations can decrease the spread of an infectious disease.

bsder 13y ago
> Even small numbers of vaccinations can decrease the spread of an infectious disease. Only of the vaccine is particularly effective in individuals (95%+). Pertussis seems to be a good counterexample. You really do need the herd immunity to keep it under control since individual immunity seems to be below 70% or so. In addition, non-vaccinated people tend to be clustered since anti-vaccination is a function of shared social situation (shared belief, religious affiliation, or low socioeconomic status). Consequently, you need MORE people vaccinated to control it, not fewer.
Fomite 13y ago
Specifically, the critical % of people needed to be effectively vaccinated is 1 - (1/R0), where R0 is the "Basic Reproductive Number" of the disease. In English, how many people a single infective individual can be expected to infect in an entirely susceptible population.

MikeTLive 13y ago

If an evenly distributed percentage opt out, i can see where a vaccine may be less effective. like widening the holes in a net. However, is there a partial vaccination protocol which would strategically place an immunization net around an area of insufficient vaccination which could combat nonvaccination impact and thus prevent or limit spread?

Fomite 13y ago
The process you're referring to is "ring vaccination", and is quite commonly used in epidemiology to limit the spread of outbreaks from a known point source. They are however quite resource intensive to implement - you have to do tons of contact tracing to know who belongs in the net. It would be extremely difficult to do something like that for those avoiding routine childhood vaccinations.

Domenic_S 13y ago

> The number of people harmed by the vaccine is much lower than the number harmed by an infection. This this this this this. This is the way vaccines should be presented. But in my experience as a new father vaccines seem to be presented as a magic cure that never does any harm. When's the last time your doctor/nurse discussed the potential side-effects with you? If the number of folks hurt by vaccines was infinitesimally small, as some would have you believe, we wouldn't have the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html)

Houshalter 13y ago
>When's the last time your doctor/nurse discussed the potential side-effects with you? On the one hand your right and doctors should be honest about the risks and it should be your choice. On the other hand it's just going to get kids killed when parents hear the doctor tell them about the potential side-effects and decide not to vaccinate. >The thought that occurred to me was that, innumeracy being so widespread, no one would dare put numbers on that sheet of paper. If "amputation" is listed as a consequence with a probability of 0.0001%, patients will run screaming out of the office, crying, "Not my toe! I don't want to lose my toe!" No amount of patient explanation will suffice to convince them that they ought to diminish the emotional force of their fear by a factor of one million. Each extra zero after the decimal point would only be one more symbol for their eyes to glaze over; it would not diminish the emotional force of the anticipation by an additional factor of ten. (source http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4/useless_medical_disclaimers/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/h4/useless_medical_disclaimers/)