Talk:Herd immunity

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Immunity coverage doesn't compute[edit]

The Herd immunity conjecture regarding vaccines seems little plausible. Vaccine-induced antibodies have waned by 10-20 years from vaccination. Many wane as early as 2-3 years. Therefore, people who got their vaccines as kids still live 3/4ths of their adult lives in a state susceptible to "vaccine preventable" diseases. This means that our modern societies have always remained well below 50% immunization coverage for any "vaccine preventable" disease, whereas the Herd Immunity threshold is above 95%. Shouldn't we all be dying of "vaccine preventable" diseases? Why aren't the streets littered with corpses?--Brasov (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Argument from incredulity won't get you very far here. The streets aren't littered with corpses because a lot of the diseases we vaccinate for are only very deadly to young children whose immune systems aren't strong, or who can't handle the medicine used to treat the disease in adults. You also make the assumption that the diseases in question are omnipresent, just floating around waiting for susceptible victims. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, it's Reductio ad absurdum. H.I. is untenable because, as an explanation for low incidence, requires it to work without protective antibodies, which contradicts the definition of H.I.--Brasov (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Before appealing to Incredulity, tell me if the immunity of the population at large is anything nearly 90%. If it's not, then tell me adults cannot be subclinical carriers of child diseases. And if they can, then tell me what's protecting young, weak children, before their vaccination program is complete, from getting exposed by their adult relatives at home. Herd Immunity? Not in the adult herd, not in the pre-vaccinated herd. Then what?--Brasov (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's get something straight: You're the one appealing to incredulity. You also fail reading comprehension/answered your own question: if a child hasn't been immunized against diseases, the only thing protecting them from being exposed to the diseases is their parents, who (hopefully) aren't doing stupid things like washing them with rat feces or taking them on trips to sub-Saharan Africa or Bangladesh.
if a child hasn't been immunized against diseases, the only thing protecting them from being exposed to the diseases is their parents. And the only thing exposing them to disease too. Remember, they're no longer immunized, have contacts and bring home all kinds of germs. Now if you tell me Herd Immunity is not necessary at all I agree, but you can't claim it's necessary and it's not necessary in the same breath, as you do.--Brasov (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, those who are dumb enough to believe Jenny McCarthy are depending solely on herd immunity to keep their children from getting sick, which is just irresponsible.
I've also noticed your posts on Talk:Vaccine denialism, and you're just asking to be blocked for your rude comments and insults. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but according to our friend, western medicine has got it all wrong and only he knows the answer. He's a lone voice crying in the wilderness trying to get us to see the error of our ways. Herd immunity - hah! - an impossibility. So all those public health programs were a waste of time. Indeed, as a child I was forced - forced I tell you - to take polio vaccine. What good did that do. Why polio is just as prevelen... oh, isn't it? Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I'm carrying every communicable disease I'm vaccinated against, and if I touch a baby it'll get sick. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Man if only we would to the vaccine schedule something like a, I don't know, a booster shot that would re-expose the body to the vaccine. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
WE COME UP WITH THE BEST IDEAS. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
according to our friend, western medicine has got it all wrong and only he knows the answer. Who said Medicine doesn't know the answer? It knows it perfectly well, it's been published all over the place. Only vaccine zealots pretend this risky, invasive medical procedure is the best and only way to prevent infectious disease. And this is claimed in the face of a steady decline in infectious diseases mortality and incidence long before vaccines were widespread. This is claimed in the face of a Herd Immunity crock that has never been reached by a long shot and never can, ever, and with no consequences.--Brasov (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You also make the assumption that the diseases in question are omnipresent. Actually, that's an assumption being actively peddled by "Health authorities" like the WHO in their apocalyptic picture of "A world without vaccines" to scare people into compliance. Bug them for making things up, not me: WHO - State of the World's Vaccines and Immunization "Foreword - Imagine a world without vaccines. Life-threatening diseases would present a daily risk. We would live in fear of deadly strains of diphtheria, tetanus and measles; polio would be a constant danger and in a matter of hours could paralyze a child, and smallpox would continue to scar and kill. All these diseases would claim the lives of our children in vast numbers, families watching helplessly. Lives would be cut short and people’s movement severely restricted. Cities would be places to flee at the first rumour of infection rather than magnets for culture, commerce and learning. It is hard to imagine the loss in lives, creativity, productivity, potential and well-being.". You have very little imagination, says the WHO--Brasov (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't have to use my imagination to imagine a world without certain vaccines. When I was young (50s/60's) mumps was a regular occurrence and, although I'm young enough to have been vaccinated for polio, there were plenty of polio victims around me. Polio wasn't a "constant danger" but we thanked providence - and hard working medical scientists - who had removed the scourge. Only the most brain damaged would fail to put widespread immunisation as one of the primary reasons for the decline of infant mortality. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Neither I need imagination to know what a Society Without Herd Immunity looks like. We've been living in one since squatting for a dump was invented. Horrible? Not if you have access to nutrition and sanitation, that's what working, not a mythological H.I. we've never had.--Brasov (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
When I was young (50s/60's) mumps was a regular occurrence: I don't deny that. A horrible disease. However, since H.I. has never been achieved by far, we need to look at the reasons. Certainly nutrition and sanitation were worse in the 50's, so please look up "confounding factors" and come back to me.--Brasov (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Brasov, you might try to formulate a point before quoting a document that spends 90+ pages talking about where progress in vaccine coverage has been made and where it still needs to be made. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You missed the point again? Let me spell it out for you: The case for vaccines is so unscientific that the WHO resorts to a grotesque and laughable Appeal to Fear right in the Foreword to condition the reader for accepting the unacceptable.--Brasov (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Smallpox and rinderpest[edit]

Would the campaigns against these diseases be examples of herd immunity - though in part merely immunizing 'those within the transmission range' (see episode 19 of People's Century [1]). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)