Herd Immunity and Unvaccinated Children
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 01-11-2009 - 8:49pm |
Some info to read over and maybe debate a bit. :)
If the word "vaccine" immediately strikes fear in your heart, then you likely came of age not in a time dominated by worries about polio, but in a time when vaccines make news because of side effects ranging from mild irritation to death. The most notable example is probably the debate regarding the claim (not supported by any scientific studies thus far) that the thimerosal in certain childhood vaccines may have led to an increase in autism. These days, the public has serious doubts about whether it's worth protecting herd immunity at the cost of exposing children to these risks.
That means that levels of vaccinations have dropped dramatically, particularly in certain parts of the United States where exemption from vaccinations is granted for religious, philosophical or personal reasons. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that while 90 percent of all American children had received most of the necessary vaccinations, about 1 percent of all children hadn't received any shots .
Parents who forego vaccinations can rely on herd immunity -- for now. Children who aren't immunized are protected by the children that did get vaccinations; some parents who did take the risk of a vaccination, however, consider this freeloading . However, as vaccination rates drop, the safety of the herd, particularly its weakest members, can become compromised.
Publi

Pages
Good grief.
I was referring to you when talking about the other poster using references that lacked complete information.
I was NOT talking specifically about you in regards to my comment on people making ignorant decisions.
For the record, when I use the term ignorant I am using it to mean "unaware and uninformed". Take the phrase how you want. All I can do is tell you my intentions. I think the correct etiquette is to take me for my word instead of putting them in my mouth.
If someone were on the fence and saw one of these two statements, which would influence them more quickly to the pro side?
-...health improved as a result of vaccines.
or
-...health improved as a result of improved sanitary living conditions, improved environmental factors and the introduction of vaccines.
Which is a more accurate portrayal?
Wow, you should calm down. Not all posts are about you.
My terms and phrases were general and meant to be. If I was talking about you and only you I would have used your name or your screen name. Not all antivaxers are out to get you.
The sources the other poster used was giving credit where credit was due.
All I'm implying is that the SOURCES the OTHER POSTER USED were only giving credit to vaccines as being the end all be all of better health through the ages. It's simply misinformation to neglect to give credit to environmental issues and living conditions when talking about health improving in an area.
Maybe you and I know that these things should be given credit but, there are many out there who are making already ignorant decisions and need to be given ALL the information.
<>
Oh for goodness sakes.
Pages