For a normal healthy person, imo, a shedded virus poses little risk.
Baby-wearing is very good for developing immunity. Mom tends to pass on protection, in various forms, to whatever she comes into contact with...
How would the result be different if nobody was vaccinated? Wouldn't that also keep the disease circulating?
I can't really say what the outcome would be, but there will always be cycles of disease. Herd immunity is also accomplished by dealing with and overcoming disease. That's how it was first witnessed and detailed in the 30s. It has since taken on several forms, no doubt a result of manipulation with disease cycles and trying to remove pathogens deemed invasive from the environment.
You hear people talk about the generations that had many children because they lost so many to disease, without ever really discussing what was occurring sociologically, agriculturally, or environmentally. I feel similarly about the autism issue. Little study on those that suffered incalculable loss during epidemics of disease... nor are we studying children that have been reported to have regressed and are now on the spectrum.
I understand the concepts behind vaccination as a tool to promote community immunity, I just don't think they've been demonstrated fairly and I feel like vaccinated populations (I'm vaccinated by the way) are overlooked as contributors to the spread of disease for which vaccines exist. It's a bit of a double standard, and this is coming from someone with two, completely and totally over-vaccinated children.