• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Congratulations to the anti-vaccination crowd!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
I read all higher primates.
Cant remember where there.
Are you being dense on purpose? Let's say 100% of people except those babies were immunized. NONE of those babies would have died of whooping cough. Not a single one. None of them would have contracted whooping cough either. That is, unless you think that every family has a pet monkey.

THAT'S what herd immunity is.

Herd immunity doesn't automatically lead to complete irradication of a disease. Apparently, as small pox is often cited as an example of best case scenario with herd immunity, you somehow got this twisted definition in your mind that herd immunity means "complete irradication of a disease." It doesn't. It means that unimmunized people are protected because they are less likely to come into contact with a carrier.

While there still may be reservoirs of a disease in nature, having a sufficient number of people vaccinated, (or the right people vaccinated) can eliminate risk of that reservoir spreading into the general population. i.e. everyone is protected (but not immune) because others have been vaccinated.

edit: also, rough approximations for the spread of diseases are easily modeled mathematically. It's pretty simple to demonstrate (systems of diffential equations) that if a sufficient percentage of a population is vaccinated, all you get are a few cases here & there. But, once the threshold reaches a low enough percentage, a disease spreads quite rapidly through the population. The more easily a disease is transmitted, the higher the percentage of the population that will need to be vaccinated to keep the disease from spreading.
 
Last edited:

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
It means that unimmunized people are protected because they are less likely to come into contact with a carrier.
I would change the bolded text to "extremely unlikely to" or even "virtually guaranteed not to".
 
Last edited:

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,589
146
106
Are you being dense on purpose? Let's say 100% of people except those babies were immunized. NONE of those babies would have died of whooping cough. Not a single one. None of them would have contracted whooping cough either. That is, unless you think that every family has a pet monkey.

THAT'S what herd immunity is.
Unless the herd is the 100% of the entire worldwide population, which it cant be due to financial, regional, and other logistical restraints(as I posted above), herd immunity doesnt work.

A guy from asia is not part of the North american herd.
This same asian traveler carrying the disease travels to new york, sits next to you in the subway and coughs on you, you do or do not contract the disease?



Herd immunity doesn't automatically lead to complete irradication of a disease. Apparently, as small pox is often cited as an example of best case scenario with herd immunity, you somehow got this twisted definition in your mind that herd immunity means "complete irradication of a disease." It doesn't. It means that unimmunized people are protected because they are less likely to come into contact with a carrier.
for the 18th bazillion time:
If you took the time to read the posts above, instead of going straight to bashing me, you would know that I have been proclaiming this all along because I percieved that SOMEONE ELSE made this claim, and was refuting it.


While there still may be reservoirs of a disease in nature, having a sufficient number of people vaccinated, (or the right people vaccinated) can eliminate risk of that reservoir spreading into the general population. i.e. everyone is protected (but not immune) because others have been vaccinated.

edit: also, rough approximations for the spread of diseases are easily modeled mathematically. It's pretty simple to demonstrate (systems of diffential equations) that if a sufficient percentage of a population is vaccinated, all you get are a few cases here & there. But, once the threshold reaches a low enough percentage, a disease spreads quite rapidly through the population. The more easily a disease is transmitted, the higher the percentage of the population that will need to be vaccinated to keep the disease from spreading.
and again... why I say depending on herd immunity is bad IS: Anti-vaccination individuals believe that herd immunity protects their children, and USE THAT as a justification for their actions of not vaccinating.

While herd immunity is probabilistic in large population samples and works as a GENERALIZATION, It fails at population sizes on the order of N=1. it is not foolproof in individual exposures. Unvaccinated are still at risk.

So im going to sum this up one more time... THOSE WHO DEPEND ON HERD IMMUNITY INSTEAD OF VACCINATIONS, their justification is a fallacy. They still need to vaccinate their kids to have them protected.
 
Last edited:

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
0
0
Unless the herd is the 100% of the entire worldwide population, which it cant be due to financial, regional, and other logistical restraints(as I posted above), herd immunity doesnt work.

A guy from asia is not part of the North american herd.
This same asian traveler carrying the disease travels to new york, sits next to you in the subway and coughs on you, you do or do not contract the disease?
Just like most families don't have pet monkeys sharing the crib with their infant, I don't routinely rub Asian businessman on my baby's blankets.

and again... why I say depending on herd immunity is bad IS: Anti-vaccination individuals believe that herd immunity protects their children, and USE THAT as a justification for their actions of not vaccinating.

While herd immunity is probabilistic in large population samples and works as a GENERALIZATION, It fails at population sizes on the order of N=1. it is not foolproof in individual exposures. Unvaccinated are still at risk.

So im going to sum this up one more time... THOSE WHO DEPEND ON HERD IMMUNITY INSTEAD OF VACCINATIONS, their justification is a fallacy. They still need to vaccinate their kids to have them protected.
You're the only one in this thread making the argument about herd immunity being a justification for anti-vaccination. Everyone else is (correctly) applying the principle as a means to confer some probabilistic protection to populations that cannot yet be fully vaccinated such as infants, which was the entire point of the OP article.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,039
0
76
I don't know why nobody's pointed this out yet, but @sao123:

What other animals are victims or carriers of the whooping cough bacteria?

Maybe I haven't read hard enough...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,487
4,160
126
Just like most families don't have pet monkeys sharing the crib with their infant, I don't routinely rub Asian businessman on my baby's blankets.



You're the only one in this thread making the argument about herd immunity being a justification for anti-vaccination. Everyone else is (correctly) applying the principle as a means to confer some probabilistic protection to populations that cannot yet be fully vaccinated such as infants, which was the entire point of the OP article.
I think he got jealous that xjOhnx would claim the title of the thread's biggest horses ass and was sure he could out ass him.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,589
146
106
Just like most families don't have pet monkeys sharing the crib with their infant, I don't routinely rub Asian businessman on my baby's blankets.

You're the only one in this thread making the argument about herd immunity being a justification for anti-vaccination. Everyone else is (correctly) applying the principle as a means to confer some probabilistic protection to populations that cannot yet be fully vaccinated such as infants, which was the entire point of the OP article.
FAIL.
its because you dont understand what your opponents are saying...

Im not the one arguing that herd immunity is a justification for anti-vaccination. Im trying to explain to you how your opponents are using your own theory incorrectly against you. How do you expect to refute their opinion... if you dont know what their opinions are based on?
Do you understand this?

STOP BEING SO FUCKING DENSE...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/05/the-herd-doesnt-protect-unvaccinated-children.html

"--- one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents is that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases," they wrote.
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/The-Herd-Immunity-Theory-Treating-Our-Children-Like-Cattle

after telling the health visitor I didn’t vaccinate, she promptly exclaimed, “Oh well, she’s lucky as she has herd immunity from the vaccinated children to protect her!”


YOU: You should vaccinate your kids because herd immunity protects unvaccinated people probabilistically from exposure to disease.

THEM: GREAT, my kid is protected, I dont have to get them immunized, and risk all the side effects of vaccines.

YOU: Thats not what herd immunity is.

THEM: You just said it protects my unvaccinated kid.


All you are doing is a big fat circlejerk. Everyone knows what herd immunity is and does. but while your opponents are applying it wrongly, you all choose to stick your fingers in your ears and yell TRA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA ICANTHEARYOU.

Instead of the proper response: Too many unvaccinated people breaks herd immunity. Also even with herd immunity, you can still catch the disease. Herd immunity does not protect you.

DO YOU GET IT YET?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I think we all agree that herd immunity is no good reason to NOT vaccinate a child, that increasing rates of vaccination will lead to decreasing rates of infection, and that illegal immigrants from countries without vaccination programs increase the chances of the disease spreading. M'kay?

My sister-in-law worked for years at a Michael Dunn Center, which mostly hosts kids whose brains have been fried by vaccines. Seems to me that the damage is done not by the vaccine, but by the body's immune response, especially fever. Assuming we can learn to recognize and manage the rare serious side effects better, there's no reason we can't enjoy the benefits of vaccination with very few disasters. Until then we can only play the numbers game; the chances of your child being seriously damaged by a vaccination has to be much lower than the chances for a serious disease.
 

bradley

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2000
3,671
2
81
Nut jobs looking for more nuts...


"Blaylock has endorsed views inconsistent with the scientific consensus,"
Shocking that he is also a right wing religious nut and has been on the 700 club and other nut shows.
I rather go directly to a brain surgeon for information on vaccinations -- someone who first-hand often saw brain damage evidenced from these neuro/excitotoxins -- than your source. I almost immediately knew you were quoting from Wikipedia. :)

This vaccination information probably wasn't for you anyway, more like those who have an intrinsic understanding of Darwin's law and/or want to avoid being at the end of every Ponzi.
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Ladies; these needles don't go anywhere near your pretty little vaginas - so, stop acting like a vaccine will "ruin" you somehow.
 

Mr. Pedantic

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2010
5,039
0
76
I rather go directly to a brain surgeon for information on vaccinations -- someone who first-hand often saw brain damage evidenced from these neuro/excitotoxins -- than your source. I almost immediately knew you were quoting from Wikipedia. :)

This vaccination information probably wasn't for you anyway, more like those who have an intrinsic understanding of Darwin's law and/or want to avoid being at the end of every Ponzi.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html


Also: what is wrong with Wikipedia?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY