sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,648
- 201
- 106
Ten to one sao23 is an engineer. He has all of the pinheadedness required to be one, an narrow focus on a single tree and no notice at all of the forest.
indeed.
Ten to one sao23 is an engineer. He has all of the pinheadedness required to be one, an narrow focus on a single tree and no notice at all of the forest.
I read all higher primates.
Cant remember where there.
I would change the bolded text to "extremely unlikely to" or even "virtually guaranteed not to".It means that unimmunized people are protected because they are less likely to come into contact with a carrier.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"--- one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents is that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases," they wrote.
after telling the health visitor I didnt vaccinate, she promptly exclaimed, Oh well, shes lucky as she has herd immunity from the vaccinated children to protect her!
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.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.htmlI 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.
Congratulations to the anti-vaccination crowd!
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...
you can lead a horse to water...