Quote:
| Empirical observations confirm epidemic theory, showing that the probability of a diphtheria epidemic is reduced to near the vanishing point when 50 to 60 percent of the population have been rendered resistant either by previous infection or immunization. When a population has a level of lifelong immunity to a certain disease such that an epidemic of that disease cannot occur, the population is said to have herd immunity. |
Bolding and emphasis mine
This is rather interesting for me. If it is one of the cornerstones to herd immunity that there is lifelong immunity, how can vaccinations be attributed for the lack of infectious disease? Or is it not common knowledge that vaccination does not confer lifelong immunity?
I also found it interesting that when looking at agent, environment and host, they are looking only at infection with the disease, not how the host responds to the disease. This is where I would think it would be important to assess the overall health of the host to establish the outcome of the disease....
I am still trying to get my head around all of this. Just the fact alone that lifelong immunity is required makes me
at the whole herd immunity concept as this argument is only made with such vigor for babies - that adults are causing a huge drop in herd immunity (and themselves more at risk if they become ill with a childhood disease) seems to escape doctors attention.... ie parents are abusing herd immunity by not vaccinating their child.
:I am sure this has been covered extensively here on MDC... I would be interested to read more about it









but I personally don't see how it can make any difference. I know we've been conditioned to believe that when a child is vaccinated that child no longer carries that virus or bacteria. Fact is that the child may or may not be immune to that virus or bacteria but whether that child actually does not carry it is another matter. That pertains to all viruses and bacteria.