or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement

post #1 of 102
Thread Starter 
Going to be debating vaccines tomorrow with someone who always brings up the herd immunity crap. I know it is BS but I can never explain why! Links? TIA.
post #2 of 102
For the Good of the Herd
post #3 of 102
I prefer the squint and "why is this any of your business?" question
post #4 of 102
"Oh, yes, let's talk about herd immunity. Which vaccine would you like to talk about it pertaining to, since some of them don't contribute to it at all. After that we can talk about serotype replacement."

That would be my response.
post #5 of 102
I always tell people who say who that they have their species mixed up; we are humans not cows.
post #6 of 102
Herd immunity implies vaccines create immunity. Doubtful:

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scand...vaccinated.htm

Outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
post #7 of 102
Found another good blog that breaks down herd immunity:

http://explorevaccines.wordpress.com...herd-immunity/
post #8 of 102
that was always my thinking too paige - its hard to explain herd immunity when the other person is ASSUMING vaccines work. I usually start with "assuming vaccines work, which is yet to be proven, ____________________"
post #9 of 102
Yes-

The concept of herd immunity was coined in the 1933 (b4 vaccines) and was intended to be applied to a population that became immune to measles through natural exposure. Now, they conveniently apply this concept to vaccines assuming that the vaxes confer the same type of protection as natural exposure (which we know it doesn't since vax induced immunity (if it even confers any immunity at all) is waning and most folks do not get boosters as adults.
post #10 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
Yes-

The concept of herd immunity was coined in the 1933 (b4 vaccines) and was intended to be applied to a population that became immune to measles through natural exposure. Now, they conveniently apply this concept to vaccines assuming that the vaxes confer the same type of protection as natural exposure (which we know it doesn't since vax induced immunity (if it even confers any immunity at all) is waning and most folks do not get boosters as adults.
Good Post!
post #11 of 102
I had assumed only pro-vaxers sought the almighty herd immunity anyway. Pox party, anyone? Although, as Marnica said, a pox party would also grant herd immunity--so to speak. Definitely no cows in here.

Childhood diseases used to be considered rites of passage by some. Suddenly, everyone just wants to be shot up so they can get on with their business. Would they rather have measles as kids or cancer as adults?
post #12 of 102
Ask if they are up to date on all of the boosters on today's schedule. Then listen for crickets.
post #13 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dera View Post
Ask if they are up to date on all of the boosters on today's schedule. Then listen for crickets.
post #14 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dera View Post
Ask if they are up to date on all of the boosters on today's schedule. Then listen for crickets.


too bad it's really NOT funny, but I do rarely get a smile from this forum, so had to share it.
post #15 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dera View Post
Ask if they are up to date on all of the boosters on today's schedule. Then listen for crickets.
Irrelevant. The social contract in today's society is for children to be vaccinated, not adults. Anti vaxers complaining that the social contract isn't quite as rigorous as it could be (via lack of boosters) is an evasion.
post #16 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by plunky View Post
Irrelevant. The social contract in today's society is for children to be vaccinated, not adults. Anti vaxers complaining that the social contract isn't quite as rigorous as it could be (via lack of boosters) is an evasion.
Wait, wouldn't it be a relevant argument? If someone is arguing all children must be vaccinated for herd immunity, then consistency would be ensuring all adults are current on their boosters, per CDC and Merck recommendations.

At least, that is the way I hear the argument. Someone is telling me I have to vaccinate my children to protect the herd. Well, that means 100% compliance for everyone in society.

Of course, then it just becomes obvious that this is a very bad argument for vaccination. Vaccines do not have 100% efficacy.
post #17 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by plunky View Post
Irrelevant. The social contract in today's society is for children to be vaccinated, not adults. Anti vaxers complaining that the social contract isn't quite as rigorous as it could be (via lack of boosters) is an evasion.
I think it's completely relevant! In fact, I think the herd argument is the pro-vax side's weakest argument because of this. Way more than half of our herd isn't "up to date" and we aren't all dropping like flies. And the diseases that the older population are supposed to be most vulnerable to, like measles or chicken pox, aren't wiping us out.

Maybe I'm reading what you're saying wrong? Am I understanding correctly?
post #18 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by plunky View Post
Irrelevant. The social contract in today's society is for children to be vaccinated, not adults. Anti vaxers complaining that the social contract isn't quite as rigorous as it could be (via lack of boosters) is an evasion.
The "herd" consists of children and adults. You can't just cherry pick a certain portion of the "herd" and apply the social contract to it in the context of herd immunity, especially given that vaccine immunity is not life-long.

It most certainly is not an evasion. It is a relevant, essential part of the argument.
post #19 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dera View Post
I think it's completely relevant! In fact, I think the herd argument is the pro-vax side's weakest argument because of this. Way more than half of our herd isn't "up to date" and we aren't all dropping like flies. And the diseases that the older population are supposed to be most vulnerable to, like measles or chicken pox, aren't wiping us out.

Maybe I'm reading what you're saying wrong? Am I understanding correctly?
Your representation of the herd immunity argument there is not what I would use. It is easy to "win" this type of argument on MDC because the argument that you are supposing to be the herd immunity one is not real. Herd immunity does not require 100%. Chicken pox never wiped anyone out. The only value of herd immunity is not to keep people from dying.

Boosters, while a good idea and supported by the medical community, are not required by law/society in the same way that child vaccinations are. Society is choosing to attempt to get herd immunity without boosters being required. Reasonable people could suggest that boosters _should_ be required, but since they are not, they are irrelevant. And it is ironic when non-vaxers suggest that boosters should be required, when they are not even paying the societal cost of child vaccination. They are benefiting from herd immunity without any of the cost.
post #20 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by plunky View Post
Your representation of the herd immunity argument there is not what I would use. It is easy to "win" this type of argument on MDC because the argument that you are supposing to be the herd immunity one is not real. Herd immunity does not require 100%. Chicken pox never wiped anyone out. The only value of herd immunity is not to keep people from dying.

Boosters, while a good idea and supported by the medical community, are not required by law/society in the same way that child vaccinations are. Society is choosing to attempt to get herd immunity without boosters being required. Reasonable people could suggest that boosters _should_ be required, but since they are not, they are irrelevant. And it is ironic when non-vaxers suggest that boosters should be required, when they are not even paying the societal cost of child vaccination. They are benefiting from herd immunity without any of the cost.
Vaccine skeptics aren't suggesting that boosters should be required. They are arguing that putting the onus on maintaining this "herd immunity" on our littlest citizens is madness.

And by what you wrote about boosters, can you answer how is it that law/society is trumping medical science? How is that helping the HEALTH of our nation, especially of our nation's children?

Thinking about preventing vaccine-available diseases via vaccination is a limited paradigm.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement