I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement - Page 2

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

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 have only started to look into herd immunity, but it is not that straight forward.

One of the cornerstones in herd immunity is* life long* immunity. Each disease has a different threashhold for the WHOLE population from newborn to elderly. Waning immunity is creating a drop in the % of immune people in the population. The social contract is equally applicable for adults as it is for children and babies, if you want herd immunity.

Not all vaccines can contribute to herd immunity as they do not prevent transmission, but rather are supposed to make the illness less severe in the vaccinated person.

Herd Immunity theory doesn't work IMO when discussing vaccination. I understand epidimic theory as going with the approach of preventing disease from ever happeing, and not looking at what the conditions are that result in disease becoming dangerous. I am not seeing disease prevention as the risk free way forward. I am more confident trying to understand how to best ensure that my family is able to manage disease without serious complications. Factors like individual health status and sanitation were not factored in from what I have understood. Contracting the disease is not a death sentence or even a hospital sentence. While it is a burden on the health system, with good nutrition and sanitation and optimal living conditions these diseases do not need to be scary unless you are immune compromised. Also that people were arrogant enough to think they could make diseases extinct through vaccination will probably become laughable down the line.

The question does have to be asked if Herd Immunity from vaccination doesn't work, why we are not seeing huge increases in adults being ill with VPD.

[Dera]

Originally Posted by plunky

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.

Baloney. I would never suggest that boosters be required, I don't believe a single vaccine should be required at all. And implying that families that don't vaccinate are benefiting from herd immunity is not only false, but an insult. The herd is not immune. And what exactly do you mean by cost? That we aren't risking vaccination for the benefit of the herd? Well if that's what you mean then you're right. I will not risk vaccination for the "good of the herd". I don't believe vaccination is good, or even works, for the individual or the herd.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

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.

I am interested (seriously) to know what your representation of herd immunity is. I think I have to agree that one of the expectations of providing herd immunity through vaccination would be a reduction in death and illness. I am not sure that vaccination is the only way to herd immunity.

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.

With waning immunity being a factor in herd immunity, I do not understand why boosters are not mandatory. I am not supporting boosters. But I am curious as to why they are not mandatory from a herd immunity perspective. Why is society choosing to attempt herd immunity when such a large portion of the population (adults - not people who choose not to vaccinate their children) is very likely not fully immune?
I also do not understand why boosters become an irrelevant part of the discussion just because they are not required. To create herd immunity, not only is my child required to be immune, so are adults. Back to immunity for the whole population being recquired for herd immunity to work.
The whole taking a free ride thing is problematic for me. Adults who are not immune after relying on childhood immunization are taking a free ride hoping that all children are vaccinated. I personally feel a whole lot better knowing I had measles as a child. I am not worried that I could get it as an adult (at least I haven't found anything to make me think I should be worried). I am worried about DH getting measles as an adult. He was vaccinated as a child.
If you could explain more precisely to me how I am taking a free ride I would appreciate it. I have never really understood the reasoning, and it is pretty accusatory to tell parents who do not vaccinate that they are ruining herd immunity.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by Dera

Baloney. I would never suggest that boosters be required, I don't believe a single vaccine should be required at all. And implying that families that don't vaccinate are benefiting from herd immunity is not only false, but an insult. The herd is not immune. And what exactly do you mean by cost? That we aren't risking vaccination for the benefit of the herd? Well if that's what you mean then you're right. I will not risk vaccination for the "good of the herd". I don't believe vaccination is good, or even works, for the individual or the herd.

Come on now. You directly suggested that people who think herd immunity is important should also have to get booster shots.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by plunky

Come on now. You directly suggested that people who think herd immunity is important should also have to get booster shots.

I would think that if they thought it was important they would want to get boosters

[plunky]

Originally Posted by Marnica

I would think that if they thought it was important they would want to get boosters

Sure, it's a possibility. But not a valid argument that would fit the "quick comeback" that the OP asked for.

[Dera]

Originally Posted by plunky

Come on now. You directly suggested that people who think herd immunity is important should also have to get booster shots.

No. I was implying that the same people that use the herd immunity argument aren't "up to date" on boosters on today's schedule. Making their argument worthless because the herd isn't immune. And like Marnica said, wouldn't they want to get their boosters?

[Dera]

Originally Posted by plunky

Sure, it's a possibility. But not a valid argument that would fit the "quick comeback" that the OP asked for.

I think it is MORE than valid.

Vaccination doesn not equal herd immunity because the herd is not immune. Again. Simple.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by Dera

No. I was implying that the same people that use the herd immunity argument aren't "up to date" on boosters on today's schedule. Making their argument worthless because the herd isn't immune. And like Marnica said, wouldn't they want to get their boosters?

You are taking me more literally than I meant. Perhaps understandable because of the whole "government wants you to vax" theme here. What I meant to say was this:

Come on now. You directly suggested that people who think herd immunity is important should also have to get booster shots in order to be logically consistent

You are wrong to think it is logically inconsistent to not take boosters, but think there is value to herd immunity or to think that it is part of the social contract to vaccinate. I gave possible reasons earlier, not going into it again.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

You are wrong to think it is logically inconsistent to not take boosters, but think there is value to herd immunity or to think that it is part of the social contract to vaccinate. I gave possible reasons earlier, not going into it again.

I am jumping in here again. I would like you to go into it a bit more. Please look at my earlier post

[plunky]

With waning immunity being a factor in herd immunity, I do not understand why boosters are not mandatory. I am not supporting boosters. But I am curious as to why they are not mandatory from a herd immunity perspective. Why is society choosing to attempt herd immunity when such a large portion of the population (adults - not people who choose not to vaccinate their children) is very likely not fully immune?

This is an interesting question for another day.

I also do not understand why boosters become an irrelevant part of the discussion just because they are not required. To create herd immunity, not only is my child required to be immune, so are adults. Back to immunity for the whole population being recquired for herd immunity to work.

This is more of a personal pet peeve with me. The snarky "well why aren't you up to date, then?" question that Dera suggested as a good comeback is problematic for me. In the imaginary argument that the OP presents to us, the OP is a vax-skeptic or no-vaxer faced with a presumably vaxed person who has vaxed their children. For the no-vaxer to question the commitment of the vaxed is presumptuous in the extreme. Any educated person knows that there is a risk to vaxing. Those of us who choose to vax have decided that the cost of not vaxing is greater than the cost of vaxing. But there is no one super reason that can bring a reasonable person to this stance. It could be any of a variety of things that tips the scale one way or the other.

I think Dera is right that the OP would probably hear crickets as their response, but not because of the overwhelming logic of the snarky comment.

The whole taking a free ride thing is problematic for me. Adults who are not immune after relying on childhood immunization are taking a free ride hoping that all children are vaccinated. I personally feel a whole lot better knowing I had measles as a child. I am not worried that I could get it as an adult (at least I haven't found anything to make me think I should be worried). I am worried about DH getting measles as an adult. He was vaccinated as a child.

The social contract is really important to me. It is part of being a liberal. I pay taxes for the good of society. I vote for the good of society, etc. It is true that adults who do not have immunization through boosters or naturally are "taking a free ride". But in my mind, they are fulfilling the social contract still. For whatever reason, the US doesn't really push boosters for adults. Why they choose not to is up for debate. But just like I don't pay extra taxes or run for office myself, I don't find myself worrying all that much about boosters.

If you could explain more precisely to me how I am taking a free ride I would appreciate it. I have never really understood the reasoning, and it is pretty accusatory to tell parents who do not vaccinate that they are ruining herd immunity.

The logic behind this sort of argument is that unvaxed people are additional vectors for disease in a population that will never be perfectly protected. There are people who cannot be vaxed due to their circumstances, or their allergies, or their religious beliefs. Those people need to be protected by the rest of the population being immune. One of the reasons that anti-vax people get so much flack is that in this society you are privileged by being herd-protected, even if you don't vax. It's so unusual for people to not vax, that herd immunity is mostly intact regardless. Kinda like the guys in my dad's teacher's union who refused to pay dues, but were still protected by the union.

Of course, if you think herd immunity is bunk, then it doesn't matter.

[runes]

Originally Posted by plunky

The social contract is really important to me. It is part of being a liberal. I pay taxes for the good of society. I vote for the good of society, etc. It is true that adults who do not have immunization through boosters or naturally are "taking a free ride". But in my mind, they are fulfilling the social contract still. For whatever reason, the US doesn't really push boosters for adults. Why they choose not to is up for debate. But just like I don't pay extra taxes or run for office myself, I don't find myself worrying all that much about boosters.

It's a bit off-putting to talk of this "social contract" that you speak of, as if it is a concrete entity, or explicitly understood and upheld by all. It is not. When we become parents, we don't sign on the dotted line to agree to vaccinate (or any number of parenting choices like nutrition, discipline etc.) as mandated as a stipulation. It would be a scary society if we did.

My socio-political viewpoints are liberal as well, and I interpret the "good of society" to be served by keeping my child as healthy as possibly in the way that I deem appropriate. For me personally, after much deliberation and ongoing research, that meant not vaccinating. I'm still fulfilling the social contract by optimizing the health of my family. Our family's function in society is not to uphold "herd immunity" by being vaccinated. It is to be conscientious, conscious, mindful citizens that contribute to the overall health of society by being healthy (among other things, of course).

I truly resent the implication that by making the choices not to vaccinate according to the CDC schedule, that non/selective/delayed vaccinators are somehow a menace to society. As a liberal, I would never want to take away your right and ability to vaccinate your children if you came to the conclusion that this was what was best for your family. Why isn't the same respect and accord extended to those who might decide differently for their families?

I also do think that it's relevant to point out that there are adults who are not fully vaccinated according to the present CDC schedule. If "herd immunity" is so important to you that you feel like it is your absolute civic duty to contribute to it, the least that you could do is to get your titres drawn every year and vaccinated for those things that you are not immune to, to make sure that you are holding up your end of the "bargain".

[runes]

Originally Posted by plunky

The logic behind this sort of argument is that unvaxed people are additional vectors for disease in a population that will never be perfectly protected. There are people who cannot be vaxed due to their circumstances, or their allergies, or their religious beliefs. Those people need to be protected by the rest of the population being immune. One of the reasons that anti-vax people get so much flack is that in this society you are privileged by being herd-protected, even if you don't vax. It's so unusual for people to not vax, that herd immunity is mostly intact regardless. Kinda like the guys in my dad's teacher's union who refused to pay dues, but were still protected by the union.

Of course, if you think herd immunity is bunk, then it doesn't matter.

Unvaccinated does not equal not immune.

It's BS to say that the unvaccinated are "privileged" to enjoy the benefits of herd immunity. I do no such thing, and I have not heard of other non/selective/delaying parents say that they feel comfortable not vaxing BECAUSE other are vaccinating. That doesn't figure into the risk-benefit equation for me at all, and the issue is much more complicated than the way that you've outlined it. Shifting epidemiology, anyone?

[Super Glue Mommy]

I think you ladies explained it very clearly and sensibly, but some people obviously just don't get it. it's common sense, but remember, bit everyone has common sense

[Super Glue Mommy]

I dont think vaccines work - so how would I think my children are benefiting from herd immunity when I dont think the herd is immune?

and as pointed out - why would the same not be said about adults who choose not to get boosters.

but why do I waste my breath lol

[Proverbs31]

Originally Posted by plunky

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.

Uh no. We're questioning the ethics of requiring children to be vaccinated to protect adults when adults are capable of protecting themselves. Its easy and convenient to enforce childhood vaccinations because children don't have the right to decine and most parents are too uninformed to know that they can decline.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

With waning immunity being a factor in herd immunity, I do not understand why boosters are not mandatory. I am not supporting boosters. But I am curious as to why they are not mandatory from a herd immunity perspective. Why is society choosing to attempt herd immunity when such a large portion of the population (adults - not people who choose not to vaccinate their children) is very likely not fully immune?

This is an interesting question for another day.

I think this is a very central question. If you have the time, I would love to hear your opinion.

I also do not understand why boosters become an irrelevant part of the discussion just because they are not required. To create herd immunity, not only is my child required to be immune, so are adults. Back to immunity for the whole population being recquired for herd immunity to work.

This is more of a personal pet peeve with me. The snarky "well why aren't you up to date, then?" question that Dera suggested as a good comeback is problematic for me. In the imaginary argument that the OP presents to us, the OP is a vax-skeptic or no-vaxer faced with a presumably vaxed person who has vaxed their children. For the no-vaxer to question the commitment of the vaxed is presumptuous in the extreme. Any educated person knows that there is a risk to vaxing. Those of us who choose to vax have decided that the cost of not vaxing is greater than the cost of vaxing. But there is no one super reason that can bring a reasonable person to this stance. It could be any of a variety of things that tips the scale one way or the other.

I think Dera is right that the OP would probably hear crickets as their response, but not because of the overwhelming logic of the snarky comment.

You see, I think for a person who does vaccinate to question my social responsibility is presumptios in the extreme. I agree that it is a highly personal decision that families make, hopefully with as much information as possible.

If you could explain more precisely to me how I am taking a free ride I would appreciate it. I have never really understood the reasoning, and it is pretty accusatory to tell parents who do not vaccinate that they are ruining herd immunity.

The social contract is really important to me. It is part of being a liberal. I pay taxes for the good of society. I vote for the good of society, etc. It is true that adults who do not have immunization through boosters or naturally are "taking a free ride". But in my mind, they are fulfilling the social contract still. For whatever reason, the US doesn't really push boosters for adults. Why they choose not to is up for debate. But just like I don't pay extra taxes or run for office myself, I don't find myself worrying all that much about boosters.

When the aurgument of herd immunity is used to promote infant and child vaccination, I think it is an essential question to ask why adults are not held to the same standard. Only because herd immunity is irrelevant when the whole herd is not immune. I think the reason why adult boosters are not pushed would be facinating to explore - and at the risk of repeating myself, only from a herd immunity perspective.

If you could explain more precisely to me how I am taking a free ride I would appreciate it. I have never really understood the reasoning, and it is pretty accusatory to tell parents who do not vaccinate that they are ruining herd immunity.

The logic behind this sort of argument is that unvaxed people are additional vectors for disease in a population that will never be perfectly protected. There are people who cannot be vaxed due to their circumstances, or their allergies, or their religious beliefs. Those people need to be protected by the rest of the population being immune. One of the reasons that anti-vax people get so much flack is that in this society you are privileged by being herd-protected, even if you don't vax. It's so unusual for people to not vax, that herd immunity is mostly intact regardless. Kinda like the guys in my dad's teacher's union who refused to pay dues, but were still protected by the union.

Of course, if you think herd immunity is bunk, then it doesn't matter.

I think you have to believe that diseases that you can vaccinate for are very scary and lead to death and disability in a high percentage of people that contract them when pushing for infant and child vaccination. This was not my conclusion. It still does not explain why the onus is on infants and children to bear the responsibility of mass vaccination. Adults with waning imunity are also vectors. I think there is an assumption that vaccinated equals immune *for life*, and that just is not true. The only way someone can argue that infant and child vaccination contributes to herd immunity is to believe that this immunity is life long. I think doctors believed this in the 60's and 70's. I honestly do not know what they believe today. (of course different doctors believe different things, although there is a surprising amount of consensus on this topic)

This, from kidspiration:

Unvaccinated does not equal not immune.

It's BS to say that the unvaccinated are "privileged" to enjoy the benefits of herd immunity. I do no such thing, and I have not heard of other non/selective/delaying parents say that they feel comfortable not vaxing BECAUSE other are vaccinating. That doesn't figure into the risk-benefit equation for me at all, and the issue is much more complicated than the way that you've outlined it. Shifting epidemiology, anyone?

I hope we can continue the discussion. I would be interested to hear which vaccinations are important from a public health persepctive in your opinion.
I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on shifting epidemiology.

[buttercupmama]

According to the US Census Bureau, as of July 1st, 2007, the estimated total population was 301,621,000 people. Estimated total of people 18 years and older was 227,719,000. That leaves 73,902,000 'children.' So children made up 24.5% of the population as estimated in mid 2007. The only question now is how many adults are (un)vaccinated? As far as I know, only people working in the medical field are required to have them. Most other adults don't even consider them. Wasn't herd immunity supposed to work when 95% of the population was vaccinated on schedule? You won't find enough vaccinated adults to add up to 75% of the entire population even if all kids are vaccinated, far less 95%. Herd immunity as the medical community views it probably hasn't been in play for a very long time. That makes it a moot point IMO.

[PaigeC]

Where is this social contract? Is my copy in the mail?

I am also a liberal (is non-vaxing considered conservative?). Equating non-vaxers to people who do not pay taxes is insulting. Not paying taxes is illegal. Vaccination are not legally required and it is not illegal not to vaccinate.

Let's think for a minute: If I believe that 1) vaccines don't work; 2) that herd immunity is a fallacy; and 3) that acquiring natural immunization with vaccine available diseases are better for me, human kind, and society as a whole than the negative consequences of said vaccines...then it would be socially irresponsible of me to perpetuate this tragic practice. This is a world my children and children's children have to live in. I'm not going to partake in something that is damaging to my society and my planet. My decision is not limited to myself or my child - I believe it is best for the the whole world.

If you don't agree with 1, 2,and 3 above then your view of social responsibility will be different. Why does your view have to be forced onto me? Why do I have to be accused of being socially irresponsible for making a sincerely held and conscientious decision?

I am not getting a "free ride" I lament that others are subjecting their child to this "ride" that is a horrible social/medical experiment that time will show to be a disaster (IMO). It adds insult to injury that I'm doing this selfishly.

[Super Glue Mommy]

i agree. and also, if vaccines work, then why do people who vaccinate care?