I need quick comebacks for the "herd immunity" arguement - Page 3

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

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.

I pretty much agree with all you wrote and love the eloquence. I have to say that some vaccines work better than others (ie actually prevent infection and transmission of a disease), and I do not think herd immunity is a fallacy. I think assuming you can create herd immunity with vaccines is a fallacy. I think assuming you can make virus and bacteria extinct without any repercussions is a fallacy.

But I definitly share your view that it is a tragic practice and one that requires some serious rethinking. For individuals and society.

ETA: I too believe it is a huge experiment with the potential to go horribly horribly wrong. People in positions of power just do not know what they are doing. I don't think they are necessarily evil people, just arrogant. A bit like the people who helped create the financial mess the world is in.

[Super Glue Mommy]

imagine if we were given the chance to gain natural immunity to all these things growing up, how much better would that be for our children then vaccines!

[carriebft]

Herd immunity is only a function of certain vaccines, not all of them. The common mistake people make is that they feel like all vaccines have the ability to achieve/benefit from herd immunity and it is just not true.

For some vaccines, herd immunity is a possibility and it has shown to be effective (measles)

For some vaccines, herd immunity is a possibility and it has shown to be effective but much less so (chicken pox, P portion of pertussis- which many would say is totally uneffective)

For some vaccines, herd immunity is not a possibility (IPV- hence we would switch back over to OPV in event of a huge problem)

[Super Glue Mommy]

measles is the biggest example of a vaccine that DOESNT offer herd immunity. I hope that was a typo on your part!

[carriebft]

it is not. And I do not buy the "we all have subclinical measles instead" as reasoning. It is usually what people say to attempt to counter the idea that measles cases are near zero and all due to importation.

Plus, even if we did all have subclinical infections from the vaccine, we would still have less transmission of the disease to the unvaccinated/at risk population, as is the nature of such infections.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sorry if you (and others) feel insulted. That's not my intention. I'm pretty surprised I'm not banned this morning, and mostly pleasantly surprised that discussion seems to have continued from a respectful standpoint.

I really don't think the social contract is all that hard to see, though. Things that require you get special dispensation from the government to deviate from the norm would be parts of the social contract. If you want to completely divorce yourself from society and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere (or home school), doesn't matter to me if you choose not to vax. But if you want your kid in public school, then you need to get an exemption, etc etc. Then, yeah, you're skirting the social contract by not vaxing unless there is an allergy or whatever. It puts other people at risk, especially if large numbers started to do what you do.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

I'm sorry if you (and others) feel insulted. That's not my intention. I'm pretty surprised I'm not banned this morning, and mostly pleasantly surprised that discussion seems to have continued from a respectful standpoint.

I really don't think the social contract is all that hard to see, though. Things that require you get special dispensation from the government to deviate from the norm would be parts of the social contract. If you want to completely divorce yourself from society and live in a cabin in the woods somewhere (or home school), doesn't matter to me if you choose not to vax. But if you want your kid in public school, then you need to get an exemption, etc etc. Then, yeah, you're skirting the social contract by not vaxing unless there is an allergy or whatever. It puts other people at risk, especially if large numbers started to do what you do.

This is the bit I am still not getting. : Can we try again?
And go into which vaccines are necessary for herd immunity in your opinion.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This is the bit I am still not getting. : Can we try again?
And go into which vaccines are necessary for herd immunity in your opinion.

There are people who legitimately cannot vax. I've been avoiding using that word, because I know I'll get jumped on. But I've said this a few times, so I guess I have to be more clear. By legitimate, I mean that they are not able to get vaxed, or are allergic, or have a sincere religious belief that is more than just "I think my kid could remotely be harmed by this, so no". Those people need to be protected by other immune people (whether that immunity is natural or by vax). Non vaxed people who do not have legitimate reasons are additional vectors for disease to these people who _should_ be protected.

I don't have time to look stuff up at the moment, sorry, so no specific examples.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

measles is the biggest example of a vaccine that DOESNT offer herd immunity. I hope that was a typo on your part!

Please explain this to me.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

There are people who legitimately cannot vax. I've been avoiding using that word, because I know I'll get jumped on. But I've said this a few times, so I guess I have to be more clear. By legitimate, I mean that they are not able to get vaxed, or are allergic, or have a sincere religious belief that is more than just "I think my kid could remotely be harmed by this, so no". Those people need to be protected by other immune people (whether that immunity is natural or by vax). Non vaxed people who do not have legitimate reasons are additional vectors for disease to these people who _should_ be protected.

I don't have time to look stuff up at the moment, sorry, so no specific examples.

I'm thinking we are neither of us going to get anywhere in this discussion. If you will not accept that adults with waning immunity are also potential vectors, then we have nothing more to discuss. I just do not know how you can pull the herd immunity card when by definition it does not exist with vaccine induced immunity, ie waning immunity. I am not talking about people who have 'legitimate' reasons to not be vaccinated. This is one mother who will not be guilt tripped into vaccinating her child for the good of the 'herd'. It's just not true.

If you ever have the time to look into which vaccines contribute to herd immunity, I would love to hear your opinion.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

If you will not accept that adults with waning immunity are also potential vectors, then we have nothing more to discuss. I just do not know how you can pull the herd immunity card when by definition it does not exist with vaccine induced immunity, ie waning immunity.

I never said this. I'm aware that adults with waning immunity are potential vectors. They're just socially accepted potential vectors, and I'm OK with that.

[carriebft]

I think also there are the points that not all immunity is waning from vaccines and not all adults skip boosters.

[runes]

Originally Posted by plunky

I never said this. I'm aware that adults with waning immunity are potential vectors. They're just socially accepted potential vectors, and I'm OK with that.

It sounds like you are also OK with taking the right/ability away from parents to make fully informed choices for their families to not vaccinate, or choose an alternate schedule of vaccination, because it is not socially acceptable to not vaccinate children?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's nothing "liberal" about that.

I would also like some commentary on shifting epidemiology. Isn't it telling that this very important concept (certainly as important as "herd immunity") is always swept under the rug.

[claddaghmom]

I guess I forget how the rest of America thinks sometimes lol. I'm too sheltered in my community online and IRL.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

It sounds like you are also OK with taking the right/ability away from parents to make fully informed choices for their families to not vaccinate, or choose an alternate schedule of vaccination, because it is not socially acceptable to not vaccinate children?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's nothing "liberal" about that.

I would also like some commentary on shifting epidemiology. Isn't it telling that this very important concept (certainly as important as "herd immunity") is always swept under the rug.

No, I'm not advocating taking any of your rights away.

[carriebft]

I am reading this as plunky having a certain opinion on vaccination/social contract but also the realization that that opinion isn't going to be the be all and end all. She would prefer certain actions, but she is not saying you HAVE to do x, y, or z or that she would be willing to take away rights to gain anything. It's the difference between saying "I would rather everyone vaccinate that could, but I am not willing to take away your rights to get there" and "You should vaccinate and all exemptions should be illegal"


that is how I am reading it.

[polishprinsezz]

Originally Posted by plunky

There are people who legitimately cannot vax. I've been avoiding using that word, because I know I'll get jumped on. But I've said this a few times, so I guess I have to be more clear. By legitimate, I mean that they are not able to get vaxed, or are allergic, or have a sincere religious belief that is more than just "I think my kid could remotely be harmed by this, so no". Those people need to be protected by other immune people (whether that immunity is natural or by vax). Non vaxed people who do not have legitimate reasons are additional vectors for disease to these people who _should_ be protected.

I don't have time to look stuff up at the moment, sorry, so no specific examples.

its comments like this that get me fired up. it makes me even more secure in my CHOICE not to vaccinate. i depend on my childrens healthy immune system to do what it was intended to do. i do not rely others to vaccinate to keep my children healthy. after reading these posts i realize that heard immunity is not a reality. i cannot say that i know of many adults who are up to date with todays vax schedule. i do not believe the herd immunity proaganda. i also believe that many pro-vaxers are uniformed drones doing what they think are required by them. they choose not to question if this is a healthy choice. maybe they dont realize that vaccinations is pushed on them so that pharmaceutical companies can make money off of their fears. its totally your choice if you want to vaccinate just as it is mine not to. i dont want anyone to take that right away from me.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by plunky

If you will not accept that adults with waning immunity are also potential vectors, then we have nothing more to discuss. I just do not know how you can pull the herd immunity card when by definition it does not exist with vaccine induced immunity, ie waning immunity.

I never said this. I'm aware that adults with waning immunity are potential vectors. They're just socially accepted potential vectors, and I'm OK with that.

Well that *does* clear some things up. If you think the adult population are socially accpetable vectors that is your opinion. Whether it is socially acceptable or not, if the threshold goes under 85-95% (depending on the disease) of the *whole* population it doesn't really matter whether it is for socially acceptable reasons or not. The reason why individuals in the herd are not immune doesn't really matter. That they are or are not immune is the issue.

Originally Posted by kidspiration

It sounds like you are also OK with taking the right/ability away from parents to make fully informed choices for their families to not vaccinate, or choose an alternate schedule of vaccination, because it is not socially acceptable to not vaccinate children?

I'm getting that this is a common opinion in certain circles. Here in Israel there are ministers that are petitioning for vaccination to be a legal requirement. :

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's nothing "liberal" about that.

: It's surely the embodiment of removal of the right to informed choice. Which is horribly pesky when people do not do what you want them to do. :

I would also like some commentary on shifting epidemiology. Isn't it telling that this very important concept (certainly as important as "herd immunity") is always swept under the rug.

Yes, shifting epidemiology is a tough one. I'm pretty sure no one wants to talk about that.

[plunky]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I am reading this as plunky having a certain opinion on vaccination/social contract but also the realization that that opinion isn't going to be the be all and end all. She would prefer certain actions, but she is not saying you HAVE to do x, y, or z or that she would be willing to take away rights to gain anything. It's the difference between saying "I would rather everyone vaccinate that could, but I am not willing to take away your rights to get there" and "You should vaccinate and all exemptions should be illegal"


that is how I am reading it.

Pretty much, although we could argue about what things are rights and which are not. I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate. Bodily autonomy is important. But I do think that not vaccinating is a form of civil disobedience (outside of the legitimate reasons to avoid as above). People shouldn't be surprised that there are consequences to being civilly disobedient, like having a hard time going to public school, etc. Just like if I hadn't registered for the draft, I wouldn't have been able to get federal aid to go to college. If you want to divorce yourself from society, you shouldn't be surprised when society returns the favor.

[carriebft]

Ok, I can understand that opinion. That is an interesting take.