Another question...

[swissmom]

Here I am again with another question.... Yesterday I had a discussion with an M.D. (you may have realized that I like to debate with the "experts") His point is that non-vaxers put vaxers at risk due to the following fact: viruses can only mutate in a host. When there a many non-vaxers, viruses have many hosts to mutate. Thus, after some time, the mutations outnumber the "old" viruses in the vaccines. So the vaccinated people are no longer protected by their vaccines.

Now, I've never heard THAT argument. Is there truth to it? Is this a version of the herd-immunity thesis? Of course I mentioned that vaccines themselves cause serotype replacement, but since I've heard this claim for the first time, I wasn't quite that adamant I wished I was... Any thoughts?

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by swissmom

His point is that non-vaxers put vaxers at risk due to the following fact: viruses can only mutate in a host. When there a many non-vaxers, viruses have many hosts to mutate. Thus, after some time, the mutations outnumber the "old" viruses in the vaccines. So the vaccinated people are no longer protected by their vaccines.

The none vaccinated can be a host to the virus without it mutating.

The vaccinated have the antibodies where it becomes necessary for the virus to mutate to survive.

Viruses want to live. They will survive and be here long after we are gone.

IMO the doctor was not thinking for himself.