In no way was I saying that only those people would be at risk, just that those people are certainly at a muich higher risk then those that are not. (well technically, that is my assumption) but they havent shown us one way or the other, and it would only be sensible to conclude that healthy individuals who are not doing things to put themselves at higher risk for the disease, and other factors I suggested are not going to be in the same risk catagory as those who are less healthy or in less ideal living conditions.
In developing countries where Hep A is endemic, most children have had it by age 5, therefore adults are immune. For people with poor living conditions, lifelong immunity is probably a darn good thing.
I still feel that pushing this vaccine at children under the age of 5, where the risk of the disease is usually minor and not suggesting the vaccine to adults, where the risk of the disease is major, is a good example of an irrational public health policy. It makes no sense to have babies and children take a risk to protect adults. The evidence of huge danger to the little ones just isn't there.
It really is similar to forcing the chickenpox vaccine on all children because kids on steroids can die if they get chickenpox. [I'm not in favor of children on steroids dying of chickenpox.] Or any other public health policy where one group is forced to undergo treatment to protect another group.
Here's a column I wrote some time ago, that you might find helpful:
Is the theory of "herd immunity" flawed?
And here is something I "like" to say:
What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?
All the best,
Sandy Gottstein (aka Mintz)
Editor, Publisher, Columnist and President
Vaccination News, A Non-Profit Corporation
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” – Wendell Phillips (1811-1884), paraphrasing John Philpot Curran
Also FWIW, many of my non-vax friends' children have had Pertussis, making them now technically also contributors to @ least that form of 'herd immunity' for the moment.
I suspect this was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I think people would be up in arms if a poster trying to get a religious exemption in NYC was advised to just move somewhere else.
Is there some special deal about RE in NYC? There isn't much trouble upstate. I know Bloomburg was trying to mandate the Flu . . . However if you think about it, NYC is not the best place to be for disase transmission. Some of the living conditions there are truly substandard & the pollution & social contact in small spaces are both off the hook!
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.
I absolutely love this post. It's exactly how I would like to respond.