gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
This is a wholly incorrect, and frankly, dangerous viewpoint when referring to contagious diseases - which are the ones we are most concerned about. Widespread vaccination is the primary reason that we have such low infection rates for many fatal diseases. There are people who can't get them, and people who won't get them, that are protected almost exclusively by the people who do get them. This concept is called herd immunity, and I suggest reading up on it.
Ohdang, you're not making any sense.. At all...
"Herd immunity or herd effect, also called community immunity, describes a form of immunity[1] that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a populationprovides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.[2] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease."
This has nothing to do with the logical statement I made earlier.
Nothing.
You're obviously throwing out a strawman.
The point of my argument is that a vaccinated person isn't likely to get sick from an unvaccinated person; not that the unvaccinated are somehow protected from disease by the majority being vaccinated. That's neither implied or entailed in my argument.
The fewer carriers there are walking around, the safer everyone is.
Maybe you know something I don't, but let me try to understand you better by way of a thought experiment.
If 5 people are in a room, 3 are vaccinated against chickenpox, 2 are not, 1 is infected. How many people are endangered by the infected?
If the answer is greater than 1, then I must be missing something here. If it isn't, you don't really have a point.
We should be striving to get as close to 100% immunization as we possibly can because that's the only hope of actually eradicating these diseases.
Which is great, I agree.
You're an intelligent guy, just thinking about it logically ought to be enough to convince you of the truth of this. But if it isn't, studies on it are pretty plentiful, you don't have to take my word for it, though that would certainly be easier.
Why would I take your word for it?
I've reviewed the studies (I'm the only person in this thread to cite them) and they are not conclusive with respect to the issues being brought up (by me at least). Unless, again, we're talking about MMR and autism - which I've already addressed.