Antivax types are all anti pushing vaccine on to people but if they don’t want to get vaccinated then it still won’t affect vaccinated folks. From my rough understanding, getting vaccinated keeps you alive or get less severe symptoms, but you can still pass it on.
So if antivax people don’t get it, then why not just let them die?
Edit: guys, I’m not antivax, I just don’t understand how herd immunity works.
You must log in or # to comment.
if they don’t want to get vaccinated then it still won’t affect vaccinated folks.
This is actually not true, since enough people being unvaccinated can prevent herd immunity from protecting everyone.
Herd immunity is an indirect protection from an infectious disease that occurs when enough of a population has immunity (either from vaccination or prior infection). When enough people are immune, infections are unable to spread and outbreaks naturally end. This protects people within the population who don’t have immunity (unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, vaccinated but didn’t get complete immunity, too young for the vaccine, immunocompromised, etc). It also protects those with some immunity who might still have a less severe infection.
The vaccination rate required for herd immunity depends on how infectious a particular disease is. Measles is particularly infectious, and a 95% vaccination rate is considered necessary for herd immunity. Many parts of the US have rates lower than that, which is why measles outbreaks are becoming common after the disease had basically been eradicated for decades.
Thanks for indulging my ignorance. However, wouldn’t a 100% fully vaccinated and immunized community still be able to spread?
Say the flu shot, I’d like to say we have high rates of vaccinated people for that, however, if we walk in to a community that doesn’t, won’t it spread to them and kill them?
Edit: I read this article explaining more about the herd immunity you mentioned and it feels a bit missing to me
For example, if this person gets a case of the flu for example, they might still sneeze and cough, which someone will breath in if they’re not wearing protective face coverings, and they will transmit it to more people until it hits a vulnerable person. These people have mild flu symptoms because they’re vaccinated, but it still gets an immunocompromised person in the crossfire.
In the bbc article, it’s as if it stops people from spreading the disease
It does depend on the disease and the vaccine.
Usually, yes, vaccinated people can still carry and transmit the disease. However, they’re much more likely to have less severe or even no symptoms, and for many diseases they’re also much less likely to transmit than an unvaccinated person.
The real answer to your question is: the more people that are vaccinated, the safer everyone is. It is the height of self-centered self-importance for anti-vaxers to consider their right to avoid minor side effects as more important than the health and safety - potentially even the life - of the immunocompromised people in their community.
I think herd immunity might work in a way by shortening the time each infected person has with infection and reducing the amount if variants, however, we need to combine this with quarantining and protective equipment to make it the most effective
If Ebola ever gained the infectious profile of Covid, and we had a functioning vaccine, yes it should be mandatory. And anyone that didn’t like it could go live in Antarctica.
This ^.
COVID kinda perfectly straddled the line of extremely infections, moderately malicious, but not so dramatic (like Ebola) to provoke panic. And its vaccine just happens to make people feel kinda ill and feature a conspiracy fuel (“mRNA”).
It was a perfect storm for anti vax sentiment.
I like to think antivaxx folks would turn into pariahs in the face of the much more dramatic symptoms of, say, smallpox.
Woah woah woah as someone who is very deeply invested in the history of, the long term well being of, and would also kill to live in Antarctica let’s not be too hasty and send them there. Might I suggest Siberia or perhaps a desert island? Hell, even the sun would be a great option
That’s not fair to all the brilliant researchers in Antarctica
I think mandatory vaccines won’t work. Especially in the US.
…But organizations should be allowed to discriminate against antivaxxers.
For example, want to fly? The airlines should be allowed (if not mandated) to screen for vaccines in a pandemic, and aggressively kick violators off.
Restaurants want proof, to protect their staff and avoid infecting customers? Great. Give them the legal right to discriminate. Perhaps grocery stores should segment certain hours for antivaxxers.
Look, people do things for all sorts of reasons and that’s fine. But anti vaxxers can either have their cake, or eat it. They aren’t some special protected class that gets to put others at risk. They don’t get to dictate other people’s lives if they don’t want to be dictated to.
And all this would be just fine with the immunocompromised and their caregivers, I think.
Because they break herd immunity. Just because someone is dumb enough to be antivax doesn’t mean they deserve to die.
Yes.
Not mandating them will also harm the people affected by the antivax types. Think for example antivax parents who would rather let their kids die than vaccinate. It’ll also harm the immunocompressed, who due to lack of herd immunity, will have a high chance of suffering due to these antivaxxers.
I’d also add that there be a yearly checkup of whether the kids at school/daycares/home education are vaccinated or not. The one to do the checkup is prohibited from being a member of an antivaxx movement, and must be medically qualified.
And the following consequences for not vaccinating:
-
500 hours community time for not vaccinating.
-
500 hours community service on top of that if spreading antivax ideology or supporting antivax groups, whether fiscally or nonfiscally. They also will be required to follow a course on how vaccination actually works, and take an exam for that.
1,000 hours community time would amount to 25 workweeks (8 hr, 5 days a week).
-
On top of that, a hefty fine of 5% of yearly net disposable income (stocks and non-material wealth included). Kid will be vaccinated also.
-
If the parents/caretakers lied about the kid being vaccinated, kept the person absent for the checkup, or didn’t register the kid (so services knows there’s a kid that needs to be vaccinated), they will be called to court for abuse. If they still register and vaccinate the kid after that note, the consequences are 1/3rd less. This all also applies for if the people themselves are not vaccinated; they’ll be called to court for endangering other peoples’ safety.
They are killing people. I say that that deserves a vaccine mandate with enforced consequences.
-
Figure out what percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated to keep the transmission rate below 1. See how many people are willing to vaccinate voluntarily, or accept quarantine as an alternative; if that’s not enough, then start mandatory vaccinations beginning with those most at risk.
Throwing statistics at reality rarely goes well. There’s a reason that every building, bridge, airplane, etc. has a “factor of safety”.
Sure, if you have complete control of the process. But when you’re dealing with the public, erring too far on the side of apparent safety can spark a backlash that has the opposite effect.
deleted by creator
Not all vaccinations are effective or can be given to everyone. I should get to know when someone chooses to put my life at risk. This was never a problem until a bunch of proudly ignorant fascists decided to make it a political identity.
Yes. All the time.
The side effects are a triggered immune response, which is desirable. The time to get them is negligible.
Vaccines do reduce transmission in every case, if you have less severe symptoms you will spread less pathogens. Less people need hospitalization, so there’s less contact to spread the pathogen.