question about herd immunity

[Guest guest]

After reading the NYT article and other blogs, and reading the

unblievable rants about how dangerous unvacc'd children are to

society, I wrote this (below) on the WSJ blog (before it got

ridiculous with ND'ers). The only retort I got was, " well, nobody

said herd immunity had to be 100% " , so I ammended my statement to

95% children *and* adults who would have to have ALL the vaccines

for their precious " herd immunity " .

I don't hear this argument put forth when folks rant about herd

immunity, but I'm not sure why. Their argument always centers

around babies and children, which I find totally ridiculous.

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Sally

Ok, for all of you herd immunity " I don't want my child in a

classroom with an unvacc'd child " people…

Please tell me the last time you had your own vaccine titres

checked? Are you sure you are not a risk to your own child

because " immunity " from vacc's does wear off.

And what about all the newer vaccines like hep B, HIB and others?

Did you rush to your doctor to be vacc'd the minute the CDC added

those to the schedule? Are you really so naive to think that only

children catch disease and pass it on in classrooms?

Ok, and even if all the American born adults didn't cause a threat

to your child, what about undocumented workers? I can bet you they

weren't vacc'd even as much as we were as children (if at all), but

there are millions of them in our country.

So you see, your argument of herd immunity has absolutely no merit.

Unless every person in the country (child and adult) is forced by

law to receive all the recommended vacc's (not just the babies),

then there is no herd immunity!

And yet, where are the thousands dying of " preventable " disease???

Talk about scare mongering.