Personally, in so far as a belief in herd immunity, I think it is a very common misconception. The only true time herd immunity can exist ime is when you have a populationwho have been naturally exposed and/or infected with the natural virus and have overcome it, developed their antibodies naturally, and are therefor immune.
The notion of "reduced" risk is negligiable really - and this small percentage reduction when weighed against the ACTUAL infection risk rates, the ACTUAL serious injury/death from ACTUAL infection rates, and the risk of serious injury/death/toxicity from the vaccine itself, is totally negated.
The opportunity cost of vaccinating is so far and away greater than that of not vaccinating, even taking into consideration any reduced risk of infection.
ETA:
I should also add the caveat that I do not believe that naturally immunity is 100% 100% of the time either - I had chicken pox 4 times as a child/teen in varying degrees of severity.
herd immunity doesnt come into it at all for me...and other non vaccinators that i know.
Im simply not prepared to put a heap of crap into a tiny body that may not react well to it....its that simple.
I had my two older children vaccinated when they were older (7&10) and I will get my 3 year old done in a few more years probably around the same age...although i will be choosey in which vaccines i will give her. I wont give my girls the cervical cancer vaccine for instance and I wont give her 3 injections in one hit.
Its about safety for me. If i was in a society with a lot of disease, i would use the same alternatives that i used when my kids were little...natural homeopathic immunization.
I'm the first to admit that I haven't done much reading on this so no doubt I have missed lots of reasons, but the one reason that has stuck as a non-vaxxing reason is the fact that these diseases are not prevalent (now) which some would argue is because the majority has been vaccinated.
So, I'm subscribing because I'm interested to learn more.
And because I currently have a dilemma re the swine flu vaccine so the whole vaccination thing is particularly interesting to me at this point.
It would be based on a case by case basis as to where we would be going. Very likely I would vaccinate DS more than he is already because in some areas good health care and nutrition/safe water is also hard to get. I know if he gets sick in Borneo it is a lot harder to get good health care than here for example.
Rory, I think I understand your OP in terms of assumed risk, and I can only answer it from the opposite perspective. I would normally err on the side of non-vaxing where "new" vaccines are concerned - I like to see large long term studies regarding safety before I start putting things in my body - BUT last year having suddenly found myself in a population of increased risk (cancer patient with primary cancer of the immune system) I couldn't trample into the drs surgery fast enough for a dose of the swine flu vax.
I think it's a similar mechanism to when people decide to get extra vaccinations before travelling o/seas to areas of known disease prevalence.
I'm a partial/delayed vaxing mother and no, I wouldn't change. If a disease has a good chance of killing DS and the vaccine doesn't, he's vaccinated no matter what the chance of him catching it is. If it's nasty but no long-term damage (eg chicken pox in childhood, which has just caused us a lot of agony, or flu) and is very unlikely to kill (that is, kill him at this present time), he isn't vaccinated, instead relying on his immune system.
I do delay vaccinations until the very end of the time he can have them in. Or even longer. Just to give him a chance to develop his immune system a bit more before I introduce a nasty to it.
Vaccines aren't perfect and contain some nasty stuff. But nothing is nastier than him dying from something I could have prevented, IMO. And the chances of catching nasty things in the UK is on the rise. If there were no risk, I may well think differently. But low risk... still too much of a risk for me.
Bookmarks