Social Obligations & Immunization

[vivant]

vivant, I'm interested to hear your perspective on the argument that as more parents choose not to immunise against, measles, mumps and rubella, reduce the overall levels of immunity and increase levels of the disease for the population as a whole?

I see some merit in both sides of the Herd Immunity argument. My gut reaction is: I don't care about the population as a whole, I care about my own kids (and pets). And in that vein I do what is most right by THEM rather than what is better for the common good. I'm myopic and selfish like that. And okay with it. That said, I think natural immunity from natural exposure to a disease really is better for the population as a whole, than is artificial immunity derived from artificial exposure to a disease. But hey, I also think Coke is better than Pepsi ... YMMV.

My reasonable reaction is that there would never be a smooth transition from a fully or mostly immunized population to a non- or lowly immunized population; so sure, there would be a transitory period whereby disease levels may appear to rise. But that would have to also take into account the many other factors that go into assessing levels, including but not limited to a rise in inaccurate diagnoses based on a larger but not necessarily more accurate awareness of disease/symptoms. Or even a rise in accurate diagnoses based on ever-improving awareness of disease/symptoms.

I don't think there is a clear right/wrong WRT immunizations, I really don't. We all just look at the data available, and do what feels right. I reserve judgement for those who don't bother to investigate the data available, and make uneducated decisions (whichever decision they make). Ignorance isn't bliss, it's irresponsible.

So .... Herd Immunity. Reporting of Disease Levels. Coke v. Pepsi. Will she ever realize she is the only one here using internet shorthand in every single post. Did Joanie love ChaChi???

Discuss.