Quote:I'm going to try to be concise in the answers, but there's so much to this that it's hard to be brief.

 

Direct vaccination usually protects on the order of 92 to 97% of the population who receive the vaccine, though the number varies based on which one we're talking about. For brevity's sake I'm going to discuss the Measles since it's the one in the news right now. The Measles component of the MMR vaccine works with a single does in 95% of those who receive it and 99% of those who get a second dose. As a result of the Measles vaccine we've had a 99% reduction in the number of case per year in this country. Prior to the vaccine between 3 and 4 million people per decade would contract measles, 20% of those would develop serious complications including diarrhea and pneumonia, 50k would be hospitalized, 1 per 1000 would be crippled for life by encephalitis of the brain and another 1 per 1000 would die. As recently as 2006, 663 people per day would die from Measles-related illness around the world, that's a quarter million people per year. Those people, as we've seen in the Disney outbreak, sometimes travel here.

 

So who is at risk? 5 groups of people:

 

1. Those who were vaccinated but it didn't take. This is about 4% of all who get the MMR shot.

2. Those who cannot be vaccinated because they are allergic to some component of the vaccine.

3. Those who are too young to have been vaccinated. That's every household in the USA who has a child under 1 year old, though these children have some passive resistance if his/her mother was vaccinated.

4. Those who are immune-compromised either through natural immune disorders or caused by something like chemotherapy.

5. Those who refuse to vaccinate.

 

The Disney outbreak makes a great lab to prove the efficacy of the vaccine. Out of the first 100 cases diagnosed, the victims were roughly half and half between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Consider that Measles is spread by droplet and that it will infect >90% of those who are unvaccinated who come into contact with it; it's classified as a highly virulent and contagious disease. Consider also that Disneyland has ~80,000 visitors per day, and that the average vaccination rate of 95% applies (we can't be sure obviously). That means that less than 5% of the population makes up at least half of the cases of infection.

 

Now, we don't know how many of those were at risk by choice and how many were at risk for unavoidable reasons, but we know that Southern California is the hotbed of the anti-vaccine movement. In Marin country for instance, they have a Personal Belief Exemption that permits unvaccinated children to attend public school. As a result, the vaccination rate in their elementary schools hovers around 63%, a number lower than the country of South Sudan. What that means for those kids is that their schools are a highly susceptible time bomb just waiting for the right detonator. The concept of Herd Immunity is that the diseases are kept away when large numbers of the population are vaccinated, ie there isn't ever a Patient Zero to start the epidemic, and if it does get in then the majority of people will not contract or transmit the virus. The risk of epidemic goes up as the vaccination rate goes down as more targets are available to spread the disease.

 

So, having said all that, what does the current picture look like? Here's a link to a map of the reported cases of Measles so far in 2015:

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphic...p-1050.png

 

The scary part is the increase in cases since the eradication date of 2000. That increase is directly tied to the growth of the anti-vaxxer movement and puts a large portion of our population at risk.

 

And this is all just the Measles, not Polio, Smallpox, Mumps (the NHL has been dealing with this), Rubella (which causes miscarriage in pregnant women), Diphtheria, Rotavirus, Hepatitis, and yes, the Flu (still kills 20,000 per year in this country). When you combine all these diseases we're talking thousands of preventable deaths each year, many of them among people who don't have a choice in whether or not they get vaccinated. Essentially the anti-vaccine movement is a group of spoiled rich people who don't currently have to deal with these diseases because they live in a country where the generation before protected them from their own stupidity by poking them with the damn shots. Now they want to deny that to the next generation because a doctor lied and a ditzy blonde was given a platform to speak on something she clearly isn't qualified to discuss. Oh, and THIMEROSOL!!!!!!

 

Lastly, should it be mandatory? For the sake of public health, yes, if you want to participate in public school. The price of living in a first world country is that we all act to protect our first world country. We don't let people drive 80 miles an hour through a school zone, there's no reason to permit the epidemiological equivalent to occur with unvaccinated children. If you want to opt out of the vaccines then you should be opting out of public assembly as well, because you're a menace to the society around you. Parents may indeed be the final authority on their children's well being, but not one of them has the right to be the authority on me or my children's, and refusing to vaccinate is doing exactly that.

 

First great information and depth on the subject. Based on the information you are sharing 97% of those that receive vaccinations are not at threat from non-vaccinated children, so my question is how is it such a large threat for there to be some minority of  non-vaccinated individuals in society. Even if in some crazy situation the majority of people did not receive a vaccination, couldn't one just get the offered vaccination and have a 97% chance of immunity? Is the argument because of the 3% chance the vaccine won't work we must make 100% of the population take the vaccine regardless of their own free will?

 

You also make the analogy of speeding through a school zone, but that doesn't really hold water. I'm not forced to drive through a school zone, I can take an alternative road, I can drive at a different time of the day. You're advocating if you live you take this medicine, because we said so. That's a pretty authoritarian stance don't you think? 

 

No one's advocating putting your kid or my kids at risk, we can have them vaccinated but if some hippie in California for whatever reason doesn't want the vaccine who are we to tell them oh well your kids getting that shot because government said so. Again I can understand the argument that maybe it's abuse or neglect not to give the kids the vaccine but the argument for the protection of society we have to make these vaccines mandatory is to much for me. Not only that but the power you're giving government over your child is bone chilling to me. I fear a government that has the final authority on my child's health care way more then some hippie in California that doesn't want the MMR shots. 

---