The focus should not be on adults not "caring" to get boosters but on the efficacy of the vaccines
I disagree. Since both factors might be a problem, both should be focused on. No need to only go in one direction.
Adult cover is almost certainly below the stated targets of coverage for most vaccines.
Do you have statistics here?
It is highly effective propaganda that does not stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. The "science" around vaccination does not exist
You are not able to find sience about vaccines? Go to pubmed.com and type in vaccines - You might find some ;)
It's just about the saddest and most grotesque betrayal of our children I am aware of or can imagine..
I can't even express how disrespectful this is to all children who have died from preventable diseases and their parents.
We live ( I assume you too) in western countries, where, mainly due to high hygenic standards and modern medicine, the death rate for kids is way lower than in Africa f.e.. And other than appreciating it, you tell us what a crime we are doing against our kids. Meanwhile kids in Africa die from preventable disease.
This is just pathetic.
Honestly, do you have even the first clue about how this world actually works? Can you explain to me why Africa doesn't have the hygiene and nutrition that would far better protect their people from disease than all the toxic vaccines in the world? I'll tell you, it's because their continent has been raped by imperialism and colonialism for decades.
Your obtuse disregard for all those African children who have been killed and maimed by vaccine is sadly to be expected from someone still living in the matrix.
The idea of preventing disease is of course a good one. But endless vaccine experiments run by conflicted, untrustworthy, unaccountable, profit seeking monopolies on populations of fearful, ignorant, damaged and often non-compliant populations is obviously not the best way to fight disease. It's the way they do it because it suits them.
Sometimes vaccines may, in some people, reduce the incidence of a particular disease, but cause so much other damage to the individual that they are more likely to die from something else. Sometimes the vaccine injuries are worse than the disease the vaccine was supposed to protect the individual from.
Out of your "saved" African kids. How many develop horrendous side effects from the vaccines given to them? How many develop hidden issues that made them more susceptible to cancer or other infections?
I don't believe it is pathetic to acknowledge the truth of a situation, to acknowledge that a million different things could be done better if the true goal is to help people. I don't think it's pathetic to have a desire to try to do something about it, to try to save all the children from disease, including all those killed or harmed by vaccines.
Can't argue with this. But I also don't want to. The sad fact you stated here doesn't have anything to do with the fact that vaccines are most often able to protect us from various diseases.
Sometimes seatbelts kill people who would otherwise not have died during that accident. Do you think seatbelts are useless?
True, there are many many things which can be done better around the whole world.
And yes, better science about vaccines and stricter rules on how to test them should be included as well.
But just saying ,vaccines are bad and in general do more harm than good, is pathetic.
But I am glad that we at least have something in common:
I am totally with you that there is a lot of improvement in these areas and that nobody should be forced to be a testperson for anything.
Good hygiene and nutrition are the primary bulwark against any disease. The sad truth is that Africa has large populations in abject poverty, and that have access to neither.
I would far prefer to be availed of proper hygiene and good food and unvaccinated than the reverse, and not only because I'd be more comfortable, but for the vastly improved ability to respond to disease and heal.
Good hygenie and nutrition are of course important and I would prefer them over just having vaccines as well.
However it is not just hygenie which is accountable for the drop in case reports for many disease. Look up my latest post for more detail here.
Your seatbelt analogy is flawed. Car manufacturers are held to account for safety failures far more rigorously than pharmaceutical companies (who in fact have ZERO accountability.)
Big pharma has virtually no imperative to improve the safety and efficacy of vaccines.....in fact without push back from their victims.....they are incentivised to produce as many bad vaccines as possible.
Then they can sell vaccines with cheaper ingredients and cheaper manufacturing costs, "boosters" (multiple hits of the same failed vaccine) and other drugs that deal with the laundry list of side-effects. Why not make a cancer patient out of an individual's fear of hep C? Great.
You are an aspiring doctor and I would like to believe we are in the same page. We both want to help people. Thank you sincerely for the discussion, I hope we have others. All the best.
Why is my analogy flawed? It is not always about accountability.
In situations with bad luck, a proper designed and well used seatbelt can kill - That's a fact.
I will still use a seatbelt all the time since I am convinced it will much rather save than kill me.
I know that there are many black sheep in the pharma industry - just like there are whereever money is in play.
However you don't really thing that all scientist just do their work for money? Do you think all people working in those areas just care for money?
We can agree on the fact that we should get rid of the people who are there just for the money. But it's unfair to say that all people working there are just doing it for the money. And luckily, that's not the case!
Incidentally, the title of your post contains "why you should believe in herd immunity." Can you please at least acknowledge that you have absolutely no evidence that herd immunity could reasonably work. Could you please acknowledge that, as i've pointed out, the likelihood that any populations anywhere in the world have ever reached anywhere near the vaccine coverage range that is said to achieve herd immunity is logically extremely low. You might retract your statement at least until such time as you have evidence to support the claim, especially when calling out @chron so articulately :)
I will reply in more detail since I am in a train now and don't have much time...
True, it contains the word believe. Believe, not prove. Otherwise it would be "The facts why herd immunity works!"
This post was never made to prove anything.
It was mainly made to show @chron and the many users who agreed with him, that their argument of "tourism makes herd immunity not working" was based on a big logical error and I wanted to correct that.
You were absolutely right to point out the logical flaws in @chron's post. But your arguments for why people should believe in herd immunity were also flawed. That's why I question the title....because you are asking people to believe in herd immunity, which sadly and provably, does not exist.
Actually, @theaustrianguy was incorrect, and @chron was correct.
Every one of the tourists is an unknown regarding vaccination, and therefore needs to be counted as unvaccinated for the purpose of calculating herd immunity.
Every one of them could have dropped off a disease upon their visit, so they were all potential vectors, that decreased the immunity of the herd in direct proportion to their numbers.
However, they aren't members of the herd at all, they don't stay. Their number cannot be added to the herd.
Their impact compromises the immunity of the herd, but their transitory nature means they cannot be considered a part of the herd.
@chron was correct from the get go, and the good doctor wrong.
Answered to those things above.