you seem to be missing the point here, even though i have spelled it out more than once.
the fact that no vaccine exists for scarlet fever and yet it's decline follows a similar trend to diseases for which vaccines DO exist DOES make sense since all diseases were significantly heading towards zero incidence. This is because of improved sanitation, general healthcare, understanding about biology and other related factors. When people claim that vaccines have eradicated killer diseases they are nearly always denying the fact that the 'eradication' had almost entirely taken place BEFORE the vaccines were invented. They give vaccines credit for health improvements that vaccines were NOT responsible for.
From the paper you linked on Scarlet Fever:
The precipitous decline in many life-threatening infectious diseases during the course of the last century is well described but remains poorly understood. Improved living standards, particularly decreased crowding and improved hygiene and nutrition and, in due course, immunisation and development of effective treatments, are generally assumed to underpin this trend.
Also from the study:
A once common cause of childhood death, the incidence and severity of scarlet fever dropped substantially over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. The reasons for the decline, predating the advent of effective treatments, remain unexplained.
So they are saying that the reasons that are WELL understood by numerous professional public health experts - sanitation etc. - are only 'assumed' in the first paragraph and then are 'not explained' in the section! Really? That is a clear denial of reality.
It is interesting that cases of Scarlet fever may have increased recently and it warrants investigation - however, it does not mean that the prior nosediving of cases is 'unexplained'.
The claims about eradication of polio are false. The polio cases have simply been reclassified. you can review commentary on this from various medical professionals here.
deseases that are highly contageous require all to be vacinated in order to eradicate them
No, they do not.
why would an individual right to refuse to stop spreading the desease be valued more than the right of a baby to live?
The right to not have your body invaded by another due to their own belief system is a basic right of human existence that is understood and respected by those with empathy, heart and awareness. Many of our laws are based on this understanding and very few people disagree with them. Your confusion appears to be based on a mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of fundamental rights and freedoms of the person. No-one has a 'right to infect people with disease', just as no-one has a 'right to overpower and inject people with a disease in the name of xyz'. Isn't this obvious?
In short, your question is based on a strawman argument.
in order to reach 95% immunity, for every one person who refuses to vaccinate then 19 other people have to get second mmr vaccine, and there are already some who cant take the vaccine for alergy and health reasons.
I suggest you listen to alternative understandings on health and immunity from people who have dedicated their life to constantly keeping up with the latest research or who are even the ones doing it and creating it from lived experience. The mainstream narrative does NOT come from such people.
I will be speaking with the Wim Hof community when I get a chance, since Wim Hof has already forced science textbooks to be rewritten after proving that it is possible to modulate and 'supercharge' the immune system through internal will.
I have already provided you with links from about 50 specialists that would take weeks to review in full.