Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Herd Immunity

288 replies

Tabitha8 · 09/09/2012 16:42

A simple title for what I think is probably a complex subject.

If we have herd immunity to an illness as a result of vaccinating our children, how is that maintained given that we don't vaccinate ourselves, the grandparents, our neighbours, etc?

OP posts:
bruffin · 17/09/2012 08:11

I do think there is a difference if you commute somewhere like London LeBFG, you can come into very close contact with a lot of different people on a daily basis
But if you dont have children, drive to work and work in a small office then you really don't need to a lot of people around you to be immune to stop you getting a disease. I know before we had children, dh started to commute for a short while and started picking up one bug after another, which he never did before.

LeBFG · 17/09/2012 08:28

Yes indeed bruffin. Lifestyle will make a big difference to your exposure risk. The thing with epidemiological models is they deal in populations writ large, not micro-populations, or families or even individuals. It may seem improbable that a low vaccination rate will have any effect on whether you contract a disease or not, but where an individual isn't seeing too many people and the disease is not super contagious, I can easily imagine a low proportion of vaccinated people making a difference on disease incidence.

bruffin · 17/09/2012 09:30

It just plain common sense, not sure why we need huge long threads on it.

Tabitha8 · 17/09/2012 19:00

Bruffin It was a health visitor who said to me that I should vaccinate my child in order to maintain herd immunity.
Then we hear the term "herd immunity" in the media whenever there is an outbreak of disease.
Here, on the BBC website, for example, during last May's measles cases, they talk about an uptake rate for the MMR required in order to stop the spread of disease:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13561766
"HPA figures show that the number of toddlers getting the MMR vaccination is climbing steadily, but is still far from the 95% uptake rate needed to stop the spread of the disease in the community."

I think that this thread might, more sensibly, be suggesting that the above approach is too simple? It will vary from area to area and, as BFG said, from circumstance to circumstance?
Yet, there again, I do go on holiday. I travel abroad, I travel within the UK.

OP posts:
ElaineBenes · 17/09/2012 21:28

But as we've discussed, while there is indeed a threshold where a disease can't be sustained - even below that threshold, having more immunised children still reduces the probability of a non immune child being exposed to the disease.

Primarily you should vaccinate your child to protect him or her but even if you're below the threshold where a disease won't spread, you can maintain the herd immunity already achieved by keeping vaccination levels up. That must be what your hv meant.

bruffin · 17/09/2012 22:09

"HPA figures show that the number of toddlers getting the MMR vaccination is climbing steadily, but is still far from the 95% uptake rate needed to stop the spread of the disease in the community."

Most people reading that would have the common sense to realise that 95% is not an all or nothing figure.

ElaineBenes · 17/09/2012 23:01

Not if you want to pretend that herd immunity is a myth so you can keep on claiming that your decision not to vaccinate does not impact anyone else in society.

sashh · 18/09/2012 02:32

Elaine

That still does not explain how R>1 can rise to R=1

ElaineBenes · 18/09/2012 11:32

R decreases as the number of susceptible people in the population decreases. It doesn't necessarily stop when it equals 1.

Obviously it doesnt rise if you're going from more than 1 to less than 1. I think bm wrote that by mistake?

Tabitha8 · 22/09/2012 21:37

Bruffin "Most people reading that would have the common sense to realise that 95% is not an all or nothing figure. "
That's one person here, then, with no common sense, I am afraid.

OP posts:
ElaineBenes · 22/09/2012 23:41

Tabutha
Are you still saying that there is no effect on disease transmission if vaccination rates are 90% as opposed to 95%?

Even bm has realised that there is an effect.

LMCG · 25/09/2012 09:11

If people are so confident that vaccination works, why are you worried about whether or not other people are vaccinated??? surely you should be protected by said vaccination? herd immunity is shown time and time again to be a complete myth - outbreaks of disease occur in fully vaccinated communities.

ElaineBenes · 25/09/2012 15:08

Oh dear, someone's been drinking the crankosphere kool aid.

Have you actually read this thread and the links on it?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page