"with an effective vaccine" -- the catch is, effective. My point was that the poor college kid who got the measles HAD been vaccinated, as had 2/3 of the others who got the measles. I do not consider that to be an effective vaccine. If we are going to talk about effective vaccines, let's discuss the pertussis vaccine; the recent outbreaks of whooping cough were blamed on the unvaccinated, until it was discovered that the current pertussis vaccine (as opposed to the old, killed virus vaccine that probably most adults over 35 got) is INeffective and requires booster shots -- unlike the old vaccine. Having recently had a tetanus shot, which is now routinely mixed with the pertussis vaccine, I was glad that I refused the unneeded "combo" and got only the straight tetanus shot. The VERY NEXT DAY the first articles came out about the ineffectiveness of the new pertussis vaccine.
Have there been any studies that have shown whether more vaccinations result in long-term immune system stressors/deficits (for instance, is the cancer rate higher or lower in people who have had many vaccinations)? Have there been any genuine large-scale epidemiological studies that actually track vaccinated people and count how many got the flu? I know the answer to that last question, and it is "no." The way that the statistics on efficacy of flu vaccine after a flu season are computed is a subject of controversy which is way off topic for the NNVC page.
As far as the efficacy of vaccinations in the elderly, your 23% effective statistic is NOT valid for that population. The 23% statistic is valid for the larger population. This is why they have been advertising (heavily) a super-dose vaccine for people over 65 -- the idea being, let's give people with weaker immune systems a much larger dose of the virus, so their immune systems react to it. Does that really sound like something you would want to be doing?
There are certainly safe and effective vaccines. I am glad that I had the old pertussis vaccine, and I definitely needed that tetanus shot (even though it made me sick for a week). If there were West Nile or Lyme Disease vaccines I would take them. But, I will not take the shingles vaccine, given the fact that my doctor had 3 patients who developed severe cases of shingles within a day of getting that vaccine and is now recommending against getting the vaccination.
Vaccines are not the answer for every disease. Do you really think that people in Sierra Leone are going to line up for Ebola vaccine, when many of them already think that Ebola was caused by westerners (the same way many blame HIV on a CIA plot)? Do you think that the incredibly inept World Health Organization would pay for people to go to small villages in third-world countries to vaccinate people who don't trust or want it?
Do you think that every person should be vaccinated for every disease, just in case? Or would you think that perhaps it is better to do what my doctor recommended to me -- to NOT get the shingles vaccine, and make sure that if I got any symptoms of shingles, run to the nearest Urgent Care and get Acyclovir.
There is a middle ground here. Some vaccines are necessary, and some are not effective enough to chance the very real risk of side effects. I know a parent who watched her small child have a seizure hours after getting a vaccination, and now is refusing vaccinations for all but the most dangerous diseases. Is she one of your evil anti-vaxxers, because she'd rather take the chance of her kid getting the measles, rather than risk another seizure?
In third-world countries where large-scale vaccination is difficult or impossible, TREATMENT is the answer. It is not only developed countries where life is valuable.
Sorry I offended your vaccine religion. But not very.
