[flagged]
As for why herd immunity is important, please read this recent twitter thread from the mother of a young child with cancer: https://twitter.com/SteamLaundry/status/1065153914100604928
You're misunderstanding who is at risk in this scenario. It is not the vaccinated who are at risk; it is the unvaccinated.
The unvaccinated are protected by the "wall" of immune people separating them from the sick. The fewer and farther between are the at-risk, the decreased likelihood of transmission.
You might say "but those people took that risk on their own"; but thats not the case for many people. i.e., Newborn infants, Individuals who are immunodeficient due to HIV/AIDS, lymphoma, leukemia, bone marrow cancer, an impaired spleen, chemotherapy, etc.[1].
Essentially, those who cannot become immune are only protected by herd immunity. And every additional non-immune person in that pool increases the risk to all the others. So everytime someone chooses to remain immune they are hurting that whole pool, some of whom cannot choose.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Protection_of_th...
Are you saying that _only_ unvaccinated kids get sick? And that they are _only_ protected by "space" made by vaccinated kids?
Newborn infants are protected by colostrum, look this one up if you are unaware of it.
Other sick people I addressed in my initial point, they seem to be a threat based on your logic, not someone who needs protecting.
You have an incredibly poor understanding of vaccines and viruses.
The virus is going to spread regardless of vaccinations. But people who are vaccinated can fight it off much more easily and quickly. That lowers the risk dramatically for the unvaccinated when the vaccinated get rid of quickly. When you're fully infected, you're a carrier for much longer.
What about people with compromised immune systems? Does the vaccine make their immune system stronger?
>... the vaccinated get rid of quickly.
Do you have any data to show this? While I know there are a lot of common beliefs about what vaccines do, has there been any studies comparing the speed of recovery between groups of vaccinated/unvaccinated and equally healthy people?
> "In a population in which a large number of individuals are immune, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted, which stops or slows the spread of disease. The greater the proportion of individuals in a community who are immune, the smaller the probability that those who are not immune will come into contact with an infectious individual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity#Free_riding
> "Herd immunity is vulnerable to the free rider problem. Individuals who lack immunity, primarily those who choose not to vaccinate, free ride off the herd immunity created by those who are immune. As the number of free riders in a population increases, outbreaks of preventable diseases become more common and more severe due to loss of herd immunity."
The logical argument seems to be that "intent" determines if you are a threat or someone to be protected?
Again, by the same logical arguments people with AIDS can't go to a foreign country that doesn't vaccinate?
The anti-vaxxers come along and free-ride, and for 10+ years, they think the are brilliant -- their kids do not get these mythologized diseases! But one day, enough morons start thinking that, that you reach a tipping point, and only 75% are vaccinated. All of a sudden, an outbreak occurs, putting all the immuno-compromised at risk, as well as the other 20%+ children of anti-vaxxers. Many kids die or become very sick. Suddenly, the anti-vaxxers realize they were playing with fire, putting children at risk.
What don't you get about this?
Or are they both equally dangerous disease carriers to a group of people?
No. That child is at risk from the vaccinated children. The vaccinated children can still carry the virus but it may not have much of an effect on them. It will, however, have full effect on the unvaccinated child, which can then infect those who are too weak to get vaccines, such as elderly and the very young.