Forty states saw rises in parents citing religious or other personal concerns for not vaccinating their young children.

The number of kids whose caregivers are opting them out of routine childhood vaccines has reached an all-time high, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday, potentially leaving hundreds of thousands of children unprotected against preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough.

The report did not dive into the reasons for the increase, but experts said the findings clearly reflect Americans’ growing unease about medicine in general.

“There is a rising distrust in the health care system,” said Dr. Amna Husain, a pediatrician in private practice in North Carolina, as well as a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine exemptions “have unfortunately trended upward with it.”

  • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have concerns about your statement that achieving herd immunity is worthless when failing to reach the threshold. Is there not a distinction between herd immunity within a household or school and herd immunity within a city or state or country? Shouldn’t the “population” be in the context of communities with close and frequent interactions?

    • propaganja@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The basic premise is that the community needs to be inoculated enough so that any breakout doesn’t have enough viable hosts around to jump to and dies out before it can gain momentum among a wider population. This benefits others in the community who are still vulnerable for whatever reason and is a legitimate argument for why people should care if other people get vaccinated. If the threat is dire enough it could even be argued that others should be forced against their will. The costs of implementing herd immunity can be quite high, as well as the benefits—but for us to begin even thinking about whether it’s worth paying, we must be sure we can realistically achieve it.

      If the level of inoculation among the population is too low the virus will spread. That’s what’s important—that’s why it’s all or nothing. The fact that it’s slower, or that it won’t overwhelm hospitals as quickly, is so trivial in comparison as to be inconsequential. The only thing that matters is that it’s still there. Fast or slow, it will still infect the entire world, and the vulnerable won’t be safe.

      Given all of the above, it goes without saying that a vaccine that only stops a virus from making you sick but doesn’t stop it from spreading is next to useless when it comes to herd immunity—that much should be obvious. I would think it should be obvious too that the covid vaccine is one of such a type, but if you’re interested in arguing that here or elsewhere—or anything else for that matter—please know that ridiculing and dismissing others because you think they’re so obviously wrong and incapable of being saved, is in fact the only thing preventing anyone from trying to fix it.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact that it’s slower, or that it won’t overwhelm hospitals as quickly, is so trivial in comparison as to be inconsequential. The only thing that matters is that it’s still there. Fast or slow, it will still infect the entire world, and the vulnerable won’t be safe.

        Is there not a huge distinction between “not infected” and “safe”? Hospitals that aren’t overwhelmed will be able to treat patients more effectively, so it should be way safer to have a slower spread of disease as it allows more patients to get better care.

        You also didn’t entirely address my point. If you need 90% of a population to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity for a disease, and 90% of an elementary school is fully vaccinated, how are the remaining 10% not protected if school is the only real place they go out and socially interact?