3
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/askscience@lemmy.world

Antivax types are all anti pushing vaccine on to people but if they don't want to get vaccinated then it still won't affect vaccinated folks. From my rough understanding, getting vaccinated keeps you alive or get less severe symptoms, but you can still pass it on.

So if antivax people don't get it, then why not just let them die?

Edit: guys, I'm not antivax, I just don't understand how herd immunity works.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

if they don't want to get vaccinated then it still won't affect vaccinated folks.

This is actually not true, since enough people being unvaccinated can prevent herd immunity from protecting everyone.

Herd immunity is an indirect protection from an infectious disease that occurs when enough of a population has immunity (either from vaccination or prior infection). When enough people are immune, infections are unable to spread and outbreaks naturally end. This protects people within the population who don’t have immunity (unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, vaccinated but didn’t get complete immunity, too young for the vaccine, immunocompromised, etc). It also protects those with some immunity who might still have a less severe infection.

The vaccination rate required for herd immunity depends on how infectious a particular disease is. Measles is particularly infectious, and a 95% vaccination rate is considered necessary for herd immunity. Many parts of the US have rates lower than that, which is why measles outbreaks are becoming common after the disease had basically been eradicated for decades.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Lack of herd immunity doesn't make a vaccinated person unvaccinated. It just means the pathogen has enough population left to sustain itself.

[-] count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That’s correct, but I wasn’t implying the opposite; I hope my comment doesn’t read that way.

A fraction of the vaccinated population will not have 100% immunity. Even among healthy, non-immunocompromised people vaccines generally don’t have a 100% efficacy. For example, annual flu vaccines vary in efficacy, but are often around 50%.

As I said in my comment, herd immunity is a form of indirect protection. Keeping a disease from being able to spread prevents people from being exposed at all, regardless of their immunity status. If enough people are unvaccinated and there is no herd immunity, then that increases the risk for the whole population - even those who were vaccinated since generally that doesn’t guarantee immunity.

There are certainly arguments to be made about bodily autonomy and weighing individual rights against those of society. However, the idea that “the decision to not be vaccinated is an individual choice that doesn’t harm others” is incorrect, and therefore not a great argument against vaccine mandates.

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Thanks for indulging my ignorance. However, wouldn't a 100% fully vaccinated and immunized community still be able to spread?

Say the flu shot, I'd like to say we have high rates of vaccinated people for that, however, if we walk in to a community that doesn't, won't it spread to them and kill them?

Edit: I read this article explaining more about the herd immunity you mentioned and it feels a bit missing to me

For example, if this person gets a case of the flu for example, they might still sneeze and cough, which someone will breath in if they're not wearing protective face coverings, and they will transmit it to more people until it hits a vulnerable person. These people have mild flu symptoms because they're vaccinated, but it still gets an immunocompromised person in the crossfire.

In the bbc article, it's as if it stops people from spreading the disease

https://www.bbc.com/news/57229390

[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So a question to everyone in favour of mandatory vaccinations: Are you happy with RFK Jr mandating you inject yourself with whatever he says?

I'm in favour of vaccines. I think everyone who can get them, should get them.

However, we can't overlook the fact that many governments have overlooked human safety and rights in favour of political plays. If injecting bleach into people to cure autism gets votes, what makes you assume that that won't fall under the same mandatory vaccine rules?

And even if you do trust the government to act properly, not everyone is able to receive vaccines. Sure you can be exempt from them if you show proof, but can the government bureaucracy fairly, accurately and quickly roll out a program for that?

[-] cloudless@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

Because some people have certain conditions preventing them to vaccines. For example, babies are too young for many vaccines. We still want herd immunity to protect those people. Vaccine effectiveness isn't 100%, so vaccinated people can still get affected by those irresponsible anti-vaxxers.

Antivax people don't just die, they overload hospitals. The more virus is spread, the more variants are created.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think mandatory vaccines won’t work. Especially in the US.

…But organizations should be allowed to discriminate against antivaxxers.

For example, want to fly? The airlines should be allowed (if not mandated) to screen for vaccines in a pandemic, and aggressively kick violators off.

Restaurants want proof, to protect their staff and avoid infecting customers? Great. Give them the legal right to discriminate. Perhaps grocery stores should segment certain hours for antivaxxers.

Look, people do things for all sorts of reasons and that’s fine. But anti vaxxers can either have their cake, or eat it. They aren’t some special protected class that gets to put others at risk. They don’t get to dictate other people’s lives if they don’t want to be dictated to.

And all this would be just fine with the immunocompromised and their caregivers, I think.

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

If Ebola ever gained the infectious profile of Covid, and we had a functioning vaccine, yes it should be mandatory. And anyone that didn't like it could go live in Antarctica.

[-] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

That's not fair to all the brilliant researchers in Antarctica

[-] Yankee_Self_Loader@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Woah woah woah as someone who is very deeply invested in the history of, the long term well being of, and would also kill to live in Antarctica let’s not be too hasty and send them there. Might I suggest Siberia or perhaps a desert island? Hell, even the sun would be a great option

this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
3 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Science

13165 readers
27 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS