Because of the recent outbreaks of measles in the United States and the re-energized public debate about vaccines and vaccination policy, we’re again starting to hear references to the theory of “herd immunity.” The theory is the foundation for the mass vaccination campaigns around the world. It currently stipulates that in order to provide immunity to a population against contagious diseases like measles you must vaccinate at least 95% of the population. Theoretically-speaking, with a vaccination rate of 95%, the diseases should be eradicated.
In an epidemiological review paper titled “Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice,” written by Paul E. M. Fine and published in 1993, the author notes that the first “published use” of the term herd immunity “appears to have been” in a paper titled “The spread of bacterial infection: the problem of herd immunity,” written by W. W. C. Topley and G. S. Wilson and published in 1923. From Fine’s paper, it seems that the theory of herd immunity was originally developed based on some observations with mice and some “simple mathematical formulations,” but the paper is unclear about whether the theory was ever validated through some of sort scientific peer review process – as is commonly the case with theories that eventually come to be widely accepted as “proven science.”
In 1933, Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, IL, observed that during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68% of the children contracted the virus. Subsequently in the 1930s, Dr. Hedrich observed that after 55% of the population of Baltimore, MD acquired measles, the rest of the population appeared to be protected. It was that observation that formed the basis for mass vaccination campaigns.
When the mass vaccination campaign for measles in the US began in earnest in the mid-1960s, the US Public Health Service planned to vaccinate over 55% (based on the Baltimore observation) of the US population, and it announced that it fully expected to eradicate measles by 1967. When that didn’t happen, the Public Health Service came up with vaccination rate figures of 70-75% as the way to ensure herd immunity. When eradication was still not achieved at those rates, public health officials jacked up the rates to 80%, 83%, 85%, and ultimately to 90%.
The process by which the decisions to raise the rates is unclear. Was it based on some scientific methodology or assumptions? Or were the decisions simply made because officials felt pressure to fulfill their promises to fully eradicate measles? Did they ever consider pausing and re-evaluating the original premise behind the theory of herd immunity? Or did they trudge on, arbitrarily raising the bar?
Now the rate is up to 95% to achieve herd immunity. But as we see with the continual outbreaks, even at 95%, we still do not have full immunity. In China, the vaccination rates are even higher – 99%. But there are also still measles outbreaks there. So is the answer 100%? And what if at 100% you still get outbreaks? We’ve gone from herd immunity supposedly achieved at 55% to herd immunity that is clearly not achieved even at 95%. At what point will public health officials have to confront the possibility that herd immunity may not be the best theory on which to base vaccination policy?
The population of the US stood at about 318.9 million in 2014. The “baby boomer” generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) account for about 24% of the total population. Many years ago, it was believed that childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2-10 years after being given.
Thus, for at least the past 40 years, the one-quarter to nearly 40% of the US population represented by the baby boomers has had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated as a child. If you include those born after 1964, the percentage of the unprotected surpasses 50%. According to retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, “If we listened to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%.”
Given that at least half the population has effectively been without vaccine protection for many years, we should have experienced a massive resurgence in childhood infectious diseases. But this hasn’t happened. In other words, we haven’t had herd immunity in the US… and yet the world hasn’t come tumbling down.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.