>>Interesting simulation comparing 80% immunization vs 95% herd immunity for Measles outbreaks.
>>
>>Select your State and region and see whether immunization would protect you:
>>
>>http://fred.publichealth.pitt.edu/measles/
>>
>>P.S. - graphics seem slightly messed up in Mozilla, maybe try IE.
>
>One of the interesting things (to me) about herd immunity is we are medicating everyone for the common good.
>This is trumpeted as a good thing but whats the downside.
>Where do we draw the line on how good for everyone something has to be for it to be compulsory for the individual..

I think the first question is whether we are "medicating." Vaccination is not medication, in my view.

One of the best pieces I've read on this topic was a broad satire, in which the writer asserts that he's decided that brakes aren't for his family: http://avwos.thespudd.com/im-an-anti-braker-gravity-is-all-i-need/

More generally, we have traffic laws for the public good, not just for individual good, and they're compulsory for all, even when we individually would be better off without them.

Similarly, we have zoning laws that are to the detriment of the individual and for the benefit of society. My first house had a deed restriction that we couldn't have a glue factory. :-)

I guess my reaction to those who want the right to choose not to vaccinate (as opposed to not vaccinating because of a medical condition) is that that's fine, but then you need to not take advantage of public goods, like schools, parks, etc. IOW, they should go live out in the wilderness where their personal choice doesn't have an impact on the lives of others.

Living in society means giving up some of our personal freedom for the greater good.

Tamar