How does not vaccinated infect vaccinated people?

A more accurate statement: some vaccines aren't supposed to reduce risk to others (e.g. tetanus vaccine), and failure to receive those vaccines poses no risk to the unvaccinated. Other vaccines (e.g. measles vaccine) reduce risk to others but not to zero. Failure to receive those vaccines does indeed pose a risk to the unvaccinated.

(And if we're going to throw credentials around, I'm a senior staff scientist in the viral group of the Infectious Disease and Microbiome Program at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, and a visiting scientist in the Department of Infectious Disease and Immunology at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health.)

Why is it that when I googled the "expert's" name there's not a single thing on Harvard's website, or any professional sites? Just page after page of anti vaxxer / conspiracy theory sites. The OP is illogical.

visionary said:

2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters, meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

Click to expand...

Post a link please. Is the "expert" you posted about in the OP working with the CDC?

visionary said:

If the expert was working for the CDC, he would be fired for making this statement.

Click to expand...

A direct response. I was starting to wonder if you were a bot with all the copy and pasting from anti vaxxer / conspiracy theory sites without giving any links.

The idea in the OP that unvaccinated children don't pose any risk to vaccinated children is more than a little misleading.

For vaccines like tetanus and other diseases not transmitted from human to human - sure, only the unvaxxed are at risk from tetanus. That's not trivial, since tetanus is a serious disease. For other communicable diseases, it is not the case.

Vaccines are not 100% effective. They greatly reduce the chance of contracting the disease but do not reduce it to zero. Therefore, in order to reduce the chance contracting the disease even further, you want as many people to be vaxxed as possible. This reduces the risk of disease spread not simply from the reduction caused by vaccination immunity, but the risk that the unvaxxed will contract the disease in the first place, and thus not expose anyone else.

It is related to the concept of herd immunity or community immunity (cite).

I can't find any reference to the alleged 2013 meeting on the CDC website, nor any other direct link. Do you have a direct link? TIA.

Disclaimer: I am not an MD, epidemiologist, or public health employee. I do have minor hearing loss from measles, because I am too old to have received the vaccine in time.

I believe Christians have the duty to charity to have themselves and their children vaccinated, both for the benefit of the children themselves and for the greater good of the community.

Regards,
Shodan

visionary said:

2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters,

Click to expand...

That's accurate.

visionary said:

meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

Click to expand...

That's not accurate. The report states "Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons." That means that when vaccinated people become infected, they're more likely to be infected with a PRN-negative strain than unvaccinated people who become infected. It does not say that vaccinated people are more likely to become infected at all than unvaccinated people.

Bacteria and viruses evolve to evade vaccines. That's happening here.

Shodan said:

I can't find any reference to the alleged 2013 meeting on the CDC website, nor any other direct link. Do you have a direct link? TIA.

Click to expand...

This appears to be it.

I was able to find some articles published by the person cited in the OP.

T-independent type II immune responses generate memory B cells
Antigen-specific antibody responses in B-1a and their relationship to natural immunity
Antigen-specific memory in B-1a and its relationship to natural immunity

None of them are on the topic in the OP.

She also has self published a not particularly impressive anti-vaccine screed about natural immunity or some such. Still and all, as mentioned here, she's not a particularly impressive example of science-based inquiry into vaccines.

Regards,
Shodan

sfs said:

This appears to be it.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Apparently they need to work up a different vaccine that is effective against those strains of pertussis.

Regards,
Shodan

visionary said:

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public,

Click to expand...

Assuming that the majority of the public are vaccinated, those that are not immune will not prove as a threat. Probability says anyway.

visionary said:

Harvard: Unvaccinated Children Pose Zero Risk

A Harvard immunologist has written an open letter explaining why unvaccinated children pose no risk to their vaccinated counterparts.

Vaxxter.com reports:

Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych. I hold a PhD in Immunology. I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide. You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.

Harvard: Unvaccinated Children Pose Zero Risk

Click to expand...

She is a fake authority. Appeal to false authority – who is Tetyana Obukhanych

Rather than appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, cite current research, or at least give clear rational arguments why YOU think unvaccinated children are not a threat to the general public.

For example, here is my argument that they are.
Vaccines work better for some people than other. Some people who are vaccinated against the flu, still get the flu that they are vaccinated against. The vaccine simply didn't work perfectly for them. However, if they lived in a society where everyone got a flu shot, this wouldn't be a problem, as the flu simply wouldn't have enough unvaccinated people to be able to spread from person to person.

Luca Lalsie said:

Assuming that the majority of the public are vaccinated, those that are not immune will not prove as a threat. Probability says anyway.

Click to expand...

There are TOO MANY that are unvaccinated. That's why it is now becoming a problem.

Shodan said:

Vaccines are not 100% effective. They greatly reduce the chance of contracting the disease but do not reduce it to zero. Therefore, in order to reduce the chance contracting the disease even further, you want as many people to be vaxxed as possible. This reduces the risk of disease spread not simply from the reduction caused by vaccination immunity, but the risk that the unvaxxed will contract the disease in the first place, and thus not expose anyone else.

Click to expand...

You said it much better than I!