I'm not talking about research, I'm talking about public health and mandatory for school vaccinations. Surely you're not claiming that children are being involved in a secret research project starting at 15 months of age?!?

Considering that the vaccine hasn't been available for 20 years yet, there aren't a lot of health care workers whose immunity derives from the vaccine yet unless you count candy stripers and even there, it's not 100% of them since the vaccine wasn't mandatory when it came out.

I agree that learning how the immune system forgets would be extremely valuable, but that isn't anywhere near on-topic here and certainly doesn't count as a justification for the Varicella vaccine for school children.

It may be that data derived from tracking vaccine performance would be helpful, but the value is likely limited WRT autoimmune since in the latter, the immune system will be constantly stimulated.

The data point on breakthrough cases is more an observation that having chicken pox is 100% effective at immunization (with the exception of immune compromise where vaccines don't work either).

It could very well be. From TPM: "As with any DDoS attack, there are lots of IP addresses, but the main ones are Russian, though that in itself does not prove anything," he wrote. "We are still investigating."

Understood that the range is still not proven. I do note that the original single injection schedule was updated to 15 months then at 6 years. Nobody has yet gone 20 years between boosters since it hasn't been approved that long. We'll find out in a few years I guess.

We seem to be putting out a lot of effort and people's money for a fairly small benefit (if, indeed there is any in final analysis).

Just another data point, we have seen breakthrough cases of chicken pox in otherwise healthy vaccine recipients, but I'm not aware of any in those immunized by having the disease, even with it's reduced prevalence.

That is mostly true.

However, vaccines are not 100% effective. If everyone in my neighborhood gets the vaccine, we're basically safe. Anyone who by chance does get it will tend to have a mild form and so others will have little exposure and will most likely be protected by their vaccine.

OTOH, if I alone got my shots, the whole neighborhood will probably end up with more severe cases of the disease and I'll be under constant exposure. If my vaccine is anything less than 100%, I'll get it.

That in a nutshell is herd immunity.

Actually, looking it up my memory is correct. Immunity from actually having chickenpox is acknowledged to last much longer than from the vaccine, and will be lifelong in most cases, particularly if you are occasionally re-exposed to chickenpox (for example, by being around a child that has it). The duration for the vaccine is thought to be about 20 years.

Based on the two quotes above, I'd say they were already given a virus that inserts itself into their genome albeit a weakened one. It would be their parents who consented (without really being informed). As for the thus far unasked question, can the vaccine strain cause shingles later in life and how does the risk differ from the wild strain, we have no way of knowing yet.

As for the flu, yes it probably would be more effective for people around the most vulnerable to get the shot. I think that so far, a more generalized flu vaccine has eluded us, thus the annual shots.

I take it you're part of McCarthy's army then? Simply disagreeing with me isn't worthy of the crazy label. Disagreeing with well settled science based on the word of a discredited fraud in the face of overwhelming evidence gets that label.

I don't seem to remember sneaking up behind you and giving you (or anyone else) a vaccination. When was it you say that happened?

Agreed. It wasn't worth the hype, but they did flog the hell out of those shots.

As the rich see it the poor are just being lazy so giving them money will not encourage them to try harder.

You confuse cause and effect. The rich don't want to give up the power economic oppression gives them, so they see whatever helps excuse it. Just like every ruling class ever.

Leprosy isn't nearly the problem it was in Biblical times. It is hard to catch and easy to cure. Some even question if what we now call leprosy is even the same disease.

She came out and said she supports vaccination. She just believes (correctly, IMHO) that the FDA has fallen into disrepute and so is contributing to the anti-vaxer problem.

And even that is not quite right. She is on record as supporting vaccines. She is simply questioning the FDA in general (honestly, it's track record in recent years gives her very good reason for that). Mostly from the standpoint that it's crappy track record for objectivity in recent years is being used as an excuse by the anti-vaxers.

Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.

Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here.

Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since he isn't basing his position on paranoid pseudo-science. It says nothing about if he would personally recommend vaccination or not.

Trump looks to be all in on the crazy pseudo-science and hysteria.

He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.

The case is pretty strong for MMR and DTaP, but not so much for Varicella vaccine.

As for the flu, I recall some recent research that shows that people who have been immunized for flu the previous year are less likely to be effectively immunized by a new flu vaccine. Meanwhile, since (as you said) the available flu shot is based on a guess at which strains will become prevalent, there is a good chance that the guess will be wrong and so the shot will have very limited effectiveness. It may actually be better to confine flu shots to the most vulnerable populations where the flu itself is most dangerous.

Add to that the media blitz over H1N1 a few years ago where we were told with a strait face that we should all run out and get the flu shot that didn't cover H1N1 because H1N1 was going to kill us all but that there was no need to avoid crowded malls. Then, by the time the H1N1 vaccine came out, it was clear that it had already gone past it's peak and would be all but gone by the time the immunization would become effective (and it proved to be far less dangerous than initially thought) we were supposed to run out and get that too. It's hard to not think we are being lead down the garden path on that one.

That sort of thing is extremely unfortunate and even dangerous since it leads people to question the well proven and greatly beneficial MMR and DTP.