right. it's me that sucks at thinking.
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?