The definition of herd immunity is as follows:
the resistance to the spread of a contagious disease within a population that results if a sufficiently high proportion of individuals are immune to the disease, especially through vaccination. “The level of vaccination needed to achieve herd immunity varies by disease but ranges from 83 to 94 percent”.
Let me backtrack a bit. For a long time the vaccine-suspicious (I’m trying out different names for “anti-vaxxer” just because I think there’s so much of a stigma that goes with that label)… No. Let me go down that rabbit hole. I think it’ll be worth your time. First of all, most “anti-vaxxers” (I’d guess around 95% if we did some kind of poll) are not anti, at all, but “ex-vaxxers”. They got their children vaccinated according to CDC recommendations until something happened. Something horrible. Something bad enough to convince them they no longer wanted anything to do with some or all vaccines. A few of us are just curious and wanted to research a little just to be sure they were safe. A few more choose not to vaccinate because of the stories they’ve heard from friends or family. But I would hazard to say that almost ALL of us are actually pro-vaccine. That we would love to protect our children from deadly diseases, but after learning the risk, we’ve decided most vaccines are more dangerous than the disease they cover. So most of us are pro SAFE vaccines. Why does it have to be so black and white? Why do we have to be pro or anti? Why can’t there be a middle ground where we all agree that vaccines are an amazing scientific invention and should definitely be an option for everyone, but are they perfect? Do they absolutely have no room for improvement? And isn’t there a way to make them better and safer? Insisting that they’re perfectly safe and effective closes the door on any discussion to improving them which reminds me more of a religious dogma than a scientific way of looking at things. I think most vaccine hesitant people would love to be convinced that they truly are safe, that each ingredient has been tested for how our bodies respond to them when injected, even separately, if not synergistically. But when we’re polarized into two different groups, we kind of turn into angry mobs that can’t discuss things politely, and thus, no discussion is had, and no one wins. Do you ever feel like the media is herding people into two separate groups? That you’re suddenly looking upon your fellow man with suspicion and loathing as a result? Beware when that happens. I would recommend turning off your TV and talking to real people instead. It’s very rare that people actually fit into the box the media has made for them.
So back to what I was saying before. *digs herself out of rabbit hole* For a long time, the vaccine-suspicious have made fun of the fact that “everyone needs to be vaccinated or they won’t work” because, wasn’t that admitting that vaccines don’t work? So people scoffed, and asked, “Why do I have to vaccinate my child to make your child’s vaccine more efficacious?” Then, more recently, it became about moral duty. Herd immunity. Protecting the immunocompromised and the weaker among us. It sounds noble. Altruistic. Beautiful, in a way. “For the greater good,” and all. (My next post will be about the greater good and how that is really defined).
So where did herd immunity come from? How did it start? Turns out, it was first coined in the late 1920’s in reference to measles (getting the actual infection, not being vaccinated). People noticed that when a large amount of children got the measles in a certain town the entire population would be immune for up to 2 generations, even the susceptible would be protected because everyone around them was immune. Mothers passed on immunity in breastmilk so babies were also protected until weaned. It was never meant to be applied to vaccines because vaccines do not provide lifelong immunity. If you doubt me, please see the CDC childhood and adult immunization recommendations. The amount of boosters speaks for itself.
Dr Russel Blaylock, retired neurosurgeon puts it this way:
“In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.
Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.
That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.”
It’s a mathematical theory that has never actually been tested, especially not on vaccines.  The first goal for vaccine-induced herd immunity was 55%, and it’s been changed 7 times since then.
The 95% herd immunity goal was based on a mathematical model done by Hethcote in 1983 and it has never been studied, proven, or expounded on since then. 
And then there’s China, where the reported coverage for the MMR vaccine is “greater than 99%” and the conclusion of the study states, “However, the incidence of measles, mumps and rubella remains high.” 
And the fact that up to 10% of the fully vaccinated fail to mount antibody levels at all. So let that sink in. Even if every single person was up to date as children and adults, the most we’d ever have is 90% coverage for about 2 years.
If you want to read an excellent, well cited article on how unvaccinated children pose zero risk to anyone, please read this letter to legislators by a Harvard Immunologist. 
Herd immunity is the cornerstone of the pro-mandate people who want vaccines forced on everyone. Fear is the driving factor, of course, and I just want to disprove it as thoroughly as I can. It’s an absolute lie and a mythological hope that cannot be applied to vaccines because we haven’t figured out how to artificially stimulate the immune system in such a way that the artificial immunity lasts a lifetime. Let me ask you a question. Are you up to date on your vaccines? When was the last time you got your DTaP or MMR? Let’s be generous and say they give 20 years of protection. Are you still protected? Do you realize that most adults (estimated at somewhere around 70%) don’t get their adult boosters? That puts our herd immunity waaaay under where it should be. Instead of causing fear, this fact should be liberating. Smallpox hasn’t returned even though we quit vaccinating for it in the 70’s, and polio is not coming back even though most of us no longer have antibodies for it. Allowing 2% (where “antivaxxer” numbers are as of Jan 2019) of the childhood population to choose a different path puts no one at risk. They pose no threat, and are not to be feared. Fear makes people crazy. I truly hate how the media and mainstream medicine have bought into this fear campaign. We can do better by not allowing the tide of madness carry us into wanting to force a small minority to do something they don’t want to.