There was no herd immunity to smallpox; it was a continuing threat over generations until there were inoculations.
Measles were still around when I was a kid. The great influenza is still infecting us (it seems to have mutated into various strains of the annual flus).
I found
this article on West Nile virus. Page 46 talks about a reduction in activity, but doesn't mention any populations where the transmission risk was insignificant.
In
this article, the reduction in avian mortality from cholera occurred with a massive mortality rate.
I know some moms who have held parties to effectively distribute measles to kids so that they wouldn't get serious effects in later life if they got it later.
Pretty close to the idea of "herd immunity" locally at least, if you ask me, considering those parties, speaking as a cowboy, it impressively measures up to being a "herd"..
Just to save you the Obsessive impulse, here's the link you'd drag up to tell me I'm stupid.
Measles Outbreak: Why ‘Measles Parties’ Are A Bad Idea For Parents – CBS New York (cbslocal.com)
In rural Mexican communities, a lot of parents have held these parties and with few negatives that they realized. Maybe not many immunocompromised people nearby.... cancer or HIV or transplant surgery ......
So far as I know, the vaccine is effective but there are legitimate health risks with the vaccine as well.
Measles, Mumps, And Rubella Virus Vaccine Live (Subcutaneous Route, Intramuscular Route) Side Effects - Mayo Clinic
Institutional and governmental "authorities", as well as corporate providers, have a known bias towards minimizing the risks. Largely, the adjuvants, and preservatives are things that come with regulatory warnings if you are exposed to such stuff. Here, it's being injected, not just skin contact. The active materials are live viruses, possibly modified. The modifications may have effects on the patients as well.
Somehow, the pharma companies are not required to make all those disclosures as a matter of public policy favoring mass vaccinations. Probably, public policy here reflects some big money lobbyists leaning over the desks of politicians and bureaucrats.
And then our legislators give the pharma companies and care providers protection from being sued.
These institutional biases can not be excused by any legitimate arguments. People have the right to the facts, and to the legal process.
Rather than turning to mass public disinformation campaigns to achieve mass compliance, like what you have in the first link if you follow it to the end, perhaps the government should create an insurance pool by applying a fee to manufacturers and providers, and require tracking patients' later health. It would cost to do all that. But without that information, and without funding followup/tracking research. But that would do more to give us confidence in our government, and it would serious undermine the credibility of scaremongers.
