April 6, 2020: Vaccination Ruminations.

California has been in lockdown for three weeks now. We might still be under stay-at-home orders three weeks hence. In fact, it might even be longer. When restrictions are eventuality relaxed, we will probably be under some level of cautionary protocols for the foreseeable future; at least until an effective vaccine against COVID-19 is developed, approved, and widely administered.

Most people recognize the benefits of vaccination. Most, but not all. There are some who believe that vaccines, rather than offer protection from diseases, actually cause them.

To be clear: there is no evidence that vaccines cause harm. On the contrary, they are recognized and documented to have saved countless lives, and to have staved off unimaginable suffering. (How many people do you know who have been stricken with polio? I'll bet the number is zero!)

Refusal to be vaccinated is not uncommon among fundamentalist religious communities such as Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians. Predictably, these groups also tend to suffer higher-than-average rates of mortality from contagious diseases like measles and influenza.

Death rates from infectious disease among "anti-vaxers" would probably be even higher were it not for the protection we all gain from "herd immunity."

Herd immunity is achieved when a sufficient proportion of a population is inoculated against a particular pathogen, driving infection rates so low that the probability of exposure becomes slight  across the whole group.

In the short term, a given community may suffer more for not vaccinating, but over the long term they might actually be better preparing themselves for a looming catastrophe.

Fundamentalist religious groups tend to be fairly insular, with marriages and production of offspring  occurring almost exclusively within the group.

A small, isolated gene pool can respond very quickly to natural selection. If a small, insular community has regular exposure to a deadly pathogen, individuals with lower natural resistance will die. Individuals with genes that confer higher resistance tend to survive and pass on their good DNA to the next generation. Over time, the group can evolve more resistance to the pathogen.

The gene pool of a group that protects itself through vaccination is never really tested; the proportion of individuals with low natural resistance may be quite high.

As long as the modern health care system continues to function, the vaccinated population can thrive. But in a situation where vaccines and other life support systems are absent, they might suffer stunning losses. Consider the population decline that occurred among First Nations populations when smallpox was first introduced into North America.

Given where we are today, with an atmosphere already a full degree Celsius higher in temperature, and accelerating global greenhouse gas production, it may be prudent to consider the wholesale collapse of civilization not as a distant possibility but as an increasingly likely eventuality.

If or when civilization does collapse, the production and administration of vaccines will probably cease to occur. Under these conditions, the insular group that with a history of non-vaccination might suddenly have a survival advantage.

Isn't it ironic that a group that rejects the science underpinning vaccines (and, in some cases, that of climate change as well), and does not believe in biological evolution, may be in the process of evolving greater ability to survive  future environmental catastrophe (whose anthropomorphic origin they likely also reject)?

Of course, nothing is certain. It could be that the real-time losses in the anti-vax community might put them at such a disadvantage that no future evolutionary edge could compensate. Who knows what gifts of talent in art, science, engineering, communications, leadership, etc., are never realized when someone dies for lack of a vaccine?

And who knows if or to what degree the insular community will remain isolated? Given the human predilection for rambling and roving, chances are good that the isolated gene pool could become diluted. If that turns out to be the case, what benefit from  the historical losses could be claimed?

Given the known benefits of vaccination, and all the uncertainties associated with not vaccinating, it seems that vaccination is probably the best way to go. IMHO. What do you think?