[mbreese]

The immune system is not limitless. You only throw so many things at it at a time because that's all that works to A) provides the immunization coverage you need and B) not have a severe effect on the life of the individual. The point isn't to battle the vaccine, it's to prime the pump (so to speak). If you introduce too much at a time you risk weakening the overall effect. This isn't intuition.

My point is that vaccines are spread out for good reason and the distribution has been widely studied and that changing the mix needs to handled carefully.

> everyone should be at risk of getting it?

I'm quite aware of shingles... it's horrible and I'd wish it on no one. Any adult that hasn't already had chickenpox should definitely get the vaccination.

My hesitation was that I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't? That's my question. Since chickenpox itself is not that dangerous to a large percentage of the child population, I wonder if it would be better to have them acquire the resistance naturally (get the disease). This is the original form of vaccination remember...

Bear in mind this is all from the point of view of the individual. From the point of view of population / herd immunity it's probably far better to just have everyone vaccinated so it's over and done with. I mean, a kid at my son's daycare recently got chickenpox. I wouldn't like dealing with a toddler that has the chickenpox, so all in all, I'm happy with the decision to get him vaccinated for it, regardless of my initial hesitation.

[sabat]

It's not limitless, but scientific testing has shown it can handle much more than you are imagining.

I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't?

It doesn't differ at all. All vaccines are made of live-but-weakened or dead versions of viruses. Your immune system doesn't realize that, and reacts as though it's being attacked. The "hard" part for it is concocting antibodies for the virus it's discovered. And that, naturally, is the beneficial effect of the vaccine, because the immune system doesn't easily forget how to make that kind of antibody. Vaccines work because the immune system reacts the same way to a weak or dead virus that it does to a live, strong one.

[mbreese]

You don't know what I'm imagining. I think that a load of approx. 3 different antigens per inoculation with a buffer of at least 6-12 weeks in between them is adequate for coverage of most vaccines. All I was saying is that the current regiment of spread out vaccines is done for a reason. The original (parent/parent/...) poster said that it was done "to be safe". My point is that it is done that way for more than one reason... chief among them efficacy. You want the antibodies that you create to last.

I know the way vaccines work.

The part that you don't get with a stock vaccine is immunity when dealing with new strains or mutations that aren't accounted for by the stock vaccine. The antigenic make up of the new strain may be different. This is why we get different flu shots every year. With something as simple as chicken pox, I don't think that there are many strains (I could only find 2 while quickly Googling), so one shot and you're covered.

But in the case of something like H1N1, someone may get the vaccine and assume they are covered. They then may get lax about standard precautions, thinking that they are covered. And then when a new strain rolls around, you're susceptible.