The assertion that risk mitigation within the context of a normal lifestyle (i.e., not Bubble Boy) can be as effective as vaccination is not consistent with scientific consensus and therefore needs literature support.

You are saying that if you picked up pertussis from the grocery store, you would know who gave it to you? How would knowing that help, exactly?

Proper hygiene and staying home when you are sick are important, but in illnesses (e.g., measles, pertussis, to some extent rubella) spread by small particle respiratory droplets that have high infectious loads prior to symptoms, you cannot control spread this way.

"Unvaccinated people are not automatically dangerous to anyone. What is dangerous is how people behave." - what behavior would you recommend for a child who hasn't been vaccinated against measles?

As you already discovered, we prefer answers backed up by scientific research. Unsupported answers may be challenged or deleted.

@KennyPeanuts I disagree. It is common knowledge, perhaps even an axiom at this point (which, by definition needs no further support), that you cannot catch something you are not exposed to. Vaccination has some amount of effectiveness which is less than 100%. A lack of exposure has a known effectiveness that is equal to 100%. The question then becomes merely one of how much can anyone limit exposure? You confuse the issue by bringing your interpretation of "normal life" into it, or even suggesting that "normal" is a goal. I live a normal, productive life in upstate NY and minimize exposure.

@swbarnes2 No, that is not what I am saying. I have been fortunate enough to have not had pertussis. I specified in the answer that example is anecdotal. Also, I did not necessarily state that knowing where you got it helps me when I have it (though it can help stall the spread if that individual is confronted), rather, I merely stated that we generally know where something comes from and I used that to point out that it generally comes into our household from people who think they can be careless because they are vaccinated.

@DanHall Yes, I believe I addressed that. I specifically said that different diseases and their various vaccines have varying success rates and that there is still more to consider; further, I stated that each individual needs to do their research and make each choice based on that knowledge. The case you bring up is one where educated people should be more likely to vaccinate. I am against measles, but I never get the flu shot.

@DanHall The behavior should be the same as someone who has been vaccinated. I did not imply (or, at least I did not intend to) that the behavior should be different between vaccinated people and unvaccinated, expect towards the end where I said that people who remain unvaccinated against something must ensure that they are even more vigilant and work harder to ensure the health of themselves and those around them. So everyone, vaccinated or not, should avoid outbreaks, stay clean, quarantine the sick, and I've run out of space in this comment, but one could write an entire book on that.

@vkehayas Thank you for the advise. (tongue in cheek) Does that mean that the top-voted answer, currently at +18, will get challenged or deleted? Seriously though, as I stated in a comment to KennyPeanuts concerning my main point: I think that the medical community thoroughly supports the idea that you can only catch a contagious disease if you are exposed to it, and I think that is common knowledge. If I am incorrect about that, and you can catch a flu without ever being exposed to a flu, then please let me know: I will delete my answer myself and would gladly change my view.

To everyone who is active in the comments on my answer: I thought my answer was already getting lengthy, but it appears that people are misunderstanding some of my points and are asking for examples. I was trying not to make it too lengthy, but in light of the comments I am wondering if I should elaborate further. What do you think?

The issue with the lack of evidence is that you can't eliminate exposure to disease, you can only try to reduce it. Your statement: "The best way to avoid catching a disease is quite simple: avoid being exposed to it." is most certainly not an axiom. It is demonstrably false. For many diseases, when compared to vaccination, avoidance strategies to reduce exposure perform quite poorly.

The fact that another answer may not use proper referencing does not mean that you should too. Besides, @iayork is a member of the site long-enough that you can expect a certain quality from his answers. But despite that, even the top-rep users can be criticized for lack of references. Feel free to do the same if you have reason to.

We have been trying to tell you that what you suggest is not possible. Once you understand the basic biology behind infectious diseases it's quite obvious, really. See Dan Hall's comment above for the most concise criticism.

@DanHall While I am highly skeptical of this claim that you have now made again, I am willing to listen. Concerning your claim that "it's not an axiom and is demonstrably false," I think that flies in the face of everything we know about infectious disease in the modern day and suggest that the onus of burden is on you to explain otherwise. If there is literature (written in a style that it does not take a doctor of infectious diseases to understand) supporting your claim, I would like to see it. If it would take too much space and/or more discussion, we should probably get a chat started.

@vkehayas I am not a doctor, but I do understand the basic biology behind infectious diseases. That is the reason why I do not understand the mainstream thought process, as it seems to fly in the face of the basic biology behind infectious diseases, or so it appears to many of us. Most "pro-vaccine" people I have encountered fail to understand the simple logic and put forth silly arguments that don't make sense. However, it appears Dan might know of some material that might actually counter what I have said, which nobody has provided before that I can recall. I will wait on his response.

No one is arguing that you can get a disease without being exposed to it. What people are trying to tell you is that in many cases it's utterly impossible to avoid exposure to a disease. Long prodromal periods and subclinical spreaders (influenza for example), high infectivity (measles), long-distance dispersal (polio), all make it impossible to avoid exposure to many diseases no matter how careful you think you're being.

Hygiene interventions generally give low but significant risk reductions. As preventative measures, they are context dependent, but from 10 to 40-60% effective in the best cases. Many are reviewed here. Vaccines generally give high and significant risk reductions. The least effective vaccines, e.g., influenza, are as effective as the most effective hygiene interventions.

Of course you should keep washing your hands and staying home when sick. It's a good and effective thing to do. But it's not a reason to not vaccinate. You can and should do both. I don't think it's reasonable to blame people's failure to use good hygiene on the modern vaccination era, though (vaccinate and forget it). Reluctance to wash your hands despite good evidence that it helps has been a problem for a while.

@Aaron Can I give you another axiom? Patient zero for an infection is almost never identified. You may be correct that after a number of your family are infected, you can probably identify who brought it into your family group. However you will almost never identify who infected them. And more importantly for an infectious disease where you can be infectious during the incubation period, you will almost never identify even a small fraction of the people your family group infected before they became aware of the infection. Herd immunity gives defence in depth to stop this.

Answers that differ from our view need not be flagged for deletion. Unless its spam or wholly out of context, different answers should be encouraged.

@DanHall Thank you for the link. I will follow it and read once I am able to do so. And to everyone else: You seem to be reading only half of what I am saying and then providing examples which do not conflict with what I have said. I specifically said that it is different for different diseases and vaccines. They are not all equal. Instead of blindly accepting all of them, there is no problem with accepting only the ones for diseases that are more problematic, like the ones you are using as examples; fits with what I intended in my answer. Point is: educate yourself and decide for yourself.

@Graham in an outbreak, the index case is always identified. If it is not an emerging infectious disease and there is required reporting you can often confirm that the index case is patient zero. If it's not a true outbreak, e.g., if the disease is endemic to a population, then there is no patient zero and tracing the source is less relevant.

@Aaron this is generally good advice (educate yourself and decide for yourself). The challenge is that much of the available information is bad or incomplete, and if you don't have the whole picture it's hard to make an informed choice, even for an intelligent person such as yourself. Really, though, we need to do a better job communicating one-on-one with patients, in the office. Sadly, given the current structure of the healthcare system, that seems to be even more challenging than getting people to wash their hands or getting an affluent California suburb to reach herd immunity.

@DanHall that link goes through your university proxy -- I believe this link should go directly to the article: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5781206

@LShaver your right. I can't edit the original comment, or delete and repost. Your link is correct