> The reason is that the more you try to vaccinate the entire population, the more cases of cvdpv2 you cause. Until you hit that magic 100% you cause more harm than you prevent.
This makes little sense if you understand that both wpv2 and cvdpv2 were eliminated in the poorest regions of the world using OPV2. If what you claim is true, elimination would have been impossible, you would simply replace wpv2 with cvdpv2, since any attempt at eradication would seed new cvdpv2 cases.
Inactivated injectable vaccine, which does not boost herd immunity, is inefective in these countries with limited health systems.
> And in fact that people running this campaign noticed this and stopped vaccinating with opv2! (Which perhaps you did not know.)
Perhaps you refer to the global coordinated action to move from trivalent vaccine to bivalent (wpv1+ wpv3) in 2016 after the wild type 2 virus was certified as eradicated. But monovalent OPV2 was still being used recently to target specific areas where cvdpv2 is endemic. It makes little sense to use it elsewhere and seed cvdpv2.
This makes little sense if you understand that both wpv2 and cvdpv2 were eliminated in the poorest regions of the world using OPV2. If what you claim is true, elimination would have been impossible, you would simply replace wpv2 with cvdpv2, since any attempt at eradication would seed new cvdpv2 cases.
Inactivated injectable vaccine, which does not boost herd immunity, is inefective in these countries with limited health systems.
> And in fact that people running this campaign noticed this and stopped vaccinating with opv2! (Which perhaps you did not know.)
Perhaps you refer to the global coordinated action to move from trivalent vaccine to bivalent (wpv1+ wpv3) in 2016 after the wild type 2 virus was certified as eradicated. But monovalent OPV2 was still being used recently to target specific areas where cvdpv2 is endemic. It makes little sense to use it elsewhere and seed cvdpv2.