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.<p>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.<p>&#62; everyone should be at risk of getting it?<p>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.<p>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...<p>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.