I'm curious how far the label "anti-vaxxer" extends. Does it also include people who accept the science behind vaccination, but who as a political principle are opposed to it being made compulsory?
I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
51–60 of 111 posts
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#52Scaring people is a fantastic way to create and emotional connection and increase engagement do to the fear of missing out on new information. The type of thing that will get you to check your phone every couple minutes all day.
In the back of my head I've always felt(without any information to back it up) that the anti vaccination movement was one of the first real big public health impacts to come out of Facebook and other social applications that serve content designed to cause emotional reactions to increase engagement.
I should add that I do not believe any of this is intentional as opposed to simply optimizing for engagement over time.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#53Vaccinations are generally a public health benefit, no doubt about it, but there's also much we don't understand about how the immune system works. It's not completely, entirely, 100% irrational to desire to avoid messing with something you don't fully understand. The more science you learn, sometimes, the more you learn how little we really know and understand about the complexities of our own bodies. With enough science, that can turn around and reinforce rationality; but I don't think we're there yet as a society in either the body of science available, nor the prevalence of good science education in the population.
I used to be in the same camp as the author. My mom is what I'd call a rational anti-vaxxer, and I hated her for it. She's a trained biologist. She vaccinated where she could see all the science and the benefit, but treated each vaccine as an independent entity, requiring new proof and new science and understanding of how it functioned and how effective it was and the cost/benefit to society before making the decision. When I turned 18, she turned the reins over to me and told me to make my own decisions based on all the data available. She trusted me with the science.
I took this to heart as an adult. I feel it is an excellent way to approach the problem, and in fact is more scientific than blindly accepting recommendations that have dozens of conflicting influences outside simple public health. This became particularly apparent to me as I now battle a chronic GI immune condition that has made my life extremely difficult over the past year. It took a full year to actually diagnose, and even then, what was the best doctors could tell me? "We have no idea what causes it, but we know it doesn't correlate to cancer. Here's some steroids. Good luck." I am not saying any vaccination causes this—I simply don't know—but it's that kind of doubt in the field that makes people doubt blanket statements on all vaccinations, whether that be right or wrong.
I agree with the author of this piece: we need more empathy, more understanding, and much less confrontation. But we also need more science, and a better understanding of science, and a more nuanced, honest discussion of vaccines in medicine and society. In a complex world, when a scientist hears "All X are good," they are right to be skeptical of it. We need to recognize that we live in a world where no one is allowed to have a conversation on vaccines based on reality. Instead, any discussion that doesn't qualify itself with the greatness of vaccines and the wrongness of anti-vaxxers instantly labels you an anti-vaxxer yourself, and loses you all credibility.
This article, too, succumbs to that mental virus. I refuse to. He says, "my point isn't that the anti-vaxxers might be right. They're not." With that attitude, we'll never be able to understand the problem scientifically as a populace, and that's what's wrong with our response to anti-vaxxers—not that they're wrong and delusional. If you want real empathy, stop calling people wrong all the time, and start trying to understand their fear instead of dismissing it and strategically trying to quell it.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#54The whole anti-science movement is in parts self inflicted. If someone reads one day that scientists discovered "walking" causes cancer and the next day that "walking" is the key to eternal living it is no wonder nobody takes any form of evidence serious anymore. We just see those studies coming out every other day - and journalists certainly playing their part by over-hyping them. Once you realize how hard consensus…
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#55I'm curious how far the label "anti-vaxxer" extends. Does it also include people who accept the science behind vaccination, but who as a political principle are opposed to it being made compulsory?
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#56I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far. The core points here are good ones: - In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've heard a hundred times. - Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific argume…
Except you don't actually win. In conceding to their fears with an empathetic approach, you are enabling their delusions. That's the problem with placating unreasonable people - doing so inevitably emboldens them.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#57I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far. The core points here are good ones: - In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've heard a hundred times. - Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific argume…
It should be addressed with legislation making it a felony not to vaccinate your children by a reason early childhood age (e.g. 6 years or something), whether put in public school or not, and making proof of vaccination a requirement for federal aid for that person (e.g. student loans or assistance). There are certain things that should be up for public debate and discourse, left to the courts, or up to personal pref…
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#58This whole discussion reminds me of seat belt law debate: Pro-seat belt: "It will save hundreds of lives and reduce injuries" Anti-seat belt: "What if an accident pushes my car into the water and the seatbelt jams and my child drowns." Make it the law and put parents in jail. Better yet, since the first confrontation over vaccinations will be when the children are young, put them up for adoption. Lots of vetted, rati…
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#59How come there aren't any "anti-civil engineers" who go around claiming bridges aren't safe or "anti-aeronautical-engineers" who "believe" through common sense that planes can't fly? Electricity is reading our brainwaves. Vacuum cleaners suck out our souls. If there are they are rightly recognized as crackpots in need of psychiatric help.
> "anti-aeronautical-engineers" who "believe" through common sense that planes can't fly? There are plenty of people who won't fly because they're afraid it will crash, despite that being tremendously unlikely. > Electricity is reading our brainwaves. I got some great pamphlets in my mailbox about how the neighborhood powerlines were going to affect my mood. But, no. They are not in need of psychiatric help. They're…
I know people like this. They don't think their view is rational and they do things like buy plane tickets for their kids.
Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one
#60I can relate with this.