How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19 • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#31

Post by generalpass » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

ejstronge wrote: post #14

generalpass wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?

> Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling? That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?

> That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?

Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#32

Post by dtech » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

generalpass wrote: post #11

RIMR wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.

> Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?

The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#33

Post by whenanother » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

bradleyy wrote: post #3

I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.

[dead]

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#34

Post by thatsamonad » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #7

Opinion: Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do -- is no different than forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it. It's no different than forcing a man to join the Military if he doesn't want to join, or forcing the man NOT to join the Military, if he does…

> is no different than forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it.

This is a false analogy. From a health perspective, abortions only impact the mother and unborn fetus (and the impact on the fetus is debatable depending on where you land about when a human is “alive”). Not vaccinating affects those around you and can lead to extreme suffering and loss of life. They most definitely are very different.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#35

Post by generalpass » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

ejstronge wrote: post #21

generalpass wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. > For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician. It is not onl…

> I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility. If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essen…

> One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.

> If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.

You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs.

Why?

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#36

Post by henriquez » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

bradleyy wrote: post #3

I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.

There is a really strong echo chamber effect among online communities that promotes blind trust in authority when it comes to some things (vaccines, gun control) while decrying authority in other cases (online privacy, facial recognition).

I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people.

I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists.

We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing.

[1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#37

Post by wbhart » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

This was an interesting read. The style of presentation is quite unique. The overall tone of the article is in favour of vaccination, but it nevertheless provides many exact quotes of antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists, usually without trying to directly refute what they say.

It's also well investigated, in the sense that caveats to the usual responses to antivaxxers are included.

I personally felt like I came away with a better understanding of what the conspiracy theorists are actually thinking/claiming. I learned some interesting facts about various vaccination campaigns, and overall felt like I came away with more information than I came to the article with.

I'm interested to see where this style of journalism leads.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#38

Post by lpah4all » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #17

lpah4all wrote: post #13

Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines m…

What costs do you think were cut? Which specific vaccines do you think do more harm than good?

The use of thimerosol is solely to increase shelf-life. Keeping stock from expiring (thus being unsellable) is a fundamental B-school technique for controlling costs.

Anyone with any knowledge of human physiology knows injecting any form of mercury into the blood of newborns and the pregnant is insane. There is no more toxic element than mercury.

And hand-picked and funded goal-seeking researchers are not hard to find, if you've been following the "reproducibility problem" these past few years.

They don't care so long as you can't prove the tort.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#39

Post by duckMuppet » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

maxdo wrote: post #2

This planet will always have people who are always not happy with something. And don't get me wrong it positive. Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation. And since this is a liberal society where you can't force people to stay at home even if it will cause death, oh well... this is the only way, someone should die without vaccine first.

It's not about the vaccines. It's about control.

If the ppl are vaccinated, those ppl should be safe, and in theory those unvaccinated masses dying off from X illness increases the overall fitness of the population.

However, it's not at all about that. This is about forcing those who may not think or believe the same to not only acquiesce, but to actively proclaim they are science deniers and that another group is infallible and correct.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer per-se, i think vaccines for things such as polio, mmr are important. But i don't think others such as flu and possibly hpv are worth the risk.

I don't support forced vaccination however, and the more those who loudly tout forced vaccinations the more it leads me to believe that there may be credibility issues with the vaccine efficacy and the vaccination's research.

Re: How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19

#40

Post by lpah4all » Fri, Apr 17, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

peter_d_sherman wrote: post #7

Opinion: Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do -- is no different than forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it. It's no different than forcing a man to join the Military if he doesn't want to join, or forcing the man NOT to join the Military, if he does…

Most people are fascists at heart, more than willing to control your body over their own fears and stupidities.

We each get to choose what to do with our bodies so long as we are not intentionally causing harm to others.

Most people won't accept this, thus we shall both be downvoted to oblivion by the ignorant and oppressive.