Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

undark.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 111 posts

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

#61

Post by secstate »

vearwhershuh wrote: post #58

Here is the pattern: 1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad") 2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx") 3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side. 4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence. It's very effective.

Thank you for bringing attention this. In a language many software engineers would understand, I would call this an antipattern that encourages non-theological religious belief.

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

#62

Post by lpah4all »

vearwhershuh wrote: post #58

Here is the pattern: 1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad") 2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx") 3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side. 4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence. It's very effective.

You got it.

It takes intelligence to entertain both sides of an argument, grasp and appreciate the nuance of the situation and then come to a sensible conclusion, which is often "I don't know, I'll need to learn more to decide."

And it takes intellectual honesty to admit when our preconceptions need to be tossed and upgraded to a more expansive, more accurate worldview, which is the essense of intelligence.

That's why Dunning & Kruger's work is so damned important: It showed that the least capable are the most confident.

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

#63

Post by peter_d_sherman »

ericol wrote: post #12
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…

> 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 "Making somebody pay taxes, if they don't want..." Dude, this has been discussed ad infinitum. You don't want to take a vaccine? Fine. But then, do I have the knowledge to know you haven't taken it, as refusing to be around you, etc etc etc because you refuse to do something that is proven to bet…

OK, let's understand a few things. First, I am self-quarantining, even though I do not have CoronaVirus. I wish for no harm to you, or to my fellow man.

Second, I am a philosopher. After deep introspection, I have realized that even though, from my limited human perspective, it would be nice for large segments of the population to do certain things, and not do other things, it's not my place in the universe to force them to do or not do so, much less support any government or political system which forces them to do or not do so.

That is, force someone to do something against their will.

That is, I must grant freedom to all others, regardless of what they do or don't do, even though I might not like this, even though it might impact me and my life.

True freedom is not had through a Government -- but rather by granting everyone their own freedom, including (as paradoxical as it would seem) the freedom to create and participate in governments, including the ability to disagree with other people (e.g., your comments to me), and including the ability to use force on others.

Yes, I might not like any of those things... but if I want freedom for myself, true freedom -- I must grant everyone the right to do all of those things.

We have no argument... you are correct in what you believe.

I don't see things exactly the same way as you... but my own philosophy grants you the freedom to see things how you wish.

Now, if you wanted to free yourself, that is, free your mind, you would study everything you can about medicines, vaccines, health, nutrition, DNA, biochemistry, etc., as I have done in the past.

Ultimately, the study of all of that becomes an "argument to authority". That is, we're saying that things about medicine that we believe to be true are true, because doctors and other highly educated men say they are.

Now, in my own experience, generally speaking, that's true.

But the knowledge of those in medicine -- typically goes down to a certain level... Cells, DNA, etc.

And it stops there.

It doesn't go down to even deeper levels, atoms, sub-particles, quanta, string-theory, etc.

The medical doctors would have a lot to learn if they explored these areas, specifically the mind-body-biochemistry link, but unfortunately, in this day and age, they constrain their knowledge to statistics...

Statistically, yes, people are going to die from things.

Statistically, they're going to die from car accidents, from diseases, and even old age! They might even die (statistically) from too much or too little of something, like too much lead in the water, or not enough love by their parents, or too much (or not enough) money!

CoronaVirus is a statistical phenomena.

It's a glass-is-half-full-no-glass-is-half-empty perceptual filter on top of the statistical deaths caused by comorbidity, which is what happens when you take already unhealthy health conditions, and add another one on top of those.

Healthy people do not get diseases.

Human beings have been on this planet for millions of years, and our genome has adapted to all kinds of viruses, diseases and pathogens. CoronaVirus is no different, it will be adapted into our DNA, we'll be immune to it, no need for a vaccine (if we don't want one -- I'm not preventing you or anyone else from getting one), and then we can all move on with our lives...

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

#64

Post by generalpass »

Tainnor wrote: post #52
generalpass wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time"). I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that con…

> Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time").

> I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.

There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling.

I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims.

Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.

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

#65

Post by doikor »

lpah4all wrote: post #24
doikor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule Keyword here being believe. Their opinion is based on purely belief without any proof. All it does is give the kids their immunity later giving the pathogen a window to get them sick and spread the pathogen further

It also increases profit. You trust those B-schoolers and their hand-picked goal-seeking researchers to shade toward safety or profit? I am pro-vax (within a sensible schedule) and anti-for-profit-corps, who NEVER EVER give a shit about your health, only that you can't prove that it was their product that harmed you.

And you trust one doctors opinion that causes you to spend more time in his clinic (make money).

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

#66

Post by Tainnor »

Zenst wrote: post #47

One fair point "Floyd said, “are talking about washing your hands, but why aren’t they talking about things you can do to boost your immune system like vitamin D?" Given that in some countries in the northern hemisphere we are seeing a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities deaths from this, the aspect that vitamin D or lack of, does seem to be a factor and certainly one in which such advice would do more good…

I don't find this evidence convincing. Your first link just lists health benefits of vitamin D, and discusses how different ethnicities absorb it differently, which I don't want to dispute. The second link just states that minority populations are more at risk without making any link to vitamin D.

This is, at best, a correlation (in fact, I'm not even sure the data does go that far) and implies no causal mechanism.

Sure, if vitamin D is healthy, which it probably is, do go outside and get some more (though do beware of sunburns). As it stands right now, I haven't heard of any claims linking this to Coronavirus yet, though.

What's more problematic is the claim that you should "get vitamin D to boost your immune system". Even if that worked (I don't believe it does), you don't want to necessarily boost it because that might lead to bad consequences. [1] In fact, people have died from covid19 in part due to the immune system overreacting. [2]

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d...

[2] https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/

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

#67

Post by dasil003 »

vearwhershuh wrote: post #58

Here is the pattern: 1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad") 2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx") 3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side. 4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence. It's very effective.

Great point. Two truths that can not be reasoned away by ideology:

1) Most Americans don't have the lived experience to properly weigh the value of world-changing vaccines like Polio, MMR, etc.

2) There is a strong profit motive for pharmaceutical companies to get more globally-recommended vaccines approved.

Polarizing the debate and then picking a winning side will lead to the wrong outcome. Details matter.

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

#68

Post by Tainnor »

lpah4all wrote: post #62
vearwhershuh wrote: post #58

Here is the pattern: 1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad") 2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx") 3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side. 4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence. It's very effective.

You got it. It takes intelligence to entertain both sides of an argument, grasp and appreciate the nuance of the situation and then come to a sensible conclusion, which is often "I don't know, I'll need to learn more to decide." And it takes intellectual honesty to admit when our preconceptions need to be tossed and upgraded to a more expansive, more accurate worldview, which is the essense of intelligence. That's wh…

This is just an argument to moderation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Realistically, you can entertain both sides of an argument and come to the conclusion that one side is wrong.

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

#69

Post by Tainnor »

vearwhershuh wrote: post #58

Here is the pattern: 1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad") 2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx") 3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the reasonable people on the other side. 4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open minded into silence. It's very effective.

The problem is that 1) is just a strawman no medical expert agrees to.

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

#70

Post by lpah4all »

toss1 wrote: post #44

Often overlooked in commentary on anti-vaxxers, and by the anti-vaxxers themselves, is this: Freeloading The anti-vaxxers are freeloading on the herd immunity created and maintained by the smart people. That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before vaccines, when families often had 10 children to see a few survive to adulthood. There is plenty deliberate ignorance of history, Dunning-Kru…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN