71–80 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does your highlighted quote refute injidup‘s claim?
I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you talked to the kind of American voter who spouts antivax nonsense in the last decade? Because "these people but somehow develop and practice complex medical opinions " is literally true for millions.
Have you talked to average American dog owner? They leave their "kids" locked in tiny apartments alone for 10 hours a day, while working. Are not bothered if their "pet" is neurotic mess. If it becomes too annoying, it gets dumped into shelter or on streets. If it dies, it gets replaced in weeks! You are really giving dog owners too much agency!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socially awkward dog prefers not to dog.
Social awkwardness and autism are not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
You literally quoted (with a “>”) and replied to a comment with a highlighted (using italics) quote from the article and told the commenter they are incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You literally quoted (with a “>”) and replied to a comment with a highlighted (using italics) quote from the article and told the commenter they are incorrect.
That is because the commenter was incorrect. They cited a bogus study. The study didn't support their claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social awkwardness and autism are not the same thing.
It's just the excuse elon musk and bill gates use to excuse their social foibles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. """ About 37 percent of dog owners also believe that canine vaccination could cause their dogs to develop autism, even though there is no scientific data that validates this risk for animals or humans. """ https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/nearly-half-of-dog...
> I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. Incorrect. Of the respondents to that paper's survey, 84% said that their pets were fully vaccinated for Rabies . [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329845
> As Table 3 demonstrates, a large minority of dog owners consider vaccines administered to dogs to be unsafe (37%),
That is not the same thing as 84% having their pets fully vaccinated for Rabies which you know. As is obvious a person can have their dog be vaccinated but still have been hesitant about it due to feeling it is unsafe.
You have discounted the fact that it is, in many states, a civil offence not to vaccinate your dog.
https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-rabies-vaccination-la...
Thus a person may, wishing not to be fined, vaccinate their dog but still hold anti vaccination beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does your highlighted quote refute injidup‘s claim?
I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
Your analysis is incorrect. High rates of vaccination does not necessarily correlate with beliefs that the vaccination is unsafe especially in areas where there are severe civil penalties against those who do not vaccinate. It seems you jumped to the conclusion that the study was bogus and doubled down but got your statistical reasoning upside down. You misquoted the study and then claimed it is bogus.
They surveyed ~2200 people, of whom roughly half had pets. Of those, 84% were up-to-date on the Rabies vaccine. Another 5% didn't know.
It doesn't matter why the 84% of the pet-owning respondents were up-to-date on the vaccine, and moreover, you're just guessing. Maybe, as you say, it was "severe penalties" that compelled them. Or maybe they believe in the Rabies vaccine, and answered the other questions generally about all vaccines, since the questions weren't specific to Rabies. Maybe they were answering in theory, but felt differently for their pets.
The only thing you know is that they vaccinated their pets, which means that the entire premise of "vaccine hesitancy amongst pet owners" is unsupported by the evidence in the study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your analysis is incorrect. High rates of vaccination does not necessarily correlate with beliefs that the vaccination is unsafe especially in areas where there are severe civil penalties against those who do not vaccinate. It seems you jumped to the conclusion that the study was bogus and doubled down but got your statistical reasoning upside down. You misquoted the study and then claimed it is bogus.
Maybe you're right, but the cited study doesn't provide evidence for your claim. I also didn't misquote the study. They surveyed ~2200 people, of whom roughly half had pets. Of those, 84% were up-to-date on the Rabies vaccine. Another 5% didn't know. It doesn't matter why the 84% of the pet-owning respondents were up-to-date on the vaccine, and moreover, you're just guessing. Maybe, as you say, it was "severe penalti…
> A new study has found that US dog owners who harbor mistrust in the safety and efficacy of childhood and adult vaccines are also more likely to hold negative views about vaccinating their four-legged friends.
They didn't claim that 37% are not vaccinating due to mistrust. They claimed that people hold negative views about vaccines with regards to pets. It was a study about beliefs not about actions.
The abstract states clearly.
> Canine vaccine hesitancy (CVH) can be thought about as dog owners’ skepticism about the safety and efficacy of administering routine vaccinations to their dogs. CVH is problematic not only because it may inspire vaccine refusal
It is certainly important for public policy to understand the trajectory of anti-scientific thinking in the community ( not withstanding that this thinking is now running the USA ) If today a large percentage of people are expressing vaccine hesitancy then next week maybe they stop vaccinating. This is a worthwhile attempt to understand what is going on. Calling it bogus is just wrong. They are also aware of their own limitations.
> Limitations & discussion. We view this work as an important first step in understanding canine vaccine hesitancy and its public health consequences. We recognize, of course, that some measures employed in this study are imperfect. For example, our measure of canine rabies vaccine uptake is self-reported, and therefore may be subject to inaccurate and/or biased recall. Correspondingly, we see future efforts to clinically validate self-reported vaccine uptake measures (as is often done with human vaccines; see [2] as an
But you just did a drive by "It's bogus" without even trying to understand the context.