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

I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#31

Post by 1337biz »

The 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 finding is and all the personal interests and agendas involved, including the "big" failures of science (e.g smoking is save), I can see the point of people rejecting science as subjective.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#32

Post by donkeyd »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #19
donkeyd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confirmation bias works both ways. In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of facts.

> In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of facts. I disagree. I'm always on the right side and am never influenced by confirmation bias - at least that's what the comments I approve on my blog say!

I have to disrespectfully disagree, because my filter bubble always shows me that my views are correct.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#33

Post by vdaniuk »

astalwick wrote: post #17

I'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…

>both medicine and the science behind drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once

On the other hand, non-medicine (alternative medicine) and non-science (pseudoscience) have been spectacularly right more than once. That's the point. Agree with empathy angle and need for emotional arguments, though.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#34

Post by cname »

condescendence wrote: post #16

You're missing a big part of the argument here: >Go tell arachnophobic parents that you must put spiders on their child because society depends on it, and see how that goes When children don't receive vaccines it is not just seen that they are endangering themselves, but other children aswell because of the possibility of spread/mutation (whether this is true or not it doesn't really matter, that's just a majority of…

If you read the whole article, it's pretty clear that he hasn't missed any aspect of "the argument".

From the article: "But vaccines only work when everyone buys in. Public health depends on anti-vaxxers confronting their greatest fears for the benefit of others."

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#35

Post by slavik81 »

plg wrote: post #13

How 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 just wrong about something.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#36

Post by pc86 »

astalwick wrote: post #17

I'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 preference. Vaccination is not one of them. "This shot will give my kids autism" is not reasonable and should not be treated as a reasonable concern any more than "Obama is Kenyan" or "We didn't land on the moon" should.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#37

Post by _ph_ »

sharemywin wrote: post #6

How do you convince your wife when her kid got sick and went into a seizure after a vaccination. Especially when the CDC recommends against it for your child: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm then what do you do about the other child?

The exceptions in this list are almost entirely due to possible allergic reactions. Take flu vaccines - most of them are created via eggs, so people allergic against eggs cannot use these vaccines, until especially prepared without using eggs. If no vaccine is available for your child, it should skip this especial vaccination. This also is the reason why it is so important that every child which can, should be vaccinated. If a small percentage of the population is not vaccinated, they are still safe/no danger to society due to the protection given by the vaccinated part of the population. This is not a reason to skip vaccinations for non-medical reasons.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#38

Post by NickM »

plg wrote: post #13

How 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.

Because the examples you're giving are clearly ridiculous, even to the layperson. Obviously planes can fly, nobody has ever gotten their soul sucked out by a vacuum cleaner, etc.

Now first let me say I think vaccines are a Very Good Thing, but people have actually been harmed by vaccines: it's extremely rare, and happened more in the past than it does today, but it can happen which makes it much harder to shake peoples' paranoia.

Believing electricity can read your thoughts is clearly crazy, but believing vaccines are harmful can just be a case of not understanding/respecting the probabilities involved.

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#39

Post by legulere »

A really good article. Similar things are happening with so many things in our lives (feminism for instance). The worst is when people begin to deny the existence of real problems (like with vaccines, although they make sense, there really is some risk for the people that get vaccinated).

Re: I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one

#40

Post by slavik81 »

everyone wrote: post #9

The author comes across as a bit of an idiot too in the article. Basing his opinions on blogs and a particular internet community. Rather than acquiring an understanding from the scientific source material on these issues.

A thorough literature review of a field you have no training in is a rather significant undertaking.

It's nice to take a look at individual papers sometimes, but without a lot of context it's difficult to be sure you're interpreting them right.

Post reply on HN