This article doesn't really dive into the issue in a real, honest way.
Vaccinations 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.
I do give credit to those reasons. Those reasons are fine, logical, and rational. My experience is that they more-or-less correspond to why the people I know who don't take vaccines don't take then.
The existence of better reasons to be vaccinated doesn't negate those at all.
The central problem is that the establishment, at some point, began to lie more and more. We've entered a post-truth age. I'm part of the scientific establishment, and I see that a lot.
I personally have enough background in biology that I can evaluate the virtually non-existent risks of vaccines for myself, as well as the significant risks of COVID19. That's why I'm vaccinated.
If I didn't have that scientific background -- and most people don't -- I might be an anti-vaxxer for all the reasons listed in the article.
Until you can acknowledge that the concerns are valid and real, you're not getting anywhere. I convinced one person who was unvaccinated, for precisely those reasons but who trusted me, not by ridiculing their logic, but by explaining how, in this particular case, I'd walked through the evidence and they were safe. She trusts me, and she's now vaccinated.
On a more basic level, if both sides of the political spectrum stopped lying to "win," I don't think we'd have this problem.
I also used to feel similarly. But in deciding to research exactly why anti-vax types feel the way they do I was a bit surprised. I still believe there is a social obligation to vaccinate, but claiming the "science is settled" on an issue like this is not entirely appropriate. This [1] is a rather monumental report from the National Academy of Sciences that took an extremely in depth look at this topic. It's from 2011 but things have not changed radically since then.
In that 866 page report the researchers analyze a great breadth of data and research on connections between vaccines and all sorts of nasty things. And one phrase you might find worth ctrl+fing is "The evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between". You'll find it repeated constantly throughout the report as the academy researchers come to their conclusion on the validity (or lack thereof) of a causal link between vaccines and all sorts of nasty stuff. And for many of these nasty correlations while the evidence is insufficient claim a causal link, it's also insufficient to reject it. Not exactly what you'd call settled science.
Of course this does not justify turning against vaccinations. Even if there is a causal link found between vaccines and some of these various issues, the possibility of significant numbers of people choosing to not vaccinate would be catastrophic. For instance we're right now on the cusp of completely eliminating polio, much as we did smallpox. In fact you are currently more likely to get polio from a vaccine than in the wild. And some people might use that as a reason to stop vaccinating. But if they did, that would rapidly change. The one and only thing that's bringing us to where we are is people choosing to vaccinate. So it comes down to a matter of social responsibility. Vaccines are not without risk but whatever risk there is greatly outweighed by the collective benefits.
Imagine someone you love has a chronic auto-immune disease like MS, arthritis or even psoriasis and they are taking a drug to depress their immune system like a TNF inhibitor or something like methotrexate or cyclosporine. Or they have cancer and on chemotherapy that depresses their immune system. Or they have had an organ fail and they need to take drugs to stop their body rejecting the replacement. Or they have AIDS or any other disease that damages their immune system. Or they are old. Or they are very young, perhaps even unborn.
They did the right thing and unless they had some medical reason not to at the time they got vaccinated. Now what good will it do them with a damaged immune system? What good will it do them if they have not been vaccinated yet due to age.
Then we have a perfectly healthy family who decided that based on advice from their chiropractor/homeopath or some actor that vaccination is a conspiracy by evil big business and government. Besides it is their right not to give a fuck about anyone else. They get a mild sickness from some disease that was effectively non-existent a decade ago and can't understand what the fuss is about as their slightly spotty kids wipe their snot on the door handle. Then your immune compromised loved one comes along.
To be fair, we don't vaccinate against smallpox anymore because the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits.
It's not prima facie irrational to believe that the risks of other vaccines outweigh the benefits. I've never heard of anyone being persuaded by being insulted, so perhaps we should instead approach the anti-vaxxers with hard data showing how yes, their concerns are in fact grounded in fact, but there are also other facts that make vaccination the right decision in most, but not all, cases.
I saw a news clip of a woman getting vaccinated saying she trusts the vaccine because she "likes science." The vaccines appear to be mostly safe, but because you "like science" isn't a reason to trust them. What she means is she likes Mythbusters and thinks that's science.
Some people just trust their natural immune system. It's the best thing humans have had for dealing with any sort of sickness since the beginning of time. They've seen the risk and they are willing bet on a natural immune response. Its that simple. It's the pro vaccine people that push the issue and have an agenda.
Do you think this attitude explains some of the epistemological issues behind the anti-vaccine movement? I'm pro-vaccination, but I find it weird when people mock others for not believing vaccines are safe and then go on to criticize GMOs and the validity of nutritional studies. (Not saying you're doing this at all, this is just a tangent.)
Of course, vaccine studies are probably way more rigorous and easier to control than figuring out the complexities of nutrition, but it is a little unsettling how easily doubt can metastasize. There's really no solution here other than trying to spread scientific literacy and helping people understand the rigorous testing of modern medicine, while also encouraging them to think twice about the sensationalized studies they read.
Your wife sounds smart. I appreciate her using her mind instead of giving into literally everyone and everything screaming at her to just get vaccinated.
Incredible how so many people feel so comfortable injecting some experimental fluid into their bodies just because the authority figure and the TV-man said so.
And they come in their high horses, saying "follow the science", "it is safe and effective". Making it super clear that they are just reading the titles or what the TV-man tells them the science says.
Because if they had read some of that science, they'd see that it is looking as clear as day that the vaccination is causing ADE and so much more and premise of having your cells exhibit spike proteins of its own so that you can develop immunity to it is a gun that we have jumped on without actually thinking about it.
But you know, it is easy to scream misinformation like others replying to post when the whole world is going to join the choir.
It is SUPER COMFY being on the wrong side of history. When all the large corporations and legacy media comes in to praise you and comfort you, that's how one one knows they are on the right side of history. Right?
It's a simple fact that vaccines are safe and perhaps the best medical tool we have along with antibiotics to prevent mass death. Only 0.0001% of vaccination doses result in significant complications (roughly 3,800 compensated injuries out of 3.4B doses over ~30y, something like 5,600 total filed injuries [1]). It's also true that they work in part through herd immunity, the concept that if most people are vaccinated, diseases can't spread to those who aren't or can't be.
Still, enough people find this controversial, resorting to conspiracy-minded thinking. It's another example of how science doesn't seem to sink through, and repeating facts doesn't seem to help. Maybe figuring out how to communicate more empathetically through people's perceived values can help [2]. But honestly I'm at a loss, and it's deeply tragic to see so much needless suffering.
look, like, vaccines are basically one of the greatest accomplishments of humankind, this assertion is pretty obvious from any reasonable review of the relevant science and/or facts of the stuff, and so it's difficult to take seriously anyone who comes to a different conclusion
like, if someone would believe you if you told them a vaccine is 99.9% safe, but would refuse to take that vaccine if you told them it was 100% safe? that person is not a rational actor, I'm not sure that they're anyone worth worrying about
So you want to tweak the model to fit your own view that "there's not really a logical reason for people to not get vaccinated". Whereas that's just like your opinion, and plenty of people have very valid and rational reason not to do so. They might even have read more scientific papers about it than a person holding this belief
No, you are. I said science and explicitly held myself to the topic of science. You said you never met anyone willing to talk about the science, and that is all I addressed.
"You have made no scientific claims or scientific arguments."
And you are 100% utterly, totally, completely wrong. I told you, science isn't about big words or biochemistry or any sort of why, it is about what. Before vaccines, disease. After vaccines, nearly no disease. Causality established via details I didn't go into but you are free to investigate, at this point they are plausibly common knowledge. THAT'S SCIENCE. That's it. Right there. On the topic of whether vaccines are a net good, that is the argument. Mechanisms are irrelevant. Whys are irrelevant.
And the reason science works that way is that it avoids exactly the error you're trying to induce me into, where we bring various bits of "whys" to bang against each other until we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and whether Pisces are more likely to marry Tauruses or Cancers, and all the other massive cognitive errors that way of thought creates, by valuing "explanations" over facts. The fact is that where vaccines go, deaths go down, and no amount of arguing to the contrary matters. This is exactly why science is so important, because it's one of the few ways known to prevent the error you're stuck in.
You're the one offering up psuedoscientific approaches and freely conflating ideology with the simple matter of how science determines the most likely outcomes for things. It is certainly a common delusion that science is about why, but the why comes later; once you establish that vaccines prevent disease, the next study hypothesizes a reason and tests that hypothesis, but no amount of fancy hypotheses will change the previous results.
You don't see science because you can't recognize it, not because it doesn't exist. You're asking for the ounce of proof and noticing the metric tons I'm handing you in the form of every living person who would be dead without them, in the millions. You may very well be one of them, even if you weren't vaccinated. Mercifully, we'll never have to find out.
(I actually freely admit the fact that vaccines are incredibly powerful and effective does not immediately prove compulsory vaccination is moral or correct, but I'm not addressing that, by choice. Science first, moral reactions to scientific results second. Neither step can be skipped but they should never be done out of order.)
This is the kind of logic that has brought us the plague of “As a mom, I know what’s best for my kids’ health and that’s why I’m not getting them vaccinated.” Despite what a charming mantra it sounds like, people are not automatically experts on themselves any more than on any other subject.
This is how I feel too. I have a science degree and firmly understand the logic of vaccines and I and my family are all vaccinated. However, I do NOT get flu shots, and I usually fare better yearly than those who do. Why? Because I keep my immune system functioning as optimally as possible, vegan diet, exercise, healthy living. People these days are so pro-vaxx that they think they can live completely unhealthy lifestyles, and eat whatever crappy food and processed meat are available, and then the magical biopharmaceutical alchemists will release yearly drugs to defend against the viral outbreaks. Doing so you give them power, and those people are the same people who developed napalm, agent orange, mustard gas, and every other predatory chemical that exists. So yes the black magic pharam folks can produce good miracles to save you, but they also could be the ones actually DEVELOPING bio warfare agents like the covid-19 virus, and then it's a vicious circle. All they need is for otherwise smart people to give up questioning the chemical components of the vaccines themselves, and they can develop wearables and social barriers that allow totalitarian rule. It's not binary, you can question the vaccine at any level, that's what science is about, it's not about anti-anit-vaxxing propaganda and insane dependency on predatory institutions that pretend to care about your well being.
I would defend that claim, though agree that the ‘bullying’ is not helpful. Vaccines are the only solution so far that has been shown to substantially reduce individual risk, or show potential to solve the pandemic. Other measures are beneficial too, but I don’t believe any other solution has looked promising yet at getting to the end, only at dealing with the interim. Even herd immunity via infection is currently a worse (slower and more expensive) option. So every normal adult is personally benefited from vaccination. What’s weird about teaching people science?
Counterpoint: it's not the uneducated that don't vaccinate, it's the cynical - and the "educated" are often ignorant of all the ways it's reasonable to be cynical because they haven't been screwed over as much.
At the end of the day, understanding the benefit of a vaccine requires trusting information, and I think that information, and trust, has been compromised. You could equally hate on anyone deciding that smoking was bad for you, not long ago, because of how thoroughly compromised the "science" around it was.
Rationality can be induced if the vaccine is highly effective. If I get my family vaccinated and learn that the neighbors died due to the disease, it will be common wisdom that they died due to poor decision making.
So the vaccine is for people who want to protect themselves against a serious reaction. Makes the case for vaccination far less compelling than what most people believe.
That's a strawman considering the overwhelming majority of people taking vaccine aren't doing it for scientific reasons either. They're taking it because of social pressure, virtue signal, fear, etc. but certainly not knowledge about science since less than 1% of the population is PhD educated and know anything about how science is done in the first place.
Vaccinations 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.
reply