4 ms·

Using psychology to change the minds of anti-vaxxers

14 points by mef 11y ago

1arity 11y ago
Just use law. It doesn't matter what anti-vaxxers choose to believe. If the vaccines work, to not vaccinate is to not wear a seatbelt, is to not wear a bicycle helmet. Anti-vaxxers can believe whatever they choose, they can convene support groups and rallies, and live in a parallel universe in their minds, and none of these things will protect their child from a disease that a vaccine could have, nor will any of these things make it okay to not protect their child from that disease. And if a law is made, the children will be vaccinated. Does it really pass the legal smell test that parents have a right to harm their children? No. So discourage that behaviour with law. Children have to be vaccinated for these diseases, using these vaccines ( efficacy confirmed by randomized double blind trials ), by this age, or the state will cause them to be vaccinated and the guardians that failed to vaccinate them will be accrue this number of penalty units. Before the child is old enough to care for itself, if the parents neglect a duty of care, the state adopts that duty.
- vaxthrowaway 11y ago
  Vaccines are not 100% safe, and as such, should not be legally required. https://www.reddit.com/r/axolotl_peyotl/comments/23og48/the_skeptics_guide_to_vaccines_part_i_poxes_polio/ https://www.reddit.com/r/axolotl_peyotl/comments/23og48/the_... I don't think people would like wearing seat belts if there were a small chance that they would decapitate you through normal usage. Here's an article about mandatory bike helmet laws doing more harm than good: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good-senate-hears http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandator...
  - dozzie 11y ago
    There is small chance that wearing a seatbelt will cause harm. It is similarly small as for modern vaccines. Please do not spread FUD.
- gress 11y ago
  Why not also mandate the use of drugs that promote good behavior, by law?
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  not wear a seatbelt May make sense on trains and buses. to not wear a bicycle helmet Bad example. There is no conclusive evidence with respect to the efficacy of bicycle helmet laws, and it even tilts to the direction of them not actually working: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
- 1arity 11y ago
  Bicycle helmets. Let’s start with that because they’re just so rich for this discussion. First off, the physics. Helmets protect against head injuries because they absorb impact. You can die from a head injury if you fall over from standing upright ( king hit knockout deaths ). If you add speed to that equation, the forces are larger ( a bicycle ). If you add more speed ( motorcycles ), the forces are even larger. At any of these situations the forces can be large enough to produce skull or spinal fracture or concussion that leads to cerebral edema and death, or even brain damage. The most effective thing is to minimize your down time after an injury. Why do you want to be learning how to talk again when you could be working again in 3 days? In an identical crash with and without a helmet, the only variable to your cognitive recovery time is the forces your head and neck experience. If wearing a helmet reduces those forces, and it does, then that will shorten your recovery time. I like the way I speak just fine, thank you. Then the parenting. When you send your child out to ride a bike, do you say to them, “Wear a helmet!” thinking to yourself that you don’t want them to get a head injury, or do you say to them, “Hey, it’s your choice to wear a helmet or not, and studies have shown that if I force you to wear a helmet, you’re more likely to not ride your bike ( and be safe, yet possibly obese ), while if I don’t force you to wear a helmet you’ll more likely ride your bike ( and risk head injury, but at least be slender ). So, my dear 7 year old, your call: reversible health problems from possible obesity, or potentially irreversible brain damage, what do you choose today? I’m cool with either.” That kind of laissez-faire-oo-la-la-the-state-cannot-regulate-my-choices attitude is why it works for the state to regulate. Because spreading illogical misinformation that can lead to people being harmed, is wrong. Finally, the fait accompli. The really interesting thing these arguments around helmets show is the very point I’m making : that if something dangerous ( riding without a helmet, taking a vaccine ) actually increases health and wellbeing across the board in aggregate ( greater numbers of cyclists leads to more healthy people, fewer instances of disease lead to smaller spread and mortality ), in other words, if something that is risky, is still relatively less risky than its inverse, then that’s a “good thing”, that societies want to adopt. So if you argue that helmets are mandatory, you’re on the side of the state regulating what is best for the group. If you argue that helmets are illegal ( for the arguments mentioned in these comments ), then you are on the side of the state regulating what is best for the group.
- 1arity 11y ago
  Vaccines. It works to address that in more detail too. > Vaccines are not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Living is not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Respecting the law is not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Jokes aside, no, it’s not safe, and that has no bearing. Only its __relative__ safety has bearing. Even if the risk of death by vaccine was 10%, and the risk of death by disease ( infection x mortality ) was 11%, the the law is that the vaccine is administered. Why? Because this saves more lives. How many more ? 1% more. Is it worth it? Yes. Why? Because without the vaccine 11% of people die. With the vaccine 10% of people die. Now what if everyone you love is in that 1%? What if that 1% difference is your life? The other side is what if everyone you love is in that 10%? Is it a tragedy? Yes. Is the law still correct? Yes. Why? Because more people live, even if they are not the people you love. Sorry, that’s society. The many > the one && the one !== you ( not necessarily, anyway ). If you disagree, you are free to terminate your social contract at any time. It may be hard to find somewhere away from all of us, tho, we’re sure you can if you try. Now, this situation is not ideal with respect to technology, and a better future is coming through better technology. What is it? Personalized medicine. What if we can get tighter error bars on your risk of death by vaccine and your risk of death by disease by studying the genetic markers associated with disease and treatment effectiveness? We can, and when that is more developed, we can make decisions that not only maximize life over the group, and also maximize it in individual cases, based on individuals’ genetic make up. “But they can’t force us to surrender our genetic information to the state for analysis!” And yet, there’s a chance if you do, then you receive treatment that gives you a better chance of life if you do. And if everyone does that, then everyone’s odds are improved. I haven’t yet thought at all about whether it is mandatory for the state to sequence your genome, tho this would likely be a reason contributing to a probable decision to say it is. So do you accept the state’s ability to protect the majority of life, even if you won’t, or do you hold to a ridiculous idea that the state can not adjudicate what works for the mass of people, so that you, and anyone else who so wishes, can choose to die, unhindered, by “natural” causes beyond the control of the state? Why is this idea ridiculous? Firstly because your choice to live in the state binds you to the state’s ToS. So for it to even be a question for you of disagreeing with what the state “permits” you to do is illogical. If you don’t want the state’s intercession, depart from it, to elsewhere. If you stay, you already accept the state's providence and prohibition. And if you choose both to stay, and to disagree, then you are an optimist who believes they can alter their circumstances to more suit them, and I commend you, and I am as well. If we want the state to become different, we can of course make it so. If you want the state to surrender regulating vaccines, then you can contribute to the creation of personalized medicine, and champion its adoption to provide a more granularized interpretation of “common good”. If you disagree with the concept of common good, then remove yourself from the commons, because you value your individuality more highly than the collective. There's nothing wrong with that being so, it just makes it illogical for you to stay. If you refuse all these and still contest the state’s regulation to preserve the majority of life is “unnatural” then that is ridiculous, because the hidden hand of “natural” causes ( natural selection, that despotic tyrant ) has been protecting the mass of people by its very mechanism since for ever. So if the state can step in and do it on individually relevant timescales of 1 lifetime, instead of on the order of meaningful propagation of a fit adaptation ( more like 10 generations ), then that works to an even finer granularity than evolution.
- 1arity 11y ago
  > Why not also mandate the use of drugs that promote good behavior, by law? Because the state can police your body and not your soul, and psychoactive drugs may interfere with the autonomous choice of the individual's rational, wilful faculty. It's okay to restrain the individual's capacity for action, if that action causes harm, and not to restrain their choice to choose that action. It's okay to encourage the individual to do something, and punish if it goes undone, if that something works for the individual or others. It’s okay to make some information illegal to disseminate, when doing so would cause harm, and it is not okay to force people to think or forget something, because someone’s mind is their unassailable temple, their own kingdom, entirely their own domain. So mandatory administration of psychoactives is unlawful invasion of foreign soil, it’s rape of the domain of the mind, which is a temple of autonomy. The only place where an invasion on foreign soil is not a rape of a place's autonomy is if the foreign soil is unable to administer its own affairs ( with respect to the current social context ) and unable to effects its own autonomy and is falling into chaos threatening to destabilise itself and neighbours. People with mental illness who are risks to themselves or others are such. So it's not okay to force people to take psychoactives, unless they actually work for the person or others -- and when this does work, then it happens, and in some places, psychiatric intervention is required by law. The state can cause you to take psychoactives, in other words. Forcing entire populations to take drugs that promote good behaviour ( ie, the common good )? Well that population would have to be pretty far gone ( say, if there was a major climate event, and widespread vigilantism, looting and violence, it would be okay to crop-spray aerosolized pacifiers to protect people & infrastructure ). And yet, in peacetime, well there’s less utility, and, anyway, don’t we already have that ? It’s called culture. The thing about culture is, you can think your way out of it, you can unplug. The thing about mass administration of psychoactives is they may interfere with the autonomous choice of your rational, wilful faculty. In other words, they may be the mental equivalent, of physical force.

14 points by mef 11y ago

Just use law. It doesn't matter what anti-vaxxers choose to believe. If the vaccines work, to not vaccinate is to not wear a seatbelt, is to not wear a bicycle helmet. Anti-vaxxers can believe whatever they choose, they can convene support groups and rallies, and live in a parallel universe in their minds, and none of these things will protect their child from a disease that a vaccine could have, nor will any of these things make it okay to not protect their child from that disease. And if a law is made, the children will be vaccinated. Does it really pass the legal smell test that parents have a right to harm their children? No. So discourage that behaviour with law. Children have to be vaccinated for these diseases, using these vaccines ( efficacy confirmed by randomized double blind trials ), by this age, or the state will cause them to be vaccinated and the guardians that failed to vaccinate them will be accrue this number of penalty units. Before the child is old enough to care for itself, if the parents neglect a duty of care, the state adopts that duty.

vaxthrowaway 11y ago
Vaccines are not 100% safe, and as such, should not be legally required. https://www.reddit.com/r/axolotl_peyotl/comments/23og48/the_skeptics_guide_to_vaccines_part_i_poxes_polio/ https://www.reddit.com/r/axolotl_peyotl/comments/23og48/the_... I don't think people would like wearing seat belts if there were a small chance that they would decapitate you through normal usage. Here's an article about mandatory bike helmet laws doing more harm than good: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good-senate-hears http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandator...
- dozzie 11y ago
  There is small chance that wearing a seatbelt will cause harm. It is similarly small as for modern vaccines. Please do not spread FUD.
gress 11y ago
Why not also mandate the use of drugs that promote good behavior, by law?
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
not wear a seatbelt May make sense on trains and buses. to not wear a bicycle helmet Bad example. There is no conclusive evidence with respect to the efficacy of bicycle helmet laws, and it even tilts to the direction of them not actually working: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
1arity 11y ago
Bicycle helmets. Let’s start with that because they’re just so rich for this discussion. First off, the physics. Helmets protect against head injuries because they absorb impact. You can die from a head injury if you fall over from standing upright ( king hit knockout deaths ). If you add speed to that equation, the forces are larger ( a bicycle ). If you add more speed ( motorcycles ), the forces are even larger. At any of these situations the forces can be large enough to produce skull or spinal fracture or concussion that leads to cerebral edema and death, or even brain damage. The most effective thing is to minimize your down time after an injury. Why do you want to be learning how to talk again when you could be working again in 3 days? In an identical crash with and without a helmet, the only variable to your cognitive recovery time is the forces your head and neck experience. If wearing a helmet reduces those forces, and it does, then that will shorten your recovery time. I like the way I speak just fine, thank you. Then the parenting. When you send your child out to ride a bike, do you say to them, “Wear a helmet!” thinking to yourself that you don’t want them to get a head injury, or do you say to them, “Hey, it’s your choice to wear a helmet or not, and studies have shown that if I force you to wear a helmet, you’re more likely to not ride your bike ( and be safe, yet possibly obese ), while if I don’t force you to wear a helmet you’ll more likely ride your bike ( and risk head injury, but at least be slender ). So, my dear 7 year old, your call: reversible health problems from possible obesity, or potentially irreversible brain damage, what do you choose today? I’m cool with either.” That kind of laissez-faire-oo-la-la-the-state-cannot-regulate-my-choices attitude is why it works for the state to regulate. Because spreading illogical misinformation that can lead to people being harmed, is wrong. Finally, the fait accompli. The really interesting thing these arguments around helmets show is the very point I’m making : that if something dangerous ( riding without a helmet, taking a vaccine ) actually increases health and wellbeing across the board in aggregate ( greater numbers of cyclists leads to more healthy people, fewer instances of disease lead to smaller spread and mortality ), in other words, if something that is risky, is still relatively less risky than its inverse, then that’s a “good thing”, that societies want to adopt. So if you argue that helmets are mandatory, you’re on the side of the state regulating what is best for the group. If you argue that helmets are illegal ( for the arguments mentioned in these comments ), then you are on the side of the state regulating what is best for the group.
1arity 11y ago
Vaccines. It works to address that in more detail too. > Vaccines are not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Living is not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Respecting the law is not 100% safe, and should not be legally required. Jokes aside, no, it’s not safe, and that has no bearing. Only its __relative__ safety has bearing. Even if the risk of death by vaccine was 10%, and the risk of death by disease ( infection x mortality ) was 11%, the the law is that the vaccine is administered. Why? Because this saves more lives. How many more ? 1% more. Is it worth it? Yes. Why? Because without the vaccine 11% of people die. With the vaccine 10% of people die. Now what if everyone you love is in that 1%? What if that 1% difference is your life? The other side is what if everyone you love is in that 10%? Is it a tragedy? Yes. Is the law still correct? Yes. Why? Because more people live, even if they are not the people you love. Sorry, that’s society. The many > the one && the one !== you ( not necessarily, anyway ). If you disagree, you are free to terminate your social contract at any time. It may be hard to find somewhere away from all of us, tho, we’re sure you can if you try. Now, this situation is not ideal with respect to technology, and a better future is coming through better technology. What is it? Personalized medicine. What if we can get tighter error bars on your risk of death by vaccine and your risk of death by disease by studying the genetic markers associated with disease and treatment effectiveness? We can, and when that is more developed, we can make decisions that not only maximize life over the group, and also maximize it in individual cases, based on individuals’ genetic make up. “But they can’t force us to surrender our genetic information to the state for analysis!” And yet, there’s a chance if you do, then you receive treatment that gives you a better chance of life if you do. And if everyone does that, then everyone’s odds are improved. I haven’t yet thought at all about whether it is mandatory for the state to sequence your genome, tho this would likely be a reason contributing to a probable decision to say it is. So do you accept the state’s ability to protect the majority of life, even if you won’t, or do you hold to a ridiculous idea that the state can not adjudicate what works for the mass of people, so that you, and anyone else who so wishes, can choose to die, unhindered, by “natural” causes beyond the control of the state? Why is this idea ridiculous? Firstly because your choice to live in the state binds you to the state’s ToS. So for it to even be a question for you of disagreeing with what the state “permits” you to do is illogical. If you don’t want the state’s intercession, depart from it, to elsewhere. If you stay, you already accept the state's providence and prohibition. And if you choose both to stay, and to disagree, then you are an optimist who believes they can alter their circumstances to more suit them, and I commend you, and I am as well. If we want the state to become different, we can of course make it so. If you want the state to surrender regulating vaccines, then you can contribute to the creation of personalized medicine, and champion its adoption to provide a more granularized interpretation of “common good”. If you disagree with the concept of common good, then remove yourself from the commons, because you value your individuality more highly than the collective. There's nothing wrong with that being so, it just makes it illogical for you to stay. If you refuse all these and still contest the state’s regulation to preserve the majority of life is “unnatural” then that is ridiculous, because the hidden hand of “natural” causes ( natural selection, that despotic tyrant ) has been protecting the mass of people by its very mechanism since for ever. So if the state can step in and do it on individually relevant timescales of 1 lifetime, instead of on the order of meaningful propagation of a fit adaptation ( more like 10 generations ), then that works to an even finer granularity than evolution.
1arity 11y ago
> Why not also mandate the use of drugs that promote good behavior, by law? Because the state can police your body and not your soul, and psychoactive drugs may interfere with the autonomous choice of the individual's rational, wilful faculty. It's okay to restrain the individual's capacity for action, if that action causes harm, and not to restrain their choice to choose that action. It's okay to encourage the individual to do something, and punish if it goes undone, if that something works for the individual or others. It’s okay to make some information illegal to disseminate, when doing so would cause harm, and it is not okay to force people to think or forget something, because someone’s mind is their unassailable temple, their own kingdom, entirely their own domain. So mandatory administration of psychoactives is unlawful invasion of foreign soil, it’s rape of the domain of the mind, which is a temple of autonomy. The only place where an invasion on foreign soil is not a rape of a place's autonomy is if the foreign soil is unable to administer its own affairs ( with respect to the current social context ) and unable to effects its own autonomy and is falling into chaos threatening to destabilise itself and neighbours. People with mental illness who are risks to themselves or others are such. So it's not okay to force people to take psychoactives, unless they actually work for the person or others -- and when this does work, then it happens, and in some places, psychiatric intervention is required by law. The state can cause you to take psychoactives, in other words. Forcing entire populations to take drugs that promote good behaviour ( ie, the common good )? Well that population would have to be pretty far gone ( say, if there was a major climate event, and widespread vigilantism, looting and violence, it would be okay to crop-spray aerosolized pacifiers to protect people & infrastructure ). And yet, in peacetime, well there’s less utility, and, anyway, don’t we already have that ? It’s called culture. The thing about culture is, you can think your way out of it, you can unplug. The thing about mass administration of psychoactives is they may interfere with the autonomous choice of your rational, wilful faculty. In other words, they may be the mental equivalent, of physical force.