9 ms·

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

34 points by kyle_morris_ 6y ago

maxdo 6y ago
This planet will always have people who are always not happy with something. And don't get me wrong it positive. Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation. And since this is a liberal society where you can't force people to stay at home even if it will cause death, oh well... this is the only way, someone should die without vaccine first.
- smt88 6y ago
  > Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation. What does this mean? It doesn't make sense in English, so could you please elaborate? > someone should die without vaccine This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why anti-vaxxers are a problem. They don't just kill themselves. They break herd immunity and put other people at risk. They have already caused outbreaks that have killed adults and children who did get their vaccines.
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    I think they mean, the science is more rigorous because they have to deal with anti-vaxxers.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  > oh well herd immunity is a big deal for many different reasons - it stops the spread - it protects the immunocompromised - it protects newborns and those too young/old to get vaccinations
- duckMuppet 6y ago
  It's not about the vaccines. It's about control. If the ppl are vaccinated, those ppl should be safe, and in theory those unvaccinated masses dying off from X illness increases the overall fitness of the population. However, it's not at all about that. This is about forcing those who may not think or believe the same to not only acquiesce, but to actively proclaim they are science deniers and that another group is infallible and correct. I'm not an anti-vaxxer per-se, i think vaccines for things such as polio, mmr are important. But i don't think others such as flu and possibly hpv are worth the risk. I don't support forced vaccination however, and the more those who loudly tout forced vaccinations the more it leads me to believe that there may be credibility issues with the vaccine efficacy and the vaccination's research.
  - toss1 6y ago
    It is not control, it is the anti-vaxxers freeloading on the herd immunity maintained by the smart people and deliberately endangering the people with genuine medical conditions that prevent vaccination & so literally depend on the herd immunity to live We are not on the Lewis & Clark expedition, we live in a highly complex society, which requires serious maintenance.
    - lpah4all 6y ago
      Smart people are loathe to trust for-profit corps with their health. How safe do you find those opioids now? What were they saying in front of the congressional committee? What were their sales reps saying? What were their privately-funded goal-seeking researchers saying? Medical science and profit should not be mixed. I mean, look at this mess here in America.
      - toss1 6y ago
        We can agree that profit motive can corrupt science and delivery of medicine without declaring that all of medicine is therefore bad. It is called not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Smart people make finer distinctions.
        lpah4all 6y ago
        Honest, capable people don't put words in other people's mouths. Please show me where I said, "All of medicine is therefore bad." No, you said that. Now, will you apologize? I doubt it. Will you do better at reading and understanding in the future? I sincerely hope so.
        toss1 6y ago
        >>Smart people are loathe to trust for-profit corps with their health. The sentence very clearly implies all, and nowhere in the post is an indication that you mean any restriction to part (vs all) of the med/pharm profession In fact, you go out of your way to point out the malfeasance pushing opioids and imply that it also applies to vaccines, when it is entirely different industry segments, companies, etc. I'll not only not apolgize, I'll point out that you are specifically arguing in bad faith, disingenuously arguing by implication, and when called out on it, histrionically backtracking and accusing others of falsehoods. Grow up. learn science, stop trying to disingenuously undermine the good work of generations of researchers and physicians that keeps you healthy. Sheesh
bradleyy 6y ago
I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.
- RIMR 6y ago
  Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.
  - generalpass 6y ago
    > Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
    - ejstronge 6y ago
      > Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling? That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
      - generalpass 6y ago
        > That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data? Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
    - dtech 6y ago
      The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.
shezi 6y ago
In one word: predictably.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  I don't usually award glib posts with upvotes but I did for you. I think you capture the fundamental issue: who cares what they think? Objectively, we should care less about what they think about covid-19 than any other group because of their track record of scientific illiteracy on the precise subject under discussion. Aside from anthropological and related disease mitigation strategies, what anti-vax people think about this is not worth a second of attention. The odds favor that objectively ignorant people will continue to make poor assessments based on facts. edit: thankfully it is flagged.
peter_d_sherman 6y ago
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 want to join. A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not. Our current Constitution supports these rights, implicitly, via the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Although, in an increasingly legislative and legalistic society, those rights may have to be asserted, asserted repeatedly, asserted to multiple people who are not aware of them, and asserted hard...)
- ericol 6y ago
  > 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 better the life of humanity as a whole (And you can't prove otherwise). I could argue a lot more, but english is not my mother tongue.
  - peter_d_sherman 6y ago
    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...
lpah4all 6y ago
Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines must be developed and distributed by the government for the benefit of all human beings. Sure, we need to minimize cost but not to enrich the select few wealthy enough to be investors in the first place. If there is a surplus (profit), that money gets invested right back into R&D. No pharma-bros needed or wanted. I am pro-vaccine and anti-for-profit-corps. Yes, my kids are vaxed for measles and a few others, but, no, I did not go in for the entire schedule, which is frankly insane. Just compare our vax schedule in America to what they do in Europe. It's maybe 2x. And, yes, we will all get a Covid vax as soon as it is available. But, remember, selling three of something (ETA: instead of two) that has a little margin gives you a 50% increase in profit. B-School types don't care that that third dose might be too much; besides, they can find/fund researchers to goal-seek safety for that extra 50%. And, yes, vax is big business, just not as big as other meds. And, yes, anti-vaxxers piss me off, too, the fucking anti-science morons. But people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  What costs do you think were cut? Which specific vaccines do you think do more harm than good?
  - lpah4all 6y ago
    The use of thimerosol is solely to increase shelf-life. Keeping stock from expiring (thus being unsellable) is a fundamental B-school technique for controlling costs. Anyone with any knowledge of human physiology knows injecting any form of mercury into the blood of newborns and the pregnant is insane. There is no more toxic element than mercury. And hand-picked and funded goal-seeking researchers are not hard to find, if you've been following the "reproducibility problem" these past few years. They don't care so long as you can't prove the tort.
- 6y ago
beefield 6y ago
There are a couple of other groups I would like to be interviewed as well. - Economists who have bought into the crowding out theory. Are they consistent and still oppose government spending? [1] - People/corporations who have lobbied for and taken advantage of all kinds of loopholes in taxation as to avoid paying taxes and who think taxation is theft, and are now expecting government to pay them out from this mess. [2] - The ones that vouch for strong IP and patent protection. Do they propose to not share any information between research groups and give them even longer patents to incentivize better innovation? [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp [2] I cite no examples. I am astonished if there is none, though.
- msafadieh 6y ago
  This is what profit-driven systems do.
- defertoreptar 6y ago
  Your three examples run in a similar vein: individual rights vs the role of government. I think many of those you would see as holding contradictory views would say that government intervention in these areas actually fall under the domain of something they believe is one of the few justifiable functions of government: defense. Only, it's not a war this time.
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    In addition, you can be against something but believe that as long as it's being done it should be done right, or to your advantage.
Invictus0 6y ago
It's amazing how the avalanche of knowledge offered by the internet does nothing to counter even the tiniest seed of doubt planted in these people's minds. Undoing the brainwashing is going to be one of the major challenges of our time.
- lpah4all 6y ago
  It's difficult to mandate self-evolution through education. Most people just binge-watch vapid fiction after vapid fiction.
wbhart 6y ago
This was an interesting read. The style of presentation is quite unique. The overall tone of the article is in favour of vaccination, but it nevertheless provides many exact quotes of antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists, usually without trying to directly refute what they say. It's also well investigated, in the sense that caveats to the usual responses to antivaxxers are included. I personally felt like I came away with a better understanding of what the conspiracy theorists are actually thinking/claiming. I learned some interesting facts about various vaccination campaigns, and overall felt like I came away with more information than I came to the article with. I'm interested to see where this style of journalism leads.
toss1 6y ago
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-Kruger Syndrome, and confirmation bias in their 'arguments', but the root seems to be a (likely) unconscious willingness to freeload on the benefits provided by others. This is unfortunately coupled with a deliberate ignorance of and/or willingness to deliberately endanger the small subset of people with bona-fide medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination, and so genuinely rely on the herd immunity to survive. It is far past time to coddle this deliberate ignorance and freeloading. If anti-vaxxers want to stay that way, fine, but they need to choose and not be permitted poison the well - vaccination needs to be required for alk access to public buildings, schools, transport, etc.
- lpah4all 6y ago
  Do you know you are a fascist? Look it up. Controlling other people's bodies because of your fears is fundamental to fascism. Personally, I'm not a holocaust denier. I also loathe oppressors of any sort, but your beliefs are your beliefs. That said, it would be far better if you understood exactly what you are.
- GCSAQCMIYI 6y ago
  >That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before vaccines Like Scarlet fever?
  - toss1 6y ago
    No. Scarlet Fever is bacterial, not viral, and are fought by different parts of the body's immune system. Few if any attempts at creating vaccines against bacteria are successful, whereas vaccines against viruses are typically more successful, although viruses such as Influenza can evolve new versions frequently, requiring new vaccine versions.
Zenst 6y ago
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 than any harm I can think of beyond stock pilers effect. Though lack of vitamin D is not something that is the prevail of any pigment, just more likely and given the data, I'm supprised that such advice is not more vocalised. Though for many it will be basic health knowledge akin to basic first aid, that many is not all. For reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched-into-why-ethnic-minorities-worst-hit-by-covid-19-11974116 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched...
- Tainnor 6y ago
  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-do-to-improve-your-immune-system https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d... [2] https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/ https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/
  - lpah4all 6y ago
    The more melanin a person has the less D their skin makes per same time of exposure. That explains the minority differences. My wife's son is a doctor. He specifically told us to take D supplements, but not the kids. That you are willing to even argue this is detrimental to society because you are obviously too stupid to know how stupid you are, which involves a lot of "I don't really know but I'll just spout off my misinformed opinions that could affect someone else's life." Having low D levels indicates an immune system that is not functioning at its best. You should excuse yourself from these conversions with an apology, but your ego probably can't do that, can it?
vearwhershuh 6y ago
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.
- secstate 6y ago
  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.
- lpah4all 6y ago
  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.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    This is just an argument to moderation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
    - lpah4all 6y ago
      There's nothing more tedious than someone who cites an argument fallacy incorrectly.
- dasil003 6y ago
  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.

34 points by kyle_morris_ 6y ago

This planet will always have people who are always not happy with something. And don't get me wrong it positive. Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation. And since this is a liberal society where you can't force people to stay at home even if it will cause death, oh well... this is the only way, someone should die without vaccine first.

smt88 6y ago
> Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation. What does this mean? It doesn't make sense in English, so could you please elaborate? > someone should die without vaccine This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why anti-vaxxers are a problem. They don't just kill themselves. They break herd immunity and put other people at risk. They have already caused outbreaks that have killed adults and children who did get their vaccines.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  I think they mean, the science is more rigorous because they have to deal with anti-vaxxers.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
> oh well herd immunity is a big deal for many different reasons - it stops the spread - it protects the immunocompromised - it protects newborns and those too young/old to get vaccinations
duckMuppet 6y ago
It's not about the vaccines. It's about control. If the ppl are vaccinated, those ppl should be safe, and in theory those unvaccinated masses dying off from X illness increases the overall fitness of the population. However, it's not at all about that. This is about forcing those who may not think or believe the same to not only acquiesce, but to actively proclaim they are science deniers and that another group is infallible and correct. I'm not an anti-vaxxer per-se, i think vaccines for things such as polio, mmr are important. But i don't think others such as flu and possibly hpv are worth the risk. I don't support forced vaccination however, and the more those who loudly tout forced vaccinations the more it leads me to believe that there may be credibility issues with the vaccine efficacy and the vaccination's research.
- toss1 6y ago
  It is not control, it is the anti-vaxxers freeloading on the herd immunity maintained by the smart people and deliberately endangering the people with genuine medical conditions that prevent vaccination & so literally depend on the herd immunity to live We are not on the Lewis & Clark expedition, we live in a highly complex society, which requires serious maintenance.
  - lpah4all 6y ago
    Smart people are loathe to trust for-profit corps with their health. How safe do you find those opioids now? What were they saying in front of the congressional committee? What were their sales reps saying? What were their privately-funded goal-seeking researchers saying? Medical science and profit should not be mixed. I mean, look at this mess here in America.
    - toss1 6y ago
      We can agree that profit motive can corrupt science and delivery of medicine without declaring that all of medicine is therefore bad. It is called not throwing out the baby with the bath water. Smart people make finer distinctions.
      - lpah4all 6y ago
        Honest, capable people don't put words in other people's mouths. Please show me where I said, "All of medicine is therefore bad." No, you said that. Now, will you apologize? I doubt it. Will you do better at reading and understanding in the future? I sincerely hope so.
        toss1 6y ago
        >>Smart people are loathe to trust for-profit corps with their health. The sentence very clearly implies all, and nowhere in the post is an indication that you mean any restriction to part (vs all) of the med/pharm profession In fact, you go out of your way to point out the malfeasance pushing opioids and imply that it also applies to vaccines, when it is entirely different industry segments, companies, etc. I'll not only not apolgize, I'll point out that you are specifically arguing in bad faith, disingenuously arguing by implication, and when called out on it, histrionically backtracking and accusing others of falsehoods. Grow up. learn science, stop trying to disingenuously undermine the good work of generations of researchers and physicians that keeps you healthy. Sheesh

bradleyy 6y ago

I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO. For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.

RIMR 6y ago
Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.
- generalpass 6y ago
  > Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack. Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
  - ejstronge 6y ago
    > Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling? That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
    - generalpass 6y ago
      > That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data? Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
  - dtech 6y ago
    The burden on proof is on the one making claims against the scientific consensus. If they don't (they never do, or it never holds up), quack is 100% the right word.

shezi 6y ago

In one word: predictably.

throwaway5752 6y ago
I don't usually award glib posts with upvotes but I did for you. I think you capture the fundamental issue: who cares what they think? Objectively, we should care less about what they think about covid-19 than any other group because of their track record of scientific illiteracy on the precise subject under discussion. Aside from anthropological and related disease mitigation strategies, what anti-vax people think about this is not worth a second of attention. The odds favor that objectively ignorant people will continue to make poor assessments based on facts. edit: thankfully it is flagged.

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

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 want to join. A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not. Our current Constitution supports these rights, implicitly, via the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Although, in an increasingly legislative and legalistic society, those rights may have to be asserted, asserted repeatedly, asserted to multiple people who are not aware of them, and asserted hard...)

ericol 6y ago
> 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 better the life of humanity as a whole (And you can't prove otherwise). I could argue a lot more, but english is not my mother tongue.
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  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...

lpah4all 6y ago

Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology. That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for failure. The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs. What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population? The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health. Vaccines must be developed and distributed by the government for the benefit of all human beings. Sure, we need to minimize cost but not to enrich the select few wealthy enough to be investors in the first place. If there is a surplus (profit), that money gets invested right back into R&D. No pharma-bros needed or wanted. I am pro-vaccine and anti-for-profit-corps. Yes, my kids are vaxed for measles and a few others, but, no, I did not go in for the entire schedule, which is frankly insane. Just compare our vax schedule in America to what they do in Europe. It's maybe 2x. And, yes, we will all get a Covid vax as soon as it is available. But, remember, selling three of something (ETA: instead of two) that has a little margin gives you a 50% increase in profit. B-School types don't care that that third dose might be too much; besides, they can find/fund researchers to goal-seek safety for that extra 50%. And, yes, vax is big business, just not as big as other meds. And, yes, anti-vaxxers piss me off, too, the fucking anti-science morons. But people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.

CydeWeys 6y ago
What costs do you think were cut? Which specific vaccines do you think do more harm than good?
- lpah4all 6y ago
  The use of thimerosol is solely to increase shelf-life. Keeping stock from expiring (thus being unsellable) is a fundamental B-school technique for controlling costs. Anyone with any knowledge of human physiology knows injecting any form of mercury into the blood of newborns and the pregnant is insane. There is no more toxic element than mercury. And hand-picked and funded goal-seeking researchers are not hard to find, if you've been following the "reproducibility problem" these past few years. They don't care so long as you can't prove the tort.
6y ago

beefield 6y ago

There are a couple of other groups I would like to be interviewed as well. - Economists who have bought into the crowding out theory. Are they consistent and still oppose government spending? [1] - People/corporations who have lobbied for and taken advantage of all kinds of loopholes in taxation as to avoid paying taxes and who think taxation is theft, and are now expecting government to pay them out from this mess. [2] - The ones that vouch for strong IP and patent protection. Do they propose to not share any information between research groups and give them even longer patents to incentivize better innovation? [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp [2] I cite no examples. I am astonished if there is none, though.

msafadieh 6y ago
This is what profit-driven systems do.
defertoreptar 6y ago
Your three examples run in a similar vein: individual rights vs the role of government. I think many of those you would see as holding contradictory views would say that government intervention in these areas actually fall under the domain of something they believe is one of the few justifiable functions of government: defense. Only, it's not a war this time.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  In addition, you can be against something but believe that as long as it's being done it should be done right, or to your advantage.

Invictus0 6y ago

It's amazing how the avalanche of knowledge offered by the internet does nothing to counter even the tiniest seed of doubt planted in these people's minds. Undoing the brainwashing is going to be one of the major challenges of our time.

lpah4all 6y ago
It's difficult to mandate self-evolution through education. Most people just binge-watch vapid fiction after vapid fiction.

wbhart 6y ago

This was an interesting read. The style of presentation is quite unique. The overall tone of the article is in favour of vaccination, but it nevertheless provides many exact quotes of antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists, usually without trying to directly refute what they say. It's also well investigated, in the sense that caveats to the usual responses to antivaxxers are included. I personally felt like I came away with a better understanding of what the conspiracy theorists are actually thinking/claiming. I learned some interesting facts about various vaccination campaigns, and overall felt like I came away with more information than I came to the article with. I'm interested to see where this style of journalism leads.

toss1 6y ago

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-Kruger Syndrome, and confirmation bias in their 'arguments', but the root seems to be a (likely) unconscious willingness to freeload on the benefits provided by others. This is unfortunately coupled with a deliberate ignorance of and/or willingness to deliberately endanger the small subset of people with bona-fide medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination, and so genuinely rely on the herd immunity to survive. It is far past time to coddle this deliberate ignorance and freeloading. If anti-vaxxers want to stay that way, fine, but they need to choose and not be permitted poison the well - vaccination needs to be required for alk access to public buildings, schools, transport, etc.

lpah4all 6y ago
Do you know you are a fascist? Look it up. Controlling other people's bodies because of your fears is fundamental to fascism. Personally, I'm not a holocaust denier. I also loathe oppressors of any sort, but your beliefs are your beliefs. That said, it would be far better if you understood exactly what you are.
GCSAQCMIYI 6y ago
>That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before vaccines Like Scarlet fever?
- toss1 6y ago
  No. Scarlet Fever is bacterial, not viral, and are fought by different parts of the body's immune system. Few if any attempts at creating vaccines against bacteria are successful, whereas vaccines against viruses are typically more successful, although viruses such as Influenza can evolve new versions frequently, requiring new vaccine versions.

Zenst 6y ago

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 than any harm I can think of beyond stock pilers effect. Though lack of vitamin D is not something that is the prevail of any pigment, just more likely and given the data, I'm supprised that such advice is not more vocalised. Though for many it will be basic health knowledge akin to basic first aid, that many is not all. For reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched-into-why-ethnic-minorities-worst-hit-by-covid-19-11974116 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched...

Tainnor 6y ago
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-do-to-improve-your-immune-system https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d... [2] https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/ https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/
- lpah4all 6y ago
  The more melanin a person has the less D their skin makes per same time of exposure. That explains the minority differences. My wife's son is a doctor. He specifically told us to take D supplements, but not the kids. That you are willing to even argue this is detrimental to society because you are obviously too stupid to know how stupid you are, which involves a lot of "I don't really know but I'll just spout off my misinformed opinions that could affect someone else's life." Having low D levels indicates an immune system that is not functioning at its best. You should excuse yourself from these conversions with an apology, but your ego probably can't do that, can it?

vearwhershuh 6y ago

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.

secstate 6y ago
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.
lpah4all 6y ago
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.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  This is just an argument to moderation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
  - lpah4all 6y ago
    There's nothing more tedious than someone who cites an argument fallacy incorrectly.
dasil003 6y ago
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.