3 ms·

Most people disagreeing on most subjects have probably barely applied any sort of reasoning to get there. Most pro-vaxxers have simply picked up the dominant o

Most people disagreeing on most subjects have probably barely applied any sort of reasoning to get there. Most pro-vaxxers have simply picked up the dominant opinion from the surrounding society -- not a bad heuristic in practice. Most anti-vaxxers have picked up an opinion from a persuasive single source and then read some other sources that back it up. I admit I'm in the first category, I certainly vaccinate my own children, but I can't really claim that I've come to this decision after a thorough understanding of immunology, I have simply followed the path of least resistance.

FartyMcFarter 6y ago
You don't need a degree in immunology to be very skeptical of anti-vaxxers' claims. Reading a bit of history is enough to know what happens when vaccines don't exist.
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  The steelman version of antivaxxism isn't "vaccines shouldn't exist", it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it. I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity" That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting. It's especially troubling since if it were true then the powers that be would have every incentive to try to keep it quiet and attack anyone who suggests it. I mean, I make the same judgement call every year for flu shots. Is it at least plausible that I would be better off overall making the same call for some other disease?
  - rualca 6y ago
    > (...) I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity" > That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting. What's hard to refute? I mean, the exceptionalism argument only sticks with sociopaths who believe society exists only to serve their personal interests without having to contribute anything in return.
  - bart_spoon 6y ago
    > it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it." That's not really true though. The risks involved in getting a vaccine are much, much smaller than the risks involved in not getting the vaccine, especially with diseases like Covid.

FartyMcFarter 6y ago

You don't need a degree in immunology to be very skeptical of anti-vaxxers' claims. Reading a bit of history is enough to know what happens when vaccines don't exist.

hvdfhbj 6y ago
The steelman version of antivaxxism isn't "vaccines shouldn't exist", it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it. I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity" That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting. It's especially troubling since if it were true then the powers that be would have every incentive to try to keep it quiet and attack anyone who suggests it. I mean, I make the same judgement call every year for flu shots. Is it at least plausible that I would be better off overall making the same call for some other disease?
- rualca 6y ago
  > (...) I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity" > That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting. What's hard to refute? I mean, the exceptionalism argument only sticks with sociopaths who believe society exists only to serve their personal interests without having to contribute anything in return.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  > it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it." That's not really true though. The risks involved in getting a vaccine are much, much smaller than the risks involved in not getting the vaccine, especially with diseases like Covid.