4 ms·

And I'd heard of the anti-vaxx movement in the mid-90's.

mannykannot 6y ago
Certainly, though it was mostly ignored by major political parties in those days. And WRT EamonnMR's point, while the article invokes 'antiscience' as a movement, its author is clearly only interested in medical science. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a unitary, consolidated anti-science movement, though it might be developing.
jfengel 6y ago
Anti-vax took a weird twist over the past decade. It used to be a hippie-liberal notion, heavily informed by being anti-corporate anti-big-pharma. But it became more mainstream and cross-party when endorsed by celebrities, and then cross-fertilized with the anti-science anti-government Republican party. I'm sure the crunchy-granola antivaxers are still out there, but they were a fringe group and remain a fringe group. But for the GOP it's mainstream. COVID's a little different from general anti-vax, being driven by a hoax narrative from the President combined with the perception of rushing a vaccine through (with the intention of having it be an October surprise for the election). That makes everybody nervous, on all sides of the spectrum.
- djrogers 6y ago
  > But for the GOP it's mainstream. No, it's really not. It's only mainstream in the GOP if you get your news from the left - if you associate with and listen to people on both sides of the aisle, you realize that it's a fringe element on both sides.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - taylodl 6y ago
    25% of the GOP members in the US House of Representatives refusing to get the vaccine doesn't sound "fringe" to me.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  The vaccines were accelerated by spending money and the high prevalence of the infection, they weren't rushed. 4 months into widespread use they have been safe and have demonstrated high efficacy in real world use. The blood clotting with the AZ vaccine is an issue, but that risk is still a good trade-off for a big segment of the population.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    I've tweaked my post slightly; I was referring to the perception of it being rushed for political reasons. It's clearly safe and pursued using proper scientific methods, but there was legitimate concern that the President would apply pressure to approve something prematurely. That would be very much in character -- as we saw when he applied pressure to change votes.

Certainly, though it was mostly ignored by major political parties in those days. And WRT EamonnMR's point, while the article invokes 'antiscience' as a movement, its author is clearly only interested in medical science. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is a unitary, consolidated anti-science movement, though it might be developing.

jfengel 6y ago

Anti-vax took a weird twist over the past decade. It used to be a hippie-liberal notion, heavily informed by being anti-corporate anti-big-pharma. But it became more mainstream and cross-party when endorsed by celebrities, and then cross-fertilized with the anti-science anti-government Republican party. I'm sure the crunchy-granola antivaxers are still out there, but they were a fringe group and remain a fringe group. But for the GOP it's mainstream. COVID's a little different from general anti-vax, being driven by a hoax narrative from the President combined with the perception of rushing a vaccine through (with the intention of having it be an October surprise for the election). That makes everybody nervous, on all sides of the spectrum.

djrogers 6y ago
> But for the GOP it's mainstream. No, it's really not. It's only mainstream in the GOP if you get your news from the left - if you associate with and listen to people on both sides of the aisle, you realize that it's a fringe element on both sides.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- taylodl 6y ago
  25% of the GOP members in the US House of Representatives refusing to get the vaccine doesn't sound "fringe" to me.
maxerickson 6y ago
The vaccines were accelerated by spending money and the high prevalence of the infection, they weren't rushed. 4 months into widespread use they have been safe and have demonstrated high efficacy in real world use. The blood clotting with the AZ vaccine is an issue, but that risk is still a good trade-off for a big segment of the population.
- jfengel 6y ago
  I've tweaked my post slightly; I was referring to the perception of it being rushed for political reasons. It's clearly safe and pursued using proper scientific methods, but there was legitimate concern that the President would apply pressure to approve something prematurely. That would be very much in character -- as we saw when he applied pressure to change votes.