3 ms·

> I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this in new articles this morning. So, take pause and examine the situation. Are these people actually

by Verdex 6y ago

> I've already seen a bunch of anit-vaxers referring to this in new articles this morning. So, take pause and examine the situation. Are these people actually anti-vaxxers, ie they oppose all vaccination due to weird paranoia about autism due to a discredited "study". OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. I'm really concerned that if we call out the people who are afraid of this one vaccine as anti-vaxxers that we'll only succeed in introducing them to the wider world of being afraid of all vaccines. Find a different term so that we don't introduce these two groups of people to one another and give them a reason to join forces.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
> OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. It's not easily attributable to "political affiliation." Trump was touting the vaccines through his whole campaign and is still bragging and taking credit for them. MSNBC did one of those TV segments where they go and interview backwards people from America's hinterland who weren't planning to get vaccinated, and although most were Trump voters, not a single one said they would change their mind if he advocated taking it. The actual difference between these vaccines and others which is driving skepticism is that we have no observational data about their long-term effects.
caddemon 6y ago
It goes beyond "radicalizing" potential anti-vaxxers IMO, because at this point it's become like its own religion, where every vaccine must be equally good and questioning a vaccine is somehow outrageous. US agencies are the ones recommending a halt. US refused to approve AZ, and Europe halted it, in many countries imposing additional restrictions when resumed. Doctors specializing in the field agree these are legitimate concerns. If people want to argue cost/benefit tradeoffs, or speculate on things we aren't sure about yet that's totally cool, as long as they are upfront about it. And I understand if someone still wants to get J&J and is upset or just generally disagrees with the total/forceful pause. But I don't understand treating anyone that has a concern about J&J like a brainwashed neanderthal, when literally the actual medical community has reservations about this particular vaccine. As a young woman I would not get J&J right now. Luckily I was able to get Pfizer instead. Anyway, I agree there is a problem more generally with scientific education that can push "moderately misinformed" people into much deeper rabbit holes instead of working to educate them. I guess my point is just that I think this is a good example of how people have gotten so entrenched in the issue that it has reached a new level. There will be cases when the science is legitimately unclear, but the popular sentiment will all of a suddenly decide "science says X" and then the internet runs with it. Another example - there was an ~2 week period last March where I had multiple educated/"science supporting" friends talk down to anyone considering a mask. No it was not coming from a hoarding perspective and it had 0 sense of uncertainty about it. These were strongly worded statements about how "masks don't do anything for COVID, the science is pretty clear".

by Verdex 6y ago

AndrewBissell 6y ago

> OR are they against this one vaccine because of political affiliation. It's not easily attributable to "political affiliation." Trump was touting the vaccines through his whole campaign and is still bragging and taking credit for them. MSNBC did one of those TV segments where they go and interview backwards people from America's hinterland who weren't planning to get vaccinated, and although most were Trump voters, not a single one said they would change their mind if he advocated taking it. The actual difference between these vaccines and others which is driving skepticism is that we have no observational data about their long-term effects.

caddemon 6y ago

It goes beyond "radicalizing" potential anti-vaxxers IMO, because at this point it's become like its own religion, where every vaccine must be equally good and questioning a vaccine is somehow outrageous. US agencies are the ones recommending a halt. US refused to approve AZ, and Europe halted it, in many countries imposing additional restrictions when resumed. Doctors specializing in the field agree these are legitimate concerns. If people want to argue cost/benefit tradeoffs, or speculate on things we aren't sure about yet that's totally cool, as long as they are upfront about it. And I understand if someone still wants to get J&J and is upset or just generally disagrees with the total/forceful pause. But I don't understand treating anyone that has a concern about J&J like a brainwashed neanderthal, when literally the actual medical community has reservations about this particular vaccine. As a young woman I would not get J&J right now. Luckily I was able to get Pfizer instead. Anyway, I agree there is a problem more generally with scientific education that can push "moderately misinformed" people into much deeper rabbit holes instead of working to educate them. I guess my point is just that I think this is a good example of how people have gotten so entrenched in the issue that it has reached a new level. There will be cases when the science is legitimately unclear, but the popular sentiment will all of a suddenly decide "science says X" and then the internet runs with it. Another example - there was an ~2 week period last March where I had multiple educated/"science supporting" friends talk down to anyone considering a mask. No it was not coming from a hoarding perspective and it had 0 sense of uncertainty about it. These were strongly worded statements about how "masks don't do anything for COVID, the science is pretty clear".