6 ms·

Huge odds. People were anti-vaxxers before, and were just looking for an excuse to justify their position. Goal post moving is a thing to be expected nowadays

hunterb123 5y ago
Question long-term effects of mRNA vaccines, anti-vaxxer! Question certain "green" program spending, climate-denier! Question voting or border security, racist! Question certain political figures, conspiracy theorist! Issues are much more nuanced than a one word dismissal used to dehumanize the dissenter. You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer". You could also already have antibodies from natural immunity and not deem the small risk of the vaccine side-effects worthy.
- clarkmoody 5y ago
  Putting political labels on people is a vital step in the divide & rule strategy: keep the people hating each other while the power elite pull the strings.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Adversarial foreign powers. The west is rotting from inside out, social media is exasperating divide in the west. For example, it’s wasn’t so common to see USA vs EU nationalism couple of years ago on HN.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  > You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer". Exactly. I've had more vaccines than most people ever will because of my time in the military. I'm good with it, I think it was smart given the circumstances. The question isn't "are traditional vaccines OK?" (yes) but "do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?" Of that I'm far less certain.
  - detaro 5y ago
    > do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error? There is no vaccine that's based on people's ability to modify your DNA, so no need to worry about that. (I wonder how the idea that they do still keeps floating around...)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Izkata 5y ago
      Probably the AstraZeneca and J&J ones, which do use DNA instead of mRNA.
- dionian 5y ago
  The more they mandate it instead of convince me with science, the more I am skeptical.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
theptip 5y ago
I don’t think this is the right take. The actual opinion poll numbers suggest that the “never vax” population has remained fairly constant over time, while the “vax hesitant” population started higher and has gradually decreased. See for example https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in-5-charts/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in... There’s a pretty stable “never” population at 14%, and you see that as time goes on the hesitants have been gradually been getting won over. I’m sure some in the “never” camp are using “it’s not been approved” as their current first-line given reason. But I think you need to break down the groups a bit more. There are genuinely people who are not fundamentally anti-vax that are just nervous about how fast the vaccines were developed or scared about what having “RNA” in the vaccine means (I don’t share these concerns but I understand where they come from). Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval. Maybe some. But, while I don't really like governments and big employers wielding sticks in this case, you'll probably see even more people decide that they're not hesitant enough about vaccines to lose their jobs or be excluded from a lot of activities. And while those sort of requirements could be implemented before full approval, a lot of organizations apparently wanted the additional air cover.
  - theptip 5y ago
    Absolutely, it’s all about cost/benefit and incentives. If you look at the share of over-70s that are vaccinated, it’s basically the same extremely high rate regardless of party affiliation. They have skin in the game and so they can’t afford to posture as it very well might cost them their lives to do so. For 20 year-olds, kind of the opposite currently. Costs very little to use this choice as a political signaling gesture. But if the cost increases, as you say, behaviors will change and people will change their position. Talk is cheap, it’s easy to say “never” when it costs you ~nothing to do so. But in short, I do strongly agree that mandates will be more persuasive than just approval alone. But I think full approval will still be beneficial in places that won’t make mandates.
amrcnimgrnt 5y ago
It wasn't an excuse. It was just the easiest way to get street preachers on a power trip to bugger off
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hunterb123 5y ago

Question long-term effects of mRNA vaccines, anti-vaxxer! Question certain "green" program spending, climate-denier! Question voting or border security, racist! Question certain political figures, conspiracy theorist! Issues are much more nuanced than a one word dismissal used to dehumanize the dissenter. You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer". You could also already have antibodies from natural immunity and not deem the small risk of the vaccine side-effects worthy.

clarkmoody 5y ago
Putting political labels on people is a vital step in the divide & rule strategy: keep the people hating each other while the power elite pull the strings.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Adversarial foreign powers. The west is rotting from inside out, social media is exasperating divide in the west. For example, it’s wasn’t so common to see USA vs EU nationalism couple of years ago on HN.
ARandomerDude 5y ago
> You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer". Exactly. I've had more vaccines than most people ever will because of my time in the military. I'm good with it, I think it was smart given the circumstances. The question isn't "are traditional vaccines OK?" (yes) but "do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?" Of that I'm far less certain.
- detaro 5y ago
  > do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error? There is no vaccine that's based on people's ability to modify your DNA, so no need to worry about that. (I wonder how the idea that they do still keeps floating around...)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Izkata 5y ago
    Probably the AstraZeneca and J&J ones, which do use DNA instead of mRNA.
dionian 5y ago
The more they mandate it instead of convince me with science, the more I am skeptical.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

theptip 5y ago

I don’t think this is the right take. The actual opinion poll numbers suggest that the “never vax” population has remained fairly constant over time, while the “vax hesitant” population started higher and has gradually decreased. See for example https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in-5-charts/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in... There’s a pretty stable “never” population at 14%, and you see that as time goes on the hesitants have been gradually been getting won over. I’m sure some in the “never” camp are using “it’s not been approved” as their current first-line given reason. But I think you need to break down the groups a bit more. There are genuinely people who are not fundamentally anti-vax that are just nervous about how fast the vaccines were developed or scared about what having “RNA” in the vaccine means (I don’t share these concerns but I understand where they come from). Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval.

ghaff 5y ago
>Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval. Maybe some. But, while I don't really like governments and big employers wielding sticks in this case, you'll probably see even more people decide that they're not hesitant enough about vaccines to lose their jobs or be excluded from a lot of activities. And while those sort of requirements could be implemented before full approval, a lot of organizations apparently wanted the additional air cover.
- theptip 5y ago
  Absolutely, it’s all about cost/benefit and incentives. If you look at the share of over-70s that are vaccinated, it’s basically the same extremely high rate regardless of party affiliation. They have skin in the game and so they can’t afford to posture as it very well might cost them their lives to do so. For 20 year-olds, kind of the opposite currently. Costs very little to use this choice as a political signaling gesture. But if the cost increases, as you say, behaviors will change and people will change their position. Talk is cheap, it’s easy to say “never” when it costs you ~nothing to do so. But in short, I do strongly agree that mandates will be more persuasive than just approval alone. But I think full approval will still be beneficial in places that won’t make mandates.

amrcnimgrnt 5y ago

It wasn't an excuse. It was just the easiest way to get street preachers on a power trip to bugger off

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]