4 ms·

That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rath

by rotexo 5y ago

That question might best be prefaced with “here’s what would change my mind… what about yours?” That formulation might come across as more curious and open rather than patronizing. Though I honestly don’t at all understand the mindset of people who don’t want the vaccine, so I have to admit this approach could quite easily still be offensive.

ipaddr 5y ago
People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.
- rotexo 5y ago
  Right, but I see elsewhere that it is mostly about individual freedom. It is hard for me to understand if those two reasons are two separate groups, or if one is an internal reason and the other is the stated reason, for instance. If the latter is the case, it seems like it would be good to have a curious and open conversation to understand the hidden reason. Though that is probably impossible, since there is so little trust surrounding these conversations now.
- moate 5y ago
  Not really? I don't see how you bridge a group worried about a short term existential threat (the virus) and another alleging worry about a long term existential threat (the vaccine) when the two things are 0 sum. By the time group 2 catches up (because years have gone by of the vaccine not causing widespread problems) the threat is gone. Meanwhile the animosity has not truly been diminished because the first group will feel the second is responsible for insert issue pertaining to millions of people willingly not getting vaccinated that caused them pain/suffering. It's almost like many people are "worried" about "long term effects" as just a smoke-screen to run out the clock on the issue...
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The first group has been told it is the second's group fault. The first group is setup to think negatively about the second group because it deflects from decisions made. Let's say it brings on side effects like early dimentia or something much worse. The first group is setup to feel anger towards the healthy second group. The lucky children under 12 become the future. Decision makers can play this off as we are sorry we didn't know. A recent study (last week) came out showing after three months it starts wearing and you need to get another vaccine. You will have different people at various levels of vaccines shots (1 to 3 and by Jan you could need a fourth). What being vaccinated means based on the number of shots and where you are in the wearoff cycle makes the vac vs unvac divided not based on reality. If you had one shot got a side effect and decided not to get the next shot where does that person fit?
    - moate 5y ago
      This was rambly and trying to pull my point somewhere else but let's address. The two groups(Those opposed to vaccination due to potential long term effects and those in favor of vaccination immediately) cannot come to a meeting of the minds. Both sides see a potential existential threat that they're prioritizing that makes them diametrically opposed to the other point of view ("if you don't get the vaccine today you're actively spreading the plague" vs "if I get the shot, my blood will clot and I'll be sterile"). The truth is somewhere in the middle. The whole issue with vaccination is that of threat perception. Everyone is building hypothetical models for the future based, mostly, on personal feeling and enough data points from experts to justify that feeling. Again: There are a number of people who feel that the threat of the virus is less than the threat of the vaccine and are thus using whatever means presently available to them to justify to others why they believe that, just as there are people who feel that the virus is a greater threat than the cure.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        "data points from experts to justify that feeling" I think that statement captures the divide. The belief that the experts have been shutdown in favour of topdown policies means trusting a select few experts who have used top down politices to shutting down discussion and threaten careers for those who do not tow the line. How do you get past that one side has total faith in the current crop of acceptable experts and the other sees them acting in favour of someone else's agenda thus has little faith in those experts.
- tomp 5y ago
  No, that's just a common excuse. People still smoke, eat McDonalds, rarely exercise, drive in cars, take drugs, have unprotected sex, drink alcohol, ... long-term consequences be damned.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    The long term effects of all of those listed are fairly well understood. It's about known risk vs. unknown risk.
  - pythonaut_16 5y ago
    The long term consequences of those things are fairly well known/intuitive at this point. People are bad at optimizing for low and long term risks, but doing something knowing it's bad for you is different than being anxious about what unknown effects a treatment might have.
- abnry 5y ago
  I think the main non-conspiracy reasons fall into these categories: - Fear, hesitancy about potential long term risks. - Resistance to government mandating a vaccine (freedom, low trust in government, other options not being considered) - Resistance to the cultural paradigm of "un-vaccinated = bad/deplorable person" - Belief that the risk of COVID is already low (at least for them)
  - all2 5y ago
    I'll add to this the absolutely weird monologue that is typically used when trying to convince people to get the vaccine: they pay money, they give away free things, they recite rappers (?!). But its good for you. Followed by demonizing anyone who chooses not to get it. It is literally a carrot/stick routine. Do what I want? Get a carrot. Don't do what I want? I'll beat you with the stick of public shaming. This site is the only public forum I've seen reasoned debate on. Everywhere else and debate/dissent are actively shut down. Any information that conflicts with the seeming narrative is made to disappear. For example, major hospital/health orgs that have stated in the past that masks don't slow viral spread have removed that data in the complete absence of randomized, controlled trials showing that masks actually work. In fact, meta studies have routinely shown that masks don't work to prevent viral spread [0]. [0]https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-evidence?wallit_nosession=1 https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-e...
    - the_doctah 5y ago
      Reddit already has site-wide moderation enforcing removal of anything deemed "Covid misinformation" or really, in my experience, anything that could be considered anti-vaxx. I posted in an /r/NFL thread saying that asking every single QB if they are vaccinated, and then frothing at the mouth when they decline to answer, is mostly nothing but a witch hunt. I received a permanent ban with the message from the mod "anti-vaxx moron". I'm not anti-vaxx, and I'm not a moron, but this is generally concerning behavior about the state of discussion surrounding Covid and the censorship taking place online. You aren't allowed to have an opinion that isn't "Vaxx up and mask up and harass anyone who doesn't".
    - 5y ago
christophilus 5y ago
I try to ask myself this question about any important decision I make. When it comes to the vaccine, I got the first shot (Moderna) and had such a terrible week following it that my doctor was fairly convinced I probably already had COVID. Everyone I know had a much stronger reaction to the second shot than to the first, so I've opted to remain partially vaccinated. With Delta in full swing, I'm now reconsidering that, but am making arrangements in advance to be out of work for another week or two, as that's my expectation going in. All of that said, the folks I know who are unvaccinated have either already had COVID, so they're just trusting their immune system, or they are in a relatively low-risk group, and are concerned about long-term vaccine side-effects. All of them are fully vaccinated in all other regards, just not with COVID. Make of that what you will, but very few of them fall into the caricatures I see bandied about in the comments here. Incidentally, I'm also concerned about long-term side effects, but I figure at this point, we'll have to solve that problem as a society, if they ever show up enmasse.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > Everyone I know had a much stronger reaction to the second shot than to the first Counter-anecdata: everyone I know (in the UK[1]) had a much milder reaction to the second than the first - first one knocked most people out for a day or two; second one was half a day in the worst cases, couple of hours in the main. [1] Which means AZ or J&J, I think, not Moderna. But it's anecdata, it's never going to be 100% helpful.
  - handoflixue 5y ago
    Worth noting that Moderna seems to have a much stronger and different side-effect profile, especially on the second shot. Might explain the difference you're seeing.

by rotexo 5y ago

ipaddr 5y ago

People are mostly worried about long term side effects. Including those who have the vaccine. Understanding that base fear will help bridge the divide between groups.

rotexo 5y ago
Right, but I see elsewhere that it is mostly about individual freedom. It is hard for me to understand if those two reasons are two separate groups, or if one is an internal reason and the other is the stated reason, for instance. If the latter is the case, it seems like it would be good to have a curious and open conversation to understand the hidden reason. Though that is probably impossible, since there is so little trust surrounding these conversations now.
moate 5y ago
Not really? I don't see how you bridge a group worried about a short term existential threat (the virus) and another alleging worry about a long term existential threat (the vaccine) when the two things are 0 sum. By the time group 2 catches up (because years have gone by of the vaccine not causing widespread problems) the threat is gone. Meanwhile the animosity has not truly been diminished because the first group will feel the second is responsible for insert issue pertaining to millions of people willingly not getting vaccinated that caused them pain/suffering. It's almost like many people are "worried" about "long term effects" as just a smoke-screen to run out the clock on the issue...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The first group has been told it is the second's group fault. The first group is setup to think negatively about the second group because it deflects from decisions made. Let's say it brings on side effects like early dimentia or something much worse. The first group is setup to feel anger towards the healthy second group. The lucky children under 12 become the future. Decision makers can play this off as we are sorry we didn't know. A recent study (last week) came out showing after three months it starts wearing and you need to get another vaccine. You will have different people at various levels of vaccines shots (1 to 3 and by Jan you could need a fourth). What being vaccinated means based on the number of shots and where you are in the wearoff cycle makes the vac vs unvac divided not based on reality. If you had one shot got a side effect and decided not to get the next shot where does that person fit?
  - moate 5y ago
    This was rambly and trying to pull my point somewhere else but let's address. The two groups(Those opposed to vaccination due to potential long term effects and those in favor of vaccination immediately) cannot come to a meeting of the minds. Both sides see a potential existential threat that they're prioritizing that makes them diametrically opposed to the other point of view ("if you don't get the vaccine today you're actively spreading the plague" vs "if I get the shot, my blood will clot and I'll be sterile"). The truth is somewhere in the middle. The whole issue with vaccination is that of threat perception. Everyone is building hypothetical models for the future based, mostly, on personal feeling and enough data points from experts to justify that feeling. Again: There are a number of people who feel that the threat of the virus is less than the threat of the vaccine and are thus using whatever means presently available to them to justify to others why they believe that, just as there are people who feel that the virus is a greater threat than the cure.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      "data points from experts to justify that feeling" I think that statement captures the divide. The belief that the experts have been shutdown in favour of topdown policies means trusting a select few experts who have used top down politices to shutting down discussion and threaten careers for those who do not tow the line. How do you get past that one side has total faith in the current crop of acceptable experts and the other sees them acting in favour of someone else's agenda thus has little faith in those experts.
tomp 5y ago
No, that's just a common excuse. People still smoke, eat McDonalds, rarely exercise, drive in cars, take drugs, have unprotected sex, drink alcohol, ... long-term consequences be damned.
- rajin444 5y ago
  The long term effects of all of those listed are fairly well understood. It's about known risk vs. unknown risk.
- pythonaut_16 5y ago
  The long term consequences of those things are fairly well known/intuitive at this point. People are bad at optimizing for low and long term risks, but doing something knowing it's bad for you is different than being anxious about what unknown effects a treatment might have.
abnry 5y ago
I think the main non-conspiracy reasons fall into these categories: - Fear, hesitancy about potential long term risks. - Resistance to government mandating a vaccine (freedom, low trust in government, other options not being considered) - Resistance to the cultural paradigm of "un-vaccinated = bad/deplorable person" - Belief that the risk of COVID is already low (at least for them)
- all2 5y ago
  I'll add to this the absolutely weird monologue that is typically used when trying to convince people to get the vaccine: they pay money, they give away free things, they recite rappers (?!). But its good for you. Followed by demonizing anyone who chooses not to get it. It is literally a carrot/stick routine. Do what I want? Get a carrot. Don't do what I want? I'll beat you with the stick of public shaming. This site is the only public forum I've seen reasoned debate on. Everywhere else and debate/dissent are actively shut down. Any information that conflicts with the seeming narrative is made to disappear. For example, major hospital/health orgs that have stated in the past that masks don't slow viral spread have removed that data in the complete absence of randomized, controlled trials showing that masks actually work. In fact, meta studies have routinely shown that masks don't work to prevent viral spread [0]. [0]https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-evidence?wallit_nosession=1 https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-e...
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    Reddit already has site-wide moderation enforcing removal of anything deemed "Covid misinformation" or really, in my experience, anything that could be considered anti-vaxx. I posted in an /r/NFL thread saying that asking every single QB if they are vaccinated, and then frothing at the mouth when they decline to answer, is mostly nothing but a witch hunt. I received a permanent ban with the message from the mod "anti-vaxx moron". I'm not anti-vaxx, and I'm not a moron, but this is generally concerning behavior about the state of discussion surrounding Covid and the censorship taking place online. You aren't allowed to have an opinion that isn't "Vaxx up and mask up and harass anyone who doesn't".
  - 5y ago

christophilus 5y ago

I try to ask myself this question about any important decision I make. When it comes to the vaccine, I got the first shot (Moderna) and had such a terrible week following it that my doctor was fairly convinced I probably already had COVID. Everyone I know had a much stronger reaction to the second shot than to the first, so I've opted to remain partially vaccinated. With Delta in full swing, I'm now reconsidering that, but am making arrangements in advance to be out of work for another week or two, as that's my expectation going in. All of that said, the folks I know who are unvaccinated have either already had COVID, so they're just trusting their immune system, or they are in a relatively low-risk group, and are concerned about long-term vaccine side-effects. All of them are fully vaccinated in all other regards, just not with COVID. Make of that what you will, but very few of them fall into the caricatures I see bandied about in the comments here. Incidentally, I'm also concerned about long-term side effects, but I figure at this point, we'll have to solve that problem as a society, if they ever show up enmasse.

zimpenfish 5y ago
> Everyone I know had a much stronger reaction to the second shot than to the first Counter-anecdata: everyone I know (in the UK[1]) had a much milder reaction to the second than the first - first one knocked most people out for a day or two; second one was half a day in the worst cases, couple of hours in the main. [1] Which means AZ or J&J, I think, not Moderna. But it's anecdata, it's never going to be 100% helpful.
- handoflixue 5y ago
  Worth noting that Moderna seems to have a much stronger and different side-effect profile, especially on the second shot. Might explain the difference you're seeing.