5 ms·

Labelling someone as anti-"vaxxer" is not an argument. It's also fine to not want to get vaccinated against Covid and yes - even to argue against it. It's a per

by blub 5y ago

Labelling someone as anti-"vaxxer" is not an argument. It's also fine to not want to get vaccinated against Covid and yes - even to argue against it. It's a perk of living in a liberal democracy, which implies freedom of speech. This bears repeating, because this insult has become a form of bullying.

eesmith 5y ago
My argument is that walterbell's comment does not seem supported by the evidence. I pointed out the weaknesses in my comment. It happens that those weakness sound like anti-vaxxer FUD, which I pointed out, but that is not my main objection. Nor is it the same as labelling walterbell an anti-vaxxer. Thank you for supporting my freedom of speech to point out how this sounds like anti-vaxxer FUD.
- blub 5y ago
  You literally said "makes me think you're an anti-vaxxer". What would labelling them anti-vaccine look like to you, literally writing - walterbell, you sir are an anti-vaxxer? Furthermore "anti-vaxxer" is en ever-evolving term which expands in meaning to encompass whatever the pandemic zeitgeist deems undesirable. Before this pandemic it used to refer to parents which didn't want to vaccinate their kids against measles and to anti-vaccine activists. Finally, the two statements which you labeled as anti-vaccine were those mentioning sterilising immunity (1) and natural immunity (2). 1. The former was broadly discussed in regards to anti-SARS-2 vaccines and for a brief time it looked like vaccines could completely prevent infection, not just disease. Obviously that's off the table now with Delta. 2. Natural immunity is officially recognised in many (most?) areas of Western Europe as an alternative to vaccine-acquired immunity.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Yes. I was being clear in my comments that the arguments presented were similar to ones presented by anti-vaxxers. However, that doesn't mean that walterbell is an anti-vaxxer. It could be that walterbell has other evidence, or simply presented things poorly. For example, I recall one online exchange where I said something about evolution poorly enough that someone else commented I sounded like a creationist. I am not. I followed up by clarifying my original comment to ensure I did not sound like a creationist. I am offering the same courtesy. > mentioning sterilising immunity As I commented at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 , I have since learned that "sterilizing vaccine" [1] does have a specific meaning in a medical context. However, it does not appear to be a common term in the literature, with only about 176 matches in Google Scholar, and several of those specifically use "sterilizing vaccine" to mean a vaccine which causes sterility. Even now with this new knowledge I do not understand how the qualifier "non-sterilizing" in walterbell's clause "If you've kept the public safe for months before the existence of non-sterilizing vaccines" improves understanding. Looking through walterbell's history shows a fondness for the term, even though I am not the first to be confused about the term. For examples, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 , and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 . See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 where in the subthreads we can read people objecting to walterbell's insistence on distinguishing between "sterilizing" and "non-sterilizing", such as how the polio vaccine is "non-sterilizing" but mandatory for school children. [1] Your use of British English spelling reminded me to also check "sterilising vaccine". Google Scholar finds 29 matches, of which two refer to anti-vaccine hesitancy : > 3.3.2 Sterilising vaccine: An international debate ... The basic principle of a contraceptive (or antifertility) vaccine is to use the body's own immune defence mechanisms to provide protection against an unplanned pregnancy. The contraceptive, however, became a weapon for the pro-life campaigners and in their narrative was transformed from an ‘antifertility vaccine’ into a ‘sterilising vaccine’. - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/209660831900200102 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20966083190020... And http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ by the same author, making the same point. The other 27 are the same sort of "specific meaning in a medical context" I referred to before.
    - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
      I think there's a difference there. If I claim someone is a creationist, you can be pretty confident that I'm trying to tell you that person is a Christian and believes the world was created by god. If I claim that someone is an "antivaxer", what can you confidently say I'm trying to convey to you? This person is not vaccinated for covid? This person has never been vaccinated for the flu? This person has never been vaccinated for rabies, measles, various flavors of hepatitis, etc? This person tries to stop others from getting any or all of those? Maybe they think children shouldn't get any or some of these? This person is against mandates? Someone could have every vaccine ever made but be against vaccine mandates, and some would consider them an "antivaxer". I've said it before: the term is sloppy and it leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy discourse. The only reliable signal it sends is "I think they're one of the irredeemable bad guys and you should too".
      - eesmith 5y ago
        My working definition of antivaxer: "someone who does not get a recommended vaccine, or who advocates that others should not get a vaccine, based in a general disbelief or suspicion of the judgment of the vast majority of infectious disease experts, and with no reasonable reason to believe the inoculation provider is acting under false pretenses." [1] In this case we are specifically talking about COVID, and police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status, so there is no ambiguity of which vaccine we are talking about. I've not been vaccinated for the flu, and I've only just now found out that the CDC recommends adults be vaccinated. My reason for not getting the shot was that I thought it was only recommended for certain risk groups and their caretakers, not because of general disbelief, and thus I am not an anti-vaxxer. [1] As an example of 'false pretenses', the US used a fake vaccination program to search for Osama Bin Laden, making many unwilling to trust other vaccination programs, and slowing down the polio eradication effort. There's also the reverberating effects of historic systemic racism in the US at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Public_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Public... .
        ifyoubuildit 5y ago

by blub 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

My argument is that walterbell's comment does not seem supported by the evidence. I pointed out the weaknesses in my comment. It happens that those weakness sound like anti-vaxxer FUD, which I pointed out, but that is not my main objection. Nor is it the same as labelling walterbell an anti-vaxxer. Thank you for supporting my freedom of speech to point out how this sounds like anti-vaxxer FUD.

blub 5y ago
You literally said "makes me think you're an anti-vaxxer". What would labelling them anti-vaccine look like to you, literally writing - walterbell, you sir are an anti-vaxxer? Furthermore "anti-vaxxer" is en ever-evolving term which expands in meaning to encompass whatever the pandemic zeitgeist deems undesirable. Before this pandemic it used to refer to parents which didn't want to vaccinate their kids against measles and to anti-vaccine activists. Finally, the two statements which you labeled as anti-vaccine were those mentioning sterilising immunity (1) and natural immunity (2). 1. The former was broadly discussed in regards to anti-SARS-2 vaccines and for a brief time it looked like vaccines could completely prevent infection, not just disease. Obviously that's off the table now with Delta. 2. Natural immunity is officially recognised in many (most?) areas of Western Europe as an alternative to vaccine-acquired immunity.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Yes. I was being clear in my comments that the arguments presented were similar to ones presented by anti-vaxxers. However, that doesn't mean that walterbell is an anti-vaxxer. It could be that walterbell has other evidence, or simply presented things poorly. For example, I recall one online exchange where I said something about evolution poorly enough that someone else commented I sounded like a creationist. I am not. I followed up by clarifying my original comment to ensure I did not sound like a creationist. I am offering the same courtesy. > mentioning sterilising immunity As I commented at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955101 , I have since learned that "sterilizing vaccine" [1] does have a specific meaning in a medical context. However, it does not appear to be a common term in the literature, with only about 176 matches in Google Scholar, and several of those specifically use "sterilizing vaccine" to mean a vaccine which causes sterility. Even now with this new knowledge I do not understand how the qualifier "non-sterilizing" in walterbell's clause "If you've kept the public safe for months before the existence of non-sterilizing vaccines" improves understanding. Looking through walterbell's history shows a fondness for the term, even though I am not the first to be confused about the term. For examples, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28882719 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28883038 , and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28479544 . See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28475164 where in the subthreads we can read people objecting to walterbell's insistence on distinguishing between "sterilizing" and "non-sterilizing", such as how the polio vaccine is "non-sterilizing" but mandatory for school children. [1] Your use of British English spelling reminded me to also check "sterilising vaccine". Google Scholar finds 29 matches, of which two refer to anti-vaccine hesitancy : > 3.3.2 Sterilising vaccine: An international debate ... The basic principle of a contraceptive (or antifertility) vaccine is to use the body's own immune defence mechanisms to provide protection against an unplanned pregnancy. The contraceptive, however, became a weapon for the pro-life campaigners and in their narrative was transformed from an ‘antifertility vaccine’ into a ‘sterilising vaccine’. - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/209660831900200102 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20966083190020... And http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/911/ by the same author, making the same point. The other 27 are the same sort of "specific meaning in a medical context" I referred to before.
  - ifyoubuildit 5y ago
    I think there's a difference there. If I claim someone is a creationist, you can be pretty confident that I'm trying to tell you that person is a Christian and believes the world was created by god. If I claim that someone is an "antivaxer", what can you confidently say I'm trying to convey to you? This person is not vaccinated for covid? This person has never been vaccinated for the flu? This person has never been vaccinated for rabies, measles, various flavors of hepatitis, etc? This person tries to stop others from getting any or all of those? Maybe they think children shouldn't get any or some of these? This person is against mandates? Someone could have every vaccine ever made but be against vaccine mandates, and some would consider them an "antivaxer". I've said it before: the term is sloppy and it leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy discourse. The only reliable signal it sends is "I think they're one of the irredeemable bad guys and you should too".
    - eesmith 5y ago
      My working definition of antivaxer: "someone who does not get a recommended vaccine, or who advocates that others should not get a vaccine, based in a general disbelief or suspicion of the judgment of the vast majority of infectious disease experts, and with no reasonable reason to believe the inoculation provider is acting under false pretenses." [1] In this case we are specifically talking about COVID, and police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status, so there is no ambiguity of which vaccine we are talking about. I've not been vaccinated for the flu, and I've only just now found out that the CDC recommends adults be vaccinated. My reason for not getting the shot was that I thought it was only recommended for certain risk groups and their caretakers, not because of general disbelief, and thus I am not an anti-vaxxer. [1] As an example of 'false pretenses', the US used a fake vaccination program to search for Osama Bin Laden, making many unwilling to trust other vaccination programs, and slowing down the polio eradication effort. There's also the reverberating effects of historic systemic racism in the US at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Public_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Public... .
      - ifyoubuildit 5y ago