3 ms·

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

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
    > My working definition of antivaxer ... Did you already have this explicit definition worked out before replying? Or did you have more of a feeling which you then solidified because you needed to in order to put it to words? I ask because my prediction is that a lot of people 1) don't have an explicit definition, and 2) whether they have an explicit definition or a vague feeling, it probably differs from your definition in some substantive way (maybe having more or fewer qualifiers, maybe just being against mandates but all for getting every vaccine, etc). > I've not been vaccinated for the flu ... This absolutely would make you an "antivaxer" to some unknowable number of people. Should we now discount everything you say? It may have been a useful term at some point, but by now I think its lost all utility except as something to trigger our lizard brains and try to get us to take mental shortcuts.

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
  > My working definition of antivaxer ... Did you already have this explicit definition worked out before replying? Or did you have more of a feeling which you then solidified because you needed to in order to put it to words? I ask because my prediction is that a lot of people 1) don't have an explicit definition, and 2) whether they have an explicit definition or a vague feeling, it probably differs from your definition in some substantive way (maybe having more or fewer qualifiers, maybe just being against mandates but all for getting every vaccine, etc). > I've not been vaccinated for the flu ... This absolutely would make you an "antivaxer" to some unknowable number of people. Should we now discount everything you say? It may have been a useful term at some point, but by now I think its lost all utility except as something to trigger our lizard brains and try to get us to take mental shortcuts.