7 ms·

This is not an antivaxx problem, this is a government/NGO ineptitude & trustworthiness problem. There's been a million fumbles and lies around the whole pandemi

This is not an antivaxx problem, this is a government/NGO ineptitude & trustworthiness problem. There's been a million fumbles and lies around the whole pandemic, making the quasistalinist approach to pandemic governance likely the number one catalyst of antivaxx stances.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Yep, so many many lies, so many "science changing is a good thing" stuff (eg "masks are useless, wash your hands", and mask wearers being conspiracy theorists, to "mandatory masks" and antimaskers being the conspirac nutjobs), "just 14 more days", etc.... but they still want you to "trust them" now, with "this new thing".
- pas 5y ago
  The science was always uncertain, the policy flip-flop was understandable, the absolutely fubar'ed PR is the nightmare fuel. Masks work. That was not the question. How much they help is the question of science. The cost-benefit decision is the question of policy. How to communicate the changing policy should have been the PR question. The US and international agencies that set policies are not as science-driven as they should be. ( https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-should https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-shou... ) Framing this as "lies" is counter-productive. Policy converging with science is mostly a good thing, but first that needs high quality science (= high quality data, asking the right questions, etc). The current US communication zeitgeist using "science" as a shorthand for "policy based on cost-benefit evaluation of such and such scientific reports by this and this community of experts and stakeholders" is a big problem, but it's a symptom of other bigger US social phenomena.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Science can say "by our current knowledge, the 'truth' is X" .... and then change their mind and say "Y".. The problem are the government mandates and policies based on ever changing science. Atleast in slovenia we had 4 vaccines (Astrazeneca, jannsen, moderna and pfeizer), and all four were marked as safe and effective for everyone. Then astrazaneca caused issues in neigbouring countries and then J&J killed a wife of our diplomat first (and a lot of blame was thrown around), and then a 20yo girl died, and we banned J&J, then the scandinavian countries stopped usage of moderna for younger people, and we've gone from four "safe and effective" vaccines to just pfeizer. If you're a vaccine skeptic, or even if not, but just a bit afraid to get vaccinated, and three out of the four vaccines that were "just yesterday" safe and effective, are now "not safe and effective" anymore, you don't think "the fourth one surely is safe and effective!", but stay unvaccinated and wait it out. I got vaccinated with J&J, because it was the most 'simple' choice back then, but soon after i needed a booster from pfeizer, because J&J isn't good enough... so all of the risks, basically none of the benefits. Add to this stories like this one (about the refugees), where countries are mandating locals to take the vaccine, but not refugees, and people get more and more skeptical.
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "Masks work. That was not the question." no, 'masks work' is an extremely poor and politically-loaded statement (and as such, not a 'fact'). that phrase is meant to be thought-terminating, projecting false certainty, and curtly implies they work everywhere, all the time. instead, it should be something like 'masks are able to filter viable virus particles under the right conditions'. that kind of distortionary perspective has been used to mandate wearing masks in public spaces, where they almost always do exactly no good at all (no additional benefit beyond normal human behavior and interaction), and neglects to mandate that we wear them around friends and family (social situations) where masks might potentially filter some live (viable) virus from warm exhalation and/or from close and prolonged inhalation by the uninfected. as such, that usage/mandate is not for public health at all. it's political, for the individual, the reporter and the politician, to signal in-grouping and to apply counterproductive social pressure passive-aggressively (again, not to reduce spread, but to signal brainless obeisance).
pvaldes 5y ago
The advice and main rules were really clear from the start. Do 1) this, 2) this and 3) this. And were repeated millions of times from thousands of people in the whole planet. But some people didn't liked science and choose instead to go to bath masses, religious massive holidays and parties just to make a political point. Some people even put deliberately the live of other in risk, teared off their masks and spit in their faces. As expected, they paid a big bill for their own 100% genuine stupidity. Those that don't died look now desperately for a decorous way out to save face and will blame other for it: "You explained it only 5 million times, so I though that it was a joke. Is your fault to not repeat it 5.000.001 times..."
- waihtis 5y ago
  This theory of "pandemic of the unvaccinated" can safely be dumped into the trashcan following that e.g. here in Finland we have a double vaccination rate of over 80% and yet the daily numbers are easily the highest of all time. It also follows that the advice and main rules given to avoid the pandemic aren't actually effective, and somewhat ironically, it would bode well to use scientific principles to re-evaluate the evidence and adjust their posture.
  - yostrovs 5y ago
    It really is amazing that after two years of no clear correlation between mandates and results, many still believe that all those edicts and restrictions were based on science. The fact is that to continue to believe in all the imposed rules is more of an act of faith, similar to the religious kind.
    - walterbell 5y ago
      Complete with modern indulgences.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    Vaccines never assured that would stop the transmission. Specially after being designed for different virus variants. They claimed that the effects would be much less severe, and would save lives. And in millions of cases [1] they delivered exactly what was promised. Finland had 1000 people killed. Sweden with 70% vaccinated had 15.000 deaths, so all points that vaccines really work. [1] There are a few debatable cases, and I don't have any problem to discuss it, but the fact is that any treatment carry a small risk of being harmful for a particular genetic. People accept to take this risks all the time because the possible benefits worth it. Nobody says "we must stop treating cancer because chemotherapy has killed one in a 100 million people before". Rules can't be effective if everybody do all that must do, but a bunch of morons playing cowbells came and spit you in the face (or into your hamburger) just for fun. Don't blame the people that made the rules for that. Is not their failure
lithos 5y ago
I like this approach to explain some of antivax as well. Essentially big pharma has just finished up a massive campaign that was the opioid pandemic. Essentially there’s going to be a large correlation between people with jobs that get them injured and targeted for opioid use, and those people being right. Opioid addiction that comes from that targeting isn’t just a single victim thing, someone addicted to something as hard as opioids is going to affect entire families and likely extended families. It’s going to essentially feel like a massive economic and spiritual attack to the family, by pharmaceutical companies (after all the news that came out of that social pandemic). So it makes sense that the seeds for not trusting the medical system are there and in insanely rich fertilizer to grow by even groups previously seen as insane like antivax groups (seriously both sides of the isle used to mock those groups). The worst part is that the people taking a drink of that koolaid, are able to literally take their life experience and draw a completely sane line from A to B that Big Pharma shouldn’t be trusted.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Good point. If you are realtively young in certain parts of the country you are going to hear a lot more stories about pharma killing people (opioids) than saving them. Opioids killed most of my childhood friend group. Left many others passed out every day in their parents basement now into their 30s with no propects. All the pretentious late night comedian jokes and Twitter clapbacks in the world won't be able to turn that around, you need some empathy to reach people where they are.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    There's a PDF collection of alleged vax injuries/deaths that's been growing since March 2021, now over 200 pages. If autopsies were performed on any of the listed cases, the claims could be challenged. Since these are based on news reports, the list is at least publicly available and could be analyzed by federal or state agencies. There's also a much larger tier of anecdotal injuries within friend and family networks, which never reached the media. Without data/evidence collection, narrative gaps will remain. https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/compilation-of-covid-vaccine-reactions/ https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/compilation-of-covid-v...

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Yep, so many many lies, so many "science changing is a good thing" stuff (eg "masks are useless, wash your hands", and mask wearers being conspiracy theorists, to "mandatory masks" and antimaskers being the conspirac nutjobs), "just 14 more days", etc.... but they still want you to "trust them" now, with "this new thing".

pas 5y ago
The science was always uncertain, the policy flip-flop was understandable, the absolutely fubar'ed PR is the nightmare fuel. Masks work. That was not the question. How much they help is the question of science. The cost-benefit decision is the question of policy. How to communicate the changing policy should have been the PR question. The US and international agencies that set policies are not as science-driven as they should be. ( https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-should https://www.slowboring.com/p/our-public-health-agencies-shou... ) Framing this as "lies" is counter-productive. Policy converging with science is mostly a good thing, but first that needs high quality science (= high quality data, asking the right questions, etc). The current US communication zeitgeist using "science" as a shorthand for "policy based on cost-benefit evaluation of such and such scientific reports by this and this community of experts and stakeholders" is a big problem, but it's a symptom of other bigger US social phenomena.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Science can say "by our current knowledge, the 'truth' is X" .... and then change their mind and say "Y".. The problem are the government mandates and policies based on ever changing science. Atleast in slovenia we had 4 vaccines (Astrazeneca, jannsen, moderna and pfeizer), and all four were marked as safe and effective for everyone. Then astrazaneca caused issues in neigbouring countries and then J&J killed a wife of our diplomat first (and a lot of blame was thrown around), and then a 20yo girl died, and we banned J&J, then the scandinavian countries stopped usage of moderna for younger people, and we've gone from four "safe and effective" vaccines to just pfeizer. If you're a vaccine skeptic, or even if not, but just a bit afraid to get vaccinated, and three out of the four vaccines that were "just yesterday" safe and effective, are now "not safe and effective" anymore, you don't think "the fourth one surely is safe and effective!", but stay unvaccinated and wait it out. I got vaccinated with J&J, because it was the most 'simple' choice back then, but soon after i needed a booster from pfeizer, because J&J isn't good enough... so all of the risks, basically none of the benefits. Add to this stories like this one (about the refugees), where countries are mandating locals to take the vaccine, but not refugees, and people get more and more skeptical.
- clairity 5y ago
  > "Masks work. That was not the question." no, 'masks work' is an extremely poor and politically-loaded statement (and as such, not a 'fact'). that phrase is meant to be thought-terminating, projecting false certainty, and curtly implies they work everywhere, all the time. instead, it should be something like 'masks are able to filter viable virus particles under the right conditions'. that kind of distortionary perspective has been used to mandate wearing masks in public spaces, where they almost always do exactly no good at all (no additional benefit beyond normal human behavior and interaction), and neglects to mandate that we wear them around friends and family (social situations) where masks might potentially filter some live (viable) virus from warm exhalation and/or from close and prolonged inhalation by the uninfected. as such, that usage/mandate is not for public health at all. it's political, for the individual, the reporter and the politician, to signal in-grouping and to apply counterproductive social pressure passive-aggressively (again, not to reduce spread, but to signal brainless obeisance).

pvaldes 5y ago

The advice and main rules were really clear from the start. Do 1) this, 2) this and 3) this. And were repeated millions of times from thousands of people in the whole planet. But some people didn't liked science and choose instead to go to bath masses, religious massive holidays and parties just to make a political point. Some people even put deliberately the live of other in risk, teared off their masks and spit in their faces. As expected, they paid a big bill for their own 100% genuine stupidity. Those that don't died look now desperately for a decorous way out to save face and will blame other for it: "You explained it only 5 million times, so I though that it was a joke. Is your fault to not repeat it 5.000.001 times..."

waihtis 5y ago
This theory of "pandemic of the unvaccinated" can safely be dumped into the trashcan following that e.g. here in Finland we have a double vaccination rate of over 80% and yet the daily numbers are easily the highest of all time. It also follows that the advice and main rules given to avoid the pandemic aren't actually effective, and somewhat ironically, it would bode well to use scientific principles to re-evaluate the evidence and adjust their posture.
- yostrovs 5y ago
  It really is amazing that after two years of no clear correlation between mandates and results, many still believe that all those edicts and restrictions were based on science. The fact is that to continue to believe in all the imposed rules is more of an act of faith, similar to the religious kind.
  - walterbell 5y ago
    Complete with modern indulgences.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Vaccines never assured that would stop the transmission. Specially after being designed for different virus variants. They claimed that the effects would be much less severe, and would save lives. And in millions of cases [1] they delivered exactly what was promised. Finland had 1000 people killed. Sweden with 70% vaccinated had 15.000 deaths, so all points that vaccines really work. [1] There are a few debatable cases, and I don't have any problem to discuss it, but the fact is that any treatment carry a small risk of being harmful for a particular genetic. People accept to take this risks all the time because the possible benefits worth it. Nobody says "we must stop treating cancer because chemotherapy has killed one in a 100 million people before". Rules can't be effective if everybody do all that must do, but a bunch of morons playing cowbells came and spit you in the face (or into your hamburger) just for fun. Don't blame the people that made the rules for that. Is not their failure

lithos 5y ago

I like this approach to explain some of antivax as well. Essentially big pharma has just finished up a massive campaign that was the opioid pandemic. Essentially there’s going to be a large correlation between people with jobs that get them injured and targeted for opioid use, and those people being right. Opioid addiction that comes from that targeting isn’t just a single victim thing, someone addicted to something as hard as opioids is going to affect entire families and likely extended families. It’s going to essentially feel like a massive economic and spiritual attack to the family, by pharmaceutical companies (after all the news that came out of that social pandemic). So it makes sense that the seeds for not trusting the medical system are there and in insanely rich fertilizer to grow by even groups previously seen as insane like antivax groups (seriously both sides of the isle used to mock those groups). The worst part is that the people taking a drink of that koolaid, are able to literally take their life experience and draw a completely sane line from A to B that Big Pharma shouldn’t be trusted.

willcipriano 5y ago
Good point. If you are realtively young in certain parts of the country you are going to hear a lot more stories about pharma killing people (opioids) than saving them. Opioids killed most of my childhood friend group. Left many others passed out every day in their parents basement now into their 30s with no propects. All the pretentious late night comedian jokes and Twitter clapbacks in the world won't be able to turn that around, you need some empathy to reach people where they are.
- walterbell 5y ago
  There's a PDF collection of alleged vax injuries/deaths that's been growing since March 2021, now over 200 pages. If autopsies were performed on any of the listed cases, the claims could be challenged. Since these are based on news reports, the list is at least publicly available and could be analyzed by federal or state agencies. There's also a much larger tier of anecdotal injuries within friend and family networks, which never reached the media. Without data/evidence collection, narrative gaps will remain. https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/compilation-of-covid-vaccine-reactions/ https://circleofmamas.com/health-news/compilation-of-covid-v...