5 ms·

I don't think this is how we reach people. The antivax people I know aren't won over by seeing a public health official on TV or in the news. The person most li

I don't think this is how we reach people. The antivax people I know aren't won over by seeing a public health official on TV or in the news. The person most likely to reach them is their physician -- but only if they are a strong personality. On the plus side, it may mean less vitriol in the comments section.

isaacremuant 4y ago
I'd challenge the term anti vax. People get applied unrepresentative negative labels because they ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. So they get called terms that squash conversation and have a purpose to see them shunned.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  >ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. This is a common conspiracy red herring because anti-vaxxers by definition have already made a choice to be anti-vaccine. Very few people are still genuinely debating the merits of vaccines (or the covid vaccine), and those who choose against vaccines try to nobilize their opinion as being some unsung investigators. UFO enthusiasts, big foot hunters, and other conspiricists shine themselves in the same light.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    If you are against forced global monkey pox vaccination, does that make you anti-VAX?
    - dubswithus 4y ago
      No, anti vax means you're against vaccines that are prudent. Like if you got bit by a dog with rabies but refused the rabies vaccine.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Alright, let's play a game of "What am I?": - 40-year old with no health conditions. Suspects of having contracted Covid back in February of 2020 (symptoms were high-fever, a really bad sore throat, anosmia) but due to lack of tests at the time could not confirm it. - Inclined to oppose vaccine mandates. Doesn't believe that any vaccine in particular is "dangerous", but that mass-vaccination brings systemic risks. (Black swans) - Got the vaccine anyway as soon as they were available in Spring 2021. Got the booster in end of 2021. - Has two kids of school age, all of them received the commonly scheduled vaccines for "traditional" diseases. - Opposes vaccination of healthy children for Covid. Prefers the policy of frequent testing instead. - Supports the eventual decision to have scheduled Covid vaccinations like the flu: for older people and those with health conditions, or anyone recommended by a doctor. - Despite triple-shot, got infected (this time confirmed by rapid tests and a PCR) in February 2022. Symptoms were again high-fever and a bad throat. No anosmia. Kids also got infected, only one of them with symptoms of fever for one day and two days of coughing. - Not planning to get the fourth booster, unless required for practical reasons. So... What's your verdict? Anti-vaxxer? Conspiracy theorist?
    - Arainach 4y ago
      If you "oppose vaccine mandates" you don't understand how vaccines work and are antivax, full stop. Their individual effects are far less potent without the herd effects.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        And here we go - now "anti-vax" also means "opposed to the government using force to make every single person to take certain medication". That's as stupid as saying somebody is "pro-murder" because they oppose the idea of people spending all their lives under house arrest - under the theory that this would reduce the number of murders. Since you oppose the action that reduces the number of murders - you are clearly "pro-murder"!
        minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        You retained your bodily rights with the covid vaccine because nobody forced you to take it - full stop. You forfeited certain public privileges by opting out of the vaccine because you made yourself a lethal threat (a literal plague rat) to others. Next you'll be saying that driving drunk is your bodily right too. Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish. Intentional motivation or not, the actions of rejecting the covid vaccine for non-medical reasons is definitely pro-plague.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    By which definition? There are a lot of people that doubt effectiveness or risk-reward benefits of some vaccines, and choose not to take them by themselves for one reason or another. There are much less people that oppose any medication called "vaccine" on general principle, just because it is called so. Conflating all variety of people's opinions about all variety of medications called "vaccines" into a binary "for-against" choice and establishing a tribal barrier that discards everybody with a wrong value of the bit as "conspiracy" is a useless exercise for anything except making yourself feel better because you have the right bit value, not like those idiots. And of course, for each new vaccine, its merits must be debated, and its risk-reward profile (no medication is ever without risks) needs to be discussed on merits. Saying it can not and should not happen only paints you as a quasi-religious zealot who would refuse to even look at facts and consider them - that's not how science is or should be done.
    - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
      The semantics of anti-vaxx here almost exclusively to people who opted out of covid vaccines/mandates for non-medical reasons, or people who still follow Jenny McCarthy's view on standard vaccinations for which risk/reward profiles have already been established.
      - smsm42 4y ago
        Nope, we just witnessed using "anti-vax" label for people that oppose mandatory vaccinations, even if they themselves are vaccinated up to the tip of their head. This term is a bludgeon designed to mark somebody as "doubleplusungood" and thus summarily dismiss anything this person is saying. Very useful if you don't want to bother to discuss some things and support your opinion, and still want to look like you won the discussion and have the moral high-ground. Not very useful if you want to understand things or convince people.
- smsm42 4y ago
  You see, any disagreement with any official government policy or statement - even if it changed the next day - is going to get you the "anti-" label. As witnessed right here in the comments. The term is not supposed to be helpful, it is supposed to be used as a bludgeon, do dismiss people instead of considering their arguments on merits.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
[flagged]

isaacremuant 4y ago

I'd challenge the term anti vax. People get applied unrepresentative negative labels because they ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. So they get called terms that squash conversation and have a purpose to see them shunned.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
>ask questions, challenge points, have different opinions or simply take principled stances. This is a common conspiracy red herring because anti-vaxxers by definition have already made a choice to be anti-vaccine. Very few people are still genuinely debating the merits of vaccines (or the covid vaccine), and those who choose against vaccines try to nobilize their opinion as being some unsung investigators. UFO enthusiasts, big foot hunters, and other conspiricists shine themselves in the same light.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  If you are against forced global monkey pox vaccination, does that make you anti-VAX?
  - dubswithus 4y ago
    No, anti vax means you're against vaccines that are prudent. Like if you got bit by a dog with rabies but refused the rabies vaccine.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Alright, let's play a game of "What am I?": - 40-year old with no health conditions. Suspects of having contracted Covid back in February of 2020 (symptoms were high-fever, a really bad sore throat, anosmia) but due to lack of tests at the time could not confirm it. - Inclined to oppose vaccine mandates. Doesn't believe that any vaccine in particular is "dangerous", but that mass-vaccination brings systemic risks. (Black swans) - Got the vaccine anyway as soon as they were available in Spring 2021. Got the booster in end of 2021. - Has two kids of school age, all of them received the commonly scheduled vaccines for "traditional" diseases. - Opposes vaccination of healthy children for Covid. Prefers the policy of frequent testing instead. - Supports the eventual decision to have scheduled Covid vaccinations like the flu: for older people and those with health conditions, or anyone recommended by a doctor. - Despite triple-shot, got infected (this time confirmed by rapid tests and a PCR) in February 2022. Symptoms were again high-fever and a bad throat. No anosmia. Kids also got infected, only one of them with symptoms of fever for one day and two days of coughing. - Not planning to get the fourth booster, unless required for practical reasons. So... What's your verdict? Anti-vaxxer? Conspiracy theorist?
  - Arainach 4y ago
    If you "oppose vaccine mandates" you don't understand how vaccines work and are antivax, full stop. Their individual effects are far less potent without the herd effects.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      And here we go - now "anti-vax" also means "opposed to the government using force to make every single person to take certain medication". That's as stupid as saying somebody is "pro-murder" because they oppose the idea of people spending all their lives under house arrest - under the theory that this would reduce the number of murders. Since you oppose the action that reduces the number of murders - you are clearly "pro-murder"!
      - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
        You retained your bodily rights with the covid vaccine because nobody forced you to take it - full stop. You forfeited certain public privileges by opting out of the vaccine because you made yourself a lethal threat (a literal plague rat) to others. Next you'll be saying that driving drunk is your bodily right too. Grandstanding and pretending you're under house arrest or had a gun to your head is bordering on a persecution fetish. Intentional motivation or not, the actions of rejecting the covid vaccine for non-medical reasons is definitely pro-plague.
- smsm42 4y ago
  By which definition? There are a lot of people that doubt effectiveness or risk-reward benefits of some vaccines, and choose not to take them by themselves for one reason or another. There are much less people that oppose any medication called "vaccine" on general principle, just because it is called so. Conflating all variety of people's opinions about all variety of medications called "vaccines" into a binary "for-against" choice and establishing a tribal barrier that discards everybody with a wrong value of the bit as "conspiracy" is a useless exercise for anything except making yourself feel better because you have the right bit value, not like those idiots. And of course, for each new vaccine, its merits must be debated, and its risk-reward profile (no medication is ever without risks) needs to be discussed on merits. Saying it can not and should not happen only paints you as a quasi-religious zealot who would refuse to even look at facts and consider them - that's not how science is or should be done.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    The semantics of anti-vaxx here almost exclusively to people who opted out of covid vaccines/mandates for non-medical reasons, or people who still follow Jenny McCarthy's view on standard vaccinations for which risk/reward profiles have already been established.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      Nope, we just witnessed using "anti-vax" label for people that oppose mandatory vaccinations, even if they themselves are vaccinated up to the tip of their head. This term is a bludgeon designed to mark somebody as "doubleplusungood" and thus summarily dismiss anything this person is saying. Very useful if you don't want to bother to discuss some things and support your opinion, and still want to look like you won the discussion and have the moral high-ground. Not very useful if you want to understand things or convince people.
smsm42 4y ago
You see, any disagreement with any official government policy or statement - even if it changed the next day - is going to get you the "anti-" label. As witnessed right here in the comments. The term is not supposed to be helpful, it is supposed to be used as a bludgeon, do dismiss people instead of considering their arguments on merits.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

[flagged]