5 ms·

Is there no middle ground between being pro-vax and anti-vax? What about vax skeptical or vax agnostic? Seems to me that anti-vax definition is overally broad

Is there no middle ground between being pro-vax and anti-vax? What about vax skeptical or vax agnostic? Seems to me that anti-vax definition is overally broad for its highly negative connotations.

tptacek 4y ago
There's a ton of middle ground. I'm just suggesting this substack does not appear to occupy any of it.
- peteradio 4y ago
  I don't even see the quote you claim comes from the article. What I read in the article is about conflicts of interest between media and federal bureaucracy, a problem regardless of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Presumably you don't see the direct quote I made from the article because Dan changed this story to point to a different article, on the same site.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I would theoretically posit "maybe". However in real world, it has been my positively overwhelming experience that "vax skeptic" is anti-vax but clever enough to try to hide it, and take the spiteful stance of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking (extremely leading questions with clear strong agenda)". If true legit "vaccination skeptics" exist who somehow, have not found over abundance of data to make up their mind but still feel they have interesting opinion to share, they are low enough of a percentage to be safe to assume against. I would put it similarly to "round-earth agnostic". If in 2022 you have not made up your mind yet on whether Earth is round - what are you waiting for? What criteria or info do you feel is outstanding? How are you meaningfully differentiating yourself from flat-earther-in-disguise? This is not to say that questions should not be asked or that debate is not healthy and necessary and that we should take things on faith. But it's hard to convincingly be vaccination-undecided in 2022 - it feels like it would take large amount of effort and possibly some internal naivette. Put it in a different way - the default scientific consensus is "vaccines save lives". It's what you're taught in schools and repeatedly told by all reliable medical personnel across governments and countries and continents and religions. It feels like it takes some substantial amount of effort to get yourself into "vaccination skeptic / agnostic" realm, which I would not consider the neutral stance on this topic. My 100 Croatian lipa :)
- peteradio 4y ago
  There are different classes of vaccine, I can be convinced of some while holding skeptical views towards others.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    Sure, but I personally wouldn't call that "vaccine (in general sense) skepticism". I would be surprised if anybody took a completely blanket approach that every vaccine ever made for any purpose under every circumstance is a Good Thing(tm) and totally worked out.

Is there no middle ground between being pro-vax and anti-vax? What about vax skeptical or vax agnostic? Seems to me that anti-vax definition is overally broad for its highly negative connotations.

tptacek 4y ago

There's a ton of middle ground. I'm just suggesting this substack does not appear to occupy any of it.

peteradio 4y ago
I don't even see the quote you claim comes from the article. What I read in the article is about conflicts of interest between media and federal bureaucracy, a problem regardless of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Presumably you don't see the direct quote I made from the article because Dan changed this story to point to a different article, on the same site.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I would theoretically posit "maybe". However in real world, it has been my positively overwhelming experience that "vax skeptic" is anti-vax but clever enough to try to hide it, and take the spiteful stance of "I'm not saying anything, I'm just asking (extremely leading questions with clear strong agenda)". If true legit "vaccination skeptics" exist who somehow, have not found over abundance of data to make up their mind but still feel they have interesting opinion to share, they are low enough of a percentage to be safe to assume against. I would put it similarly to "round-earth agnostic". If in 2022 you have not made up your mind yet on whether Earth is round - what are you waiting for? What criteria or info do you feel is outstanding? How are you meaningfully differentiating yourself from flat-earther-in-disguise? This is not to say that questions should not be asked or that debate is not healthy and necessary and that we should take things on faith. But it's hard to convincingly be vaccination-undecided in 2022 - it feels like it would take large amount of effort and possibly some internal naivette. Put it in a different way - the default scientific consensus is "vaccines save lives". It's what you're taught in schools and repeatedly told by all reliable medical personnel across governments and countries and continents and religions. It feels like it takes some substantial amount of effort to get yourself into "vaccination skeptic / agnostic" realm, which I would not consider the neutral stance on this topic. My 100 Croatian lipa :)

peteradio 4y ago
There are different classes of vaccine, I can be convinced of some while holding skeptical views towards others.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Sure, but I personally wouldn't call that "vaccine (in general sense) skepticism". I would be surprised if anybody took a completely blanket approach that every vaccine ever made for any purpose under every circumstance is a Good Thing(tm) and totally worked out.