3 ms·

I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. """ About 37 percent of dog owners also believe that canin

I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. """ About 37 percent of dog owners also believe that canine vaccination could cause their dogs to develop autism, even though there is no scientific data that validates this risk for animals or humans. """ https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/nearly-half-of-dog-owners-are-hesitant-to-vaccinate-their-pets/ https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2023/nearly-half-of-dog...

Michaelangelo19 1y ago
[flagged]
timr 1y ago
> I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. Incorrect. Of the respondents to that paper's survey, 84% said that their pets were fully vaccinated for Rabies. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329845
- mulmen 1y ago
  How does your highlighted quote refute injidup‘s claim?
  - timr 1y ago
    I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      You literally quoted (with a “>”) and replied to a comment with a highlighted (using italics) quote from the article and told the commenter they are incorrect.
      - timr 1y ago
        That is because the commenter was incorrect. They cited a bogus study. The study didn't support their claim.
        mulmen 1y ago
        Maybe so but that’s not clear from your comment which is why I asked for clarification. Clearly you’re unwilling or unable to provide that so there’s nowhere else for this conversation to go.
    - injidup 1y ago
      Your analysis is incorrect. High rates of vaccination does not necessarily correlate with beliefs that the vaccination is unsafe especially in areas where there are severe civil penalties against those who do not vaccinate. It seems you jumped to the conclusion that the study was bogus and doubled down but got your statistical reasoning upside down. You misquoted the study and then claimed it is bogus.
      - timr 1y ago
        Maybe you're right, but the cited study doesn't provide evidence for your claim. I also didn't misquote the study. They surveyed ~2200 people, of whom roughly half had pets. Of those, 84% were up-to-date on the Rabies vaccine. Another 5% didn't know. It doesn't matter why the 84% of the pet-owning respondents were up-to-date on the vaccine, and moreover, you're just guessing. Maybe, as you say, it was "severe penalties" that compelled them. Or maybe they believe in the Rabies vaccine, and answered the other questions generally about all vaccines, since the questions weren't specific to Rabies. Maybe they were answering in theory, but felt differently for their pets. The only thing you know is that they vaccinated their pets, which means that the entire premise of "vaccine hesitancy amongst pet owners" is unsupported by the evidence in the study.
        injidup 1y ago
        You are claiming the study is claiming something it doesn't and then claiming it is bogus because they can't claim what you claim they are claiming. > A new study has found that US dog owners who harbor mistrust in the safety and efficacy of childhood and adult vaccines are also more likely to hold negative views about vaccinating their four-legged friends. They didn't claim that 37% are not vaccinating due to mistrust. They claimed that people hold negative views about vaccines with regards to pets. It was a study about beliefs not about actions. The abstract states clearly. > Canine vaccine hesitancy (CVH) can be thought about as dog owners’ skepticism about the safety and efficacy of administering routine vaccinations to their dogs. CVH is problematic not only because it may inspire vaccine refusal It is certainly important for public policy to understand the trajectory of anti-scientific thinking in the community ( not withstanding that this thinking is now running the USA ) If today a large percentage of people are expressing vaccine hesitancy then next week maybe they stop vaccinating. This is a worthwhile attempt to understand what is going on. Calling it bogus is just wrong. They are also aware of their own limitations. > Limitations & discussion. We view this work as an important first step in understanding canine vaccine hesitancy and its public health consequences. We recognize, of course, that some measures employed in this study are imperfect. For example, our measure of canine rabies vaccine uptake is self-reported, and therefore may be subject to inaccurate and/or biased recall. Correspondingly, we see future efforts to clinically validate self-reported vaccine uptake measures (as is often done with human vaccines; see [2] as an But you just did a drive by "It's bogus" without even trying to understand the context.
- injidup 1y ago
  You are deliberately answering a different question. The paper quotes. > As Table 3 demonstrates, a large minority of dog owners consider vaccines administered to dogs to be unsafe (37%), That is not the same thing as 84% having their pets fully vaccinated for Rabies which you know. As is obvious a person can have their dog be vaccinated but still have been hesitant about it due to feeling it is unsafe. You have discounted the fact that it is, in many states, a civil offence not to vaccinate your dog. https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-rabies-vaccination-laws#:~:text=Most%20states%20require%20rabies%20vaccinations,by%20a%20city%20or%20county. https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-rabies-vaccination-la... Thus a person may, wishing not to be fined, vaccinate their dog but still hold anti vaccination beliefs.

Michaelangelo19 1y ago

[flagged]

timr 1y ago

> I thought perhaps you were joking but it turns out people are also hesitant to vaccinate their pets. Incorrect. Of the respondents to that paper's survey, 84% said that their pets were fully vaccinated for Rabies. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45329845

mulmen 1y ago
How does your highlighted quote refute injidup‘s claim?
- timr 1y ago
  I didn't "highlight a quote". I showed that the entire paper is invalid. They use poor methodology and base their model of "vaccine hesitance" on a population with self-admitted high rates of vaccination.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    You literally quoted (with a “>”) and replied to a comment with a highlighted (using italics) quote from the article and told the commenter they are incorrect.
    - timr 1y ago
      That is because the commenter was incorrect. They cited a bogus study. The study didn't support their claim.
      - mulmen 1y ago
        Maybe so but that’s not clear from your comment which is why I asked for clarification. Clearly you’re unwilling or unable to provide that so there’s nowhere else for this conversation to go.
  - injidup 1y ago
    Your analysis is incorrect. High rates of vaccination does not necessarily correlate with beliefs that the vaccination is unsafe especially in areas where there are severe civil penalties against those who do not vaccinate. It seems you jumped to the conclusion that the study was bogus and doubled down but got your statistical reasoning upside down. You misquoted the study and then claimed it is bogus.
    - timr 1y ago
      Maybe you're right, but the cited study doesn't provide evidence for your claim. I also didn't misquote the study. They surveyed ~2200 people, of whom roughly half had pets. Of those, 84% were up-to-date on the Rabies vaccine. Another 5% didn't know. It doesn't matter why the 84% of the pet-owning respondents were up-to-date on the vaccine, and moreover, you're just guessing. Maybe, as you say, it was "severe penalties" that compelled them. Or maybe they believe in the Rabies vaccine, and answered the other questions generally about all vaccines, since the questions weren't specific to Rabies. Maybe they were answering in theory, but felt differently for their pets. The only thing you know is that they vaccinated their pets, which means that the entire premise of "vaccine hesitancy amongst pet owners" is unsupported by the evidence in the study.
      - injidup 1y ago
        You are claiming the study is claiming something it doesn't and then claiming it is bogus because they can't claim what you claim they are claiming. > A new study has found that US dog owners who harbor mistrust in the safety and efficacy of childhood and adult vaccines are also more likely to hold negative views about vaccinating their four-legged friends. They didn't claim that 37% are not vaccinating due to mistrust. They claimed that people hold negative views about vaccines with regards to pets. It was a study about beliefs not about actions. The abstract states clearly. > Canine vaccine hesitancy (CVH) can be thought about as dog owners’ skepticism about the safety and efficacy of administering routine vaccinations to their dogs. CVH is problematic not only because it may inspire vaccine refusal It is certainly important for public policy to understand the trajectory of anti-scientific thinking in the community ( not withstanding that this thinking is now running the USA ) If today a large percentage of people are expressing vaccine hesitancy then next week maybe they stop vaccinating. This is a worthwhile attempt to understand what is going on. Calling it bogus is just wrong. They are also aware of their own limitations. > Limitations & discussion. We view this work as an important first step in understanding canine vaccine hesitancy and its public health consequences. We recognize, of course, that some measures employed in this study are imperfect. For example, our measure of canine rabies vaccine uptake is self-reported, and therefore may be subject to inaccurate and/or biased recall. Correspondingly, we see future efforts to clinically validate self-reported vaccine uptake measures (as is often done with human vaccines; see [2] as an But you just did a drive by "It's bogus" without even trying to understand the context.
injidup 1y ago
You are deliberately answering a different question. The paper quotes. > As Table 3 demonstrates, a large minority of dog owners consider vaccines administered to dogs to be unsafe (37%), That is not the same thing as 84% having their pets fully vaccinated for Rabies which you know. As is obvious a person can have their dog be vaccinated but still have been hesitant about it due to feeling it is unsafe. You have discounted the fact that it is, in many states, a civil offence not to vaccinate your dog. https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-rabies-vaccination-laws#:~:text=Most%20states%20require%20rabies%20vaccinations,by%20a%20city%20or%20county. https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-rabies-vaccination-la... Thus a person may, wishing not to be fined, vaccinate their dog but still hold anti vaccination beliefs.