Let's play devil's advocate: How do you defend anti-vaxxer?

[zassou]

let's pretend vaccine is a cutting edge technology, and has controversies around it, like self-driving cars.

what's your argument for anti-vaccination?

 

i'd like to see their point of view so i can betther understand the debate around it.

 

====
 

Spoiler

 

im always baffled by how some people still refuse to vaccinate their children, or telling others unproven "facts" about vaccines. (usually causes bad influences)

i come from a traditional family, when some folks catch a cold or have pain, instead of seeing a GP and have propper treatment, they'll seek traditional remedies that feels more like witchcraft than medicine.(boil leaves and twig into some mysterious fluid, drink that sewage waste and hope for the best, you tell me)

 

i find it baffled/facinated that in this day, even in developed countries, where medical care not only widely accessible, sometimes even manditory and free; despite this, some people still question the wonders of modern medicine; (read it in Mercy's voice), to the point even risking their children's life to avoide vaccinate them.

despite this, i know some adherents of some "obscure" religion in my place are refuse to have blood transfusion and such, even in life threatening scenario, and somehow people still allow it and have their much higher expenses covered.

 

[Volbet]

How much can we assume as true?

Most people that spout anti-vaccine talking points are often bringing up the autism study (which has long since been debunked), claims of vaccines causing other lasting sickness (which currently is unfounded) or claims with a religious founding.

 

I guess at the root there is a libertarian argument to be made. Neither the government nor the medical experts can (or at least shouldn't) force anyone to do anything, and as such it up to the individual whether or not they wanna run the risk of being unvaccinated.

And since parents, and legal guardians, have the final say over children in their care, they're also allowed to decide if their kids should run the same risk.

[zassou]

38 minutes ago, Volbet said:

How much can we assume as true?

Most people that spout anti-vaccine talking points are often bringing up the autism study (which has long since been debunked), claims of vaccines causing other lasting sickness (which currently is unfounded) or claims with a religious founding.

 

I guess at the root there is a libertarian argument to be made. Neither the government nor the medical experts can (or at least shouldn't) force anyone to do anything, and as such it up to the individual whether or not they wanna run the risk of being unvaccinated.

And since parent, and legal guardians, have the final say over children in their care, they're also allowed to decide if their kids should run the same risk.

probably at some point the court can rule them willfully harming their children, and strip their custodial rights?

 and the next thing probably is they'll sue the country for violating their rights(?) and free will, because "they have final say" what is right for their children.

 

it's quite funny to think that in the states, some people who believe in some certain religions dont have to get the children to school because they dont pay tax etc. (and allowded them not to, wow) and the anti-vaxx folks can use this case as an excuse to avoid vaccination, i think.

[Volbet]

On 3/9/2019 at 8:16 AM, zassou said:

probably at some point the court can rule them willfully harming their children, and strip their custodial rights?

 and the next thing probably is they'll sue the country for violating their rights(?) and free will, because "they have final say" what is right for their children.

 

it's quite funny to think that in the states, some people who believe in some certain religions dont have to get the children to school because they dont pay tax etc. (and allowded them not to, wow) and the anti-vaxx folks can use this case as an excuse to avoid vaccination, i think.

The problem then arise with how we are to define "harm".

Traditionally, children have been removed from the custody of their guardians due to direct neglect or abuse.

When a child is refused a vaccine they aren't directly harmed nor neglected. A lot if people have lived fulfilling lives without being vaccinated.

 

Imagine this scenario: a parent tell their child to pick a number between 1-1.000.000 each day. If the child's guess is correct, then they're gonna be slapped.

If we negate the psychological trauma that would probably introduce, is this scenario abuse or neglect?

 

Although, I don't know if there's any case law on this. Be it from the actual courts or from an administrative organ.

[CodeNova]

3 hours ago, zassou said:

what's your argument for anti-vaccination?

There isn't one, car seat-belts were a new technology at one point. Those that adapted to the lifesaving technological change survived car crashes, natural selection claimed the rest.

[Arika]

I can't defend it, not even hypothetically.

 

that's all i'm going to say least i go HAM and get super angry about how stupid anti-vaxxers are

[Guest]

Honestly it’s too hard to pretend to be that stupid to be an anti-vaccinator. This isn’t the Middle Ages anymore get your vaccines. It’s absurd to read in the news, weekly, of unvaccinated individuals with measles etc. 

 

Lets get a few facts straight:

- Vaccines are perfectly safe

- Vaccines do cause illness, they are made to either through adjuvants or attenuated pathogens. These are designed to stimulate the immune system.

- Vaccines are designed to give your immune system memory of the pathogen, hence it needs to be stimulated.

- This means you can get sick from a vaccine. It’s never what the real pathogen would give you.

- Herd immunity is only effective with majority of individuals immunized. This is changing due to anti-vaccers.

 

Some anti-vaccers argue that getting the real disease is better than the vaccine. This is not the case. If Measles doesn’t kill you, you might get Measles encephalitis, which will certainly and quickly.

[duncannah]

Legal (in US) way to get rid of a kid

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

21 minutes ago, floofer said:

- Herd immunity is only effective with majority of individuals immunized. This is changing due to anti-vaccers.

This is the big one for me.  Some children/people can't be vaccinated (due to allergies or other known medical issues).  Herd immunity helps those children/people by drastically reducing the odds of them coming into contact with certain pathogens.  So anti-vaxxers aren't just endangering their own lives and that of their children, they're also endangering the lives of others.

 

Oh, and obligatory :

 

[zassou]

well this thread gone off rail quickly. i know they are stupid and refusing vaccination makes no sense.

pitchforking  doesnt help, i want to know what are their points.

 

i want to "get it", like i dont get how my luddite relatives think, that dark, bitter brew of twigs and leaves somehow can make their pains go away.

i want to know why do they think some fomulae written nearly a thousand years ago can somehow treat their modern illnesses.

i want to know why do anti-vaxxer think they are somehow better than the other 2/3 of europeans died to the black death, knowing that without modern medicine, a simple flu can be deadly, let alone modern mutated one.

 

[Drak3]

If it were a new technology (or vaccine), there is validity in being weary, and momentarily refusing, of it until large scale testing (by way of other consumers) provides a wealth of documentation on any issues or side effects.

[LinusOnLine]

The only way idiocy makes sense is if you are an idiot.

[TechyBen]

8 hours ago, zassou said:

let's pretend vaccine is a cutting edge technology, and has controversies around it, like self-driving cars.

what's your argument for anti-vaccination?

 

i'd like to see their point of view so i can betther understand the debate around it.

 

====
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

im always baffled by how some people still refuse to vaccinate their children, or telling others unproven "facts" about vaccines. (usually causes bad influences)

i come from a traditional family, when some folks catch a cold or have pain, instead of seeing a GP and have propper treatment, they'll seek traditional remedies that feels more like witchcraft than medicine.(boil leaves and twig into some mysterious fluid, drink that sewage waste and hope for the best, you tell me)

 

i find it baffled/facinated that in this day, even in developed countries, where medical care not only widely accessible, sometimes even manditory and free; despite this, some people still question the wonders of modern medicine; (read it in Mercy's voice), to the point even risking their children's life to avoide vaccinate them.

despite this, i know some adherents of some "obscure" religion in my place are refuse to have blood transfusion and such, even in life threatening scenario, and somehow people still allow it and have their much higher expenses covered.

 

 

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

It's not about what, it's about why. Why are antivaxers scared. You can have legitimate reasons to personally request or decline medical treatment. We can respect people for that.

 

If people have broken methods, or emotional faults, in making decisions, they have them, irregardless of the goal.

 

At times, it may only be towards a small subset of decisions. So if only to that subset, what is the underlying error, fear, or when making good decisions, info and moral guidance that they make the choices on?

 

Do they have legitimate worries, but have trouble expressing them, or do they have illegitimate worries, and need help understanding them?

 

[dizmo]

12 minutes ago, zassou said:

i want to "get it", like i dont get how my luddite relatives think, that dark, bitter brew of twigs and leaves somehow can make their pains go away.

i want to know why do they think some fomulae written nearly a thousand years ago can somehow treat their modern illnesses.

i want to know why do anti-vaxxer think they are somehow better than the other 2/3 of europeans died to the black death, knowing that without modern medicine, a simple flu can be deadly, let alone modern mutated one.

To be fair, there are lots of natural remedies that really do work. Granted they're not as good as the synthetic formulas we have now, but there are many that simply don't trust those for one reason or another. Mostly due to paranoia. Some, like a friend of mine, simply doesn't like to take synthetic drugs when she doesn't have to.

 

If we're going with your original post, then yeah most people probably would be anti-vaxx. Say someone came up to you and said "hey, we don't 100% know how well this will work with everyone, we tried it on rats, but we want to stick you in a booth with VX. It'll help you build up an immunity. We're pretty sure you'll be fine after." Would you do it? Probably not.

 

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

The problem then arise with how we are to define "harm".

Traditionally, children have been removed from the custody of their guardians due to direct neglect or abuse.

When a child is refused a vaccine they aren't directly harmed nor neglected. A lot if people have lived fulfilling lives without being vaccinated.

 

Imagine this scenario: a parent tell their child to pick a number between 1-1.000.000 each day. If the child's guess is correct, then they're gonna be slapped.

If we negate the psychological trauma that would probably introduce, is this scenario abuse?

 

Although, I don't know if there's any case law on this. Be it from the actual courts or from an administrative organ.

I think the appropriate term would be "undue care and attention" with the pros weighted against the potential pitfalls.

Eg, if you had a 0.0001% chance of being affected by the vaccine vs a 30% chance of catching it later on in life with a 50% chance of death, one would come to the conclusion the vaccine would be the right choice.

4 hours ago, floofer said:

Honestly it’s too hard to pretend to be that stupid to be an anti-vaccinator. This isn’t the Middle Ages anymore get your vaccines. It’s absurd to read in the news, weekly, of unvaccinated individuals with measles etc. 

 

Lets get a few facts straight:

- Vaccines are perfectly safe

- Vaccines do cause illness, they are made to either through adjuvants or attenuated pathogens. These are designed to stimulate the immune system.

- Vaccines are designed to give your immune system memory of the pathogen, hence it needs to be stimulated.

- This means you can get sick from a vaccine. It’s never what the real pathogen would give you.

- Herd immunity is only effective with majority of individuals immunized. This is changing due to anti-vaccers.

 

Some anti-vaccers argue that getting the real disease is better than the vaccine. This is not the case. If Measles doesn’t kill you, you might get Measles encephalitis, which will certainly and quickly.

To be fair, all vaccines are not safe for everyone. That's why it's important to have a family doctor, or someone who knows your medical history, and runs the appropriate tests. Blanket statements never work for any kind of medication.

[TechyBen]

5 hours ago, floofer said:

Honestly it’s too hard to pretend to be that stupid to be an anti-vaccinator. This isn’t the Middle Ages anymore get your vaccines. It’s absurd to read in the news, weekly, of unvaccinated individuals with measles etc. 

 

Lets get a few facts straight:

- Vaccines are perfectly safe

- Vaccines do cause illness, they are made to either through adjuvants or attenuated pathogens. These are designed to stimulate the immune system.

- Vaccines are designed to give your immune system memory of the pathogen, hence it needs to be stimulated.

- This means you can get sick from a vaccine. It’s never what the real pathogen would give you.

- Herd immunity is only effective with majority of individuals immunized. This is changing due to anti-vaccers.

 

Some anti-vaccers argue that getting the real disease is better than the vaccine. This is not the case. If Measles doesn’t kill you, you might get Measles encephalitis, which will certainly and quickly.

Wait, these are actual conflicting statements. You don't win people over by breaking your own argument. XD

Perfectly safe =/= some symptoms. It's like saying "seatbelts are perfectly safe". The critical thinker may say "oh, but can crack ribs". Some people get exemption from seat belts, because of other injuries/disabilities. Due to the risk of the belt being greater than the accident.

 

But that's a different argument, as it involves self more so than a contagious disease. The real problem is we live in a world wear neither ability to accept (practically or emotionally) others as making different decisions (say choosing quarantine or natural immune system over vaccine) or the ability (again, with practical or emotional reach to others) to educate those who are making a factually/logically inconsistent choice.

[zassou]

i want to know why too.

 

i tried to talk to those luddites too, often they dismiss me like im still 6 and still imagining ufos hovering in the sky when it's 0 oclock.

they will take propper treatments when something big hits them, like something jammed in their artery and so on. but to them, somehow those relics are snake oil, the cure-for-all for their daily illnesses. they would rather believe some old fart's tales instead of basic medical knowhows every high scholler knows.

 

i want to help them, and pitchforking isnt helping, i tried.

 

===

i didnt say that traditional medicine is fake, because it is not. but it's not exactly science either. i have seem many people neglected their early symptons and think they are minor things, a bowl of that brew will fix it. and then they died, heart attack. something that traditional remedies cant fix, because back then there isnt a thing called high cholesterol. how can those ancient medicine fix it?

 

recently some folks believe wolfberry is the new cure-all and add to lots of things, like beer... yeah, beer.

[captain_to_fire]

5 hours ago, floofer said:

Vaccines are perfectly safe

Inb4 dipshit anti vaxxers spout nonsense that the MMR contains thimerosal, when in fact live attenuated vaccines doesn’t have it. 

18 minutes ago, zassou said:

how can those ancient medicine fix it?

 

recently some folks believe wolfberry is the new cure-all and add to lots of things, like beer... yeah, beer.

Patient: I can’t take metformin because it’s artificial 

Doctor: Okay then, I’ll prescribe you another one which is derived from the flowers of French Lilac. 

Patient: Oh I like that. What is it? 

Doctor: It’s called metformin. 

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, zassou said:

I'd like to see their point of view so i can betther understand the debate around it.

There are no valid points of view against vaccines and there is no debate - there are only a bunch of ignorant asshats who cover their ears and shout "lalala" when you try to explain why they're completely wrong. Even entertaining the idea that there may be valid arguments on that side is harmful.

 

Any attempt on my part to defend what they claim would involve a big fat lie... so what's the point? Their """points""" are usually:

• vaccines cause autism - proven to be bullshit multiple times
• vaccines are more harmful than the disease - proven to be bullshit even just by the fact that most people are vaccinated and they don't seem to be worse off than a measles patient (barring other illnesses)
• vaccines contain poisonous substances - oxygen is poisonous too in large enough quantities, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of both chemistry and biology
• "it's my choice" - except your "choice" places other people and your own underage children at risk
• "my unvaccinated child performs well in school and other vaccinated children perform worse" - ...so what? vaccines' purpose isn't to cure you from stupidity or unruliness...

6 minutes ago, zassou said:

I want to help them, and pitchforking isnt helping, i tried.

The only way to help them is to legally force them to vaccinate their children and themselves. If they refuse, take their children away and convict them for child abuse. There is no way to reliably convince them and since their actions affect the rest of society they can't be allowed to indulge in their bullshit.

11 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Some people get exemption, do to other injuries/disabilities from seat belts.

There are people who can't get vaccinated, and they are the ones who need everyone else to be vaccinated the most. Not using a seatbelt comes at your own risk but not vaccinating places other people at risk, too.

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is no way to reliably convince them and since their actions affect the rest of society they can't be allowed to indulge in their bullshit.

I’d quote Dr. Gregory House which I think still stands:

 

“You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get them in frog green, fire engine red. Really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for six months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you'll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Want to change things? Prove them wrong. A few hundred parents like you decide they'd rather let their kid die then cough up 40 bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop “really” fast.” 

 

 

[BuckGup]

5 hours ago, duncannah said:

Legal (in US) way to get rid of a kid

Oh wow did not think of that

[Sauron]

15 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

I’d quote Dr. Gregory House which I think still stands:

 

“You know another really good business? Teeny tiny baby coffins. You can get them in frog green, fire engine red. Really. The antibodies in yummy mummy only protect the kid for six months, which is why these companies think they can gouge you. They think that you'll spend whatever they ask to keep your kid alive. Want to change things? Prove them wrong. A few hundred parents like you decide they'd rather let their kid die then cough up 40 bucks for a vaccination, believe me, prices will drop “really” fast.”

Also, if price is the problem they should move to a civilized country where basic health care doesn't require mortgaging your house. Or at least vote where their mouth is.

[Drak3]

At the end of the day, the only people put at risk if someone makes the personal choice of not getting vaccinated, the only people they're putting at risk are themself and those that share in that personal decision.

 

If there ever becomes enough of them that herd immunity fails, that's the failing of those that actually know and study vaccination for not actually pushing the information to the masses (right now, they just let go and shrug their shouldiers).

 

And tyrannical/dictatorial government intervention in personal decisions is worse than a minority of people not keeping up with vaccines.

[Beef Boss]

A good one is "it's their children" but still, if they aren't vaccinated they shouldn't be in public schools causing sickness to others because of someone's ignorance. 

[Dash Lambda]

There is a good argument. Let's take the perspective of a random parent considering whether or not to vaccinate their child:

• I don't know what the vaccine actually does.
• I heard it has mercury in it.
• There are other parents claiming it harmed their children.
• Nobody gets these diseases anymore, this shouldn't be necessary.
• I don't know if my child is allergic.
• I don't want to make a choice that harms my child.

Being weary of something you don't understand, especially in medicine, is absolutely reasonable. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't want to get vaccinated until I understand the risks," because that means they're trying to make informed decisions. The way to help them is to provide information.

 

The problem arises when people start believing chain emails and talk-show hosts more than doctors and other trained professionals. I don't know how to help those people.

[aezakmi]

>antivaxxers claim vaccines cause autism

>they're autistic

>ironic_palpatine.jpg