How do you argue with anti vaxxers?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15049788

by garyfirestorm • 9 years ago

15 39 9 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Any literature/paper books that will help open someone's eyes?

pneill• 9 years ago

You don't. You can't argue with crazy. Or as philosopher once put it, you cannot answer questions of value with statements of fact.

sirspacey• 9 years ago

Ask open-ended questions recursively. People often have a story or experience at the root of their beliefs. Uncovering that root (with your questions) also gives the anti-vaxxer an oppprtunity to ask new questions about why they believe what they believe. Generally, we need new questions to arrive at new answers.

Vaskivo• 9 years ago

People often have a story or experience at the root of their beliefs.

This. So many time this!

Mz11• 9 years ago

Unless you actually need to argue with them because, say, you share custody of your child with one, you probably shouldn't bother.

I am neither an anti vaxxer nor pro vax. I get hated on by both camps. Neither side is very rational about this. So, you should probably put this in, say, the same box as religion and try to a) be respectful of their right to live their lives as they see fit and b) avoid the topic.

danieltillett3• 9 years ago

This is one case where one side 'choice' affects the other side. Thanks to herd immunity the anti vaxxers imperil not only themeselves, but also those that are vaccinated.

Mz11• 9 years ago

That street runs both ways. Your insistence on herd immunity and that they, thus, must get vaccinated also impacts their right to do with their body as they see fit.

I have a medical condition where most people get the flu vax annually. I stopped getting mine because all of the people actually helping me get healthier after doctors basically wrote me off for dead were strongly antivax in opinion. I am not, but I decided to go with skipping my flu vax because these people seemed to know what the hell they were talking about. I have gotten steadily stronger ever since.

I have had people on the internet give me hell for choosing to forego my flu vax on some theory that maybe I would be some danger to their child with respiratory problems, though there was no reason to believe they would ever actually run into me.

I sleep in a tent in the wilderness and I have minimal contact with people. I am not harming anyone and no one is catching my germs. (I also have not had the flu in many years.)

There are ways to handle germ control other than vaccines. I don't know how humanity will sort this question out. But as someone who needs a high degree of control over my body to have any hope of staying well, I think both sides are equally assholish here.

muzani• 9 years ago

Assuming both sides have credibility, there is still a clear choice.

It's clear that vaccination is a successful way of eradicating diseases like measles, smallpox, polio.

It's not so clear whether it causes autism and it's possible that the person doing such research was scapegoated.

But which would you choose? A world with no polio or smallpox, or a world with 2% less autism?

true_religion• 9 years ago

Some people will not make decisions on the basis of "what kind of world do I want to see", but rather the more immediate concern of "is my child going to be disabled?".

Vaccines weren't taken up by the masses because they wanted to eradicate polio for example, but rather because they wanted their children to be safe from it. Parents would gladly vaccinate themselves, even at a risk that they'd get a full infection, just to guarantee that their children would be safe.

The anti-vaxxer issue nowadays is a tragedy of the commons scenario. Every individual who does not vaccinate their child, doesn't give up herd immunity immediately, and (if true) get's to avoid any complications associated with vaccine. They have others bear the costs of herd vaccination, and gain a benefit by defecting.

msla• 9 years ago

You seem amazingly invested in making a moral equivalence between the people who save children through vaccination and people who kill them through non-vaccination resulting in epidemics of vaccine-preventable disease.

bdibs• 9 years ago

You don’t.

propogandist• 9 years ago

why has the government given vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity from injuries and deaths attributable to vaccines?

xchip• 9 years ago

I'd use a technique called Street Epistemology, it does wonders with religious people. There are lots of videos showing people lowering their level of confidence after just a few questions. I recommend watching this trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moApG7z2pkY&feature=youtu.be...

oldandtired2• 9 years ago

You don't argue with either side. Neither side has a recognition of the other's concerns. If you have close friends that are doctors or even nurses who will be candid with you, you quickly come to the realisation that the range of reactions to any vaccine is dependent on the many factors, including effectiveness of vaccine in each recipient (from totally effective and full immunity to total ineffectiveness and no additional immunity to detrimental effects).

Some people react very badly to the current vaccines and when this is not recognised by those who are pro-vaccination, this just re-enforces the anti-vaccination viewpoint.

As a child I was around others who were infectious with chicken pox, never got sick. But as an adult, I came close to dying from chicken pox that I got off my children. No reaction as a child but near deadly as an adult.

Yet Tetanus vaccines (which I have had at various times) cause me no side effects at all, even though most people I know have a fairly severe pain reaction for a period of time after the injections.

When it is not recognised that there have been manufacturing errors in various vaccines over time or that there are proportion of people who suffer very adverse effects from vaccines (up to and including death), this only goes to strengthened the viewpoint that vaccines are dangerous for those who are against vaccinations.

I have come across various people who know that a specific vaccine would kill them or their children but have the viewpoint that everyone else must get vaccinated so that they (the unvaccinated) would be protected.

Where we should be putting our research is to find some sort of standardised way to pre-test an individual for efficacy or adversity of any specific vaccine.

There is no point giving a vaccine to someone who will have strongly adverse side-effects to it, nor is there any point in giving a vaccine to someone where that vaccine will provide no additional protection to the person. Too often, the excuse of "herd immunity" is used without thought to whether or not this actually true for any specific vaccine. The problem here is that, if the vaccine works and gives you immunity, then what reason are you concerned about that someone else hasn't had their shots, other than passing this disease onto other unvaccinated people.

I don't bother with a flu shot. But if you want it, go for it. I know people who get sick every year after they have had their vaccines for the flu. I know of one fellow did this religiously every year and every year he got sick. After discussing this problem with his doctor, it was suggested that, over a period of three weeks, he get a one third dose. Since then, he hadn't got sick.

Vaccines have made significant inroads into certain diseases that cause a great deal of grief for many in society. But no vaccine is 100% effective and every vaccine will adversely affect some proportion of the population (however small that might be).

Instead of demonising those against vaccinations, maybe, this demonising should be against the companies that push the affordability of drugs and vaccines (and all the other related medical technology) beyond the capability of those who need it most just because they can and it will be most profitable to them to do so.

Most have heard of Martin Shkreli and his antics with drug prices. What many don't realise is that he was just following the general principles of the drug manufacturers, he was just a little too obvious about it.

Mz11• 9 years ago

^ This.

The crux of the issue is that people who are rabidly pro vax and people who are rabidly anti vax are both equally guilty of disregarding the valid concerns of the other side. This fact means neither is willing to consider a more nuanced discussion concerning when vaccines make sense and when they don't.

Laws in the US generally try to balance the needs of the many versus individual rights. So, for example, if we need to put in a new highway, we don't simply willy nilly throw people out of their homes. There are processes in place for trying to decide where and how to build it with the least impact, then there are processes for compensating them.

We need to figure out how to do the same with vaccines, but that conversation mostly is not happening because most people talking about it are talking in absolutes. And, in their mind, if you aren't for them, you are against them. Thus, no reasonable discussion can be had.

Pro vaxxers and anti vaxxers are equally guilty of ascribing to a one size fits all solution and being extremists. This is why someone like me, who has gotten vaccines for some things but has foregone them for others, is given hell by both sides.

oldandtired2• 9 years ago

Agreed. But be assured that there are more in the middle ground than there appear on the surface.

b_emery• 9 years ago

I have several doctors in my family, some even in public health and what you say is true, yes some people have been harmed by vaccines, and even killed. These are basic facts available to anyone with an internet connection. The manufacturers of the vaccines should be monitored and kept in line, like any manufacturer of medication (or food for that matter). Many of the vaccines that I am familiar with are low cost if not subsidized to the point of free - so I'm not sure that the drug pricing scams you discuss apply here.

The point missing from this discussion is the basic principle that doctors are applying when then recommend vaccination: that the chance of harm from the vaccine is much less than the chance of harm from the disease. Senior citizens, pregnant women and children < 1 yr routinely die from the flu - at rates much greater than the deaths from the flu shot.

Discussing it with a trained medical Doctor is a great idea which I recommend. It must always be remembered that each treatment is a separate experiment and should be monitored accordingly.

akulbe• 9 years ago

You don't. They're convinced, and you're not going to change their minds.

kleer001• 9 years ago

Don't start with the goal of convincing them. Instead listen and ask for more.

djob• 9 years ago

So many brainwashed people out here.. So sad :(

How do you argue with anti vaxxers?

Related Stories