Why are some parents/families anti vax?

[Sistersis]

Just read an article about the UK no longer being measles free. Just trying to understand what are the reasons that some people are against vaccination.

Not being cheeky here, geniuenly interested. Sorry if this has been done already.

Asking my babies to take a risk for an adult woman is not on. And it won’t happen on my watch.

A stirring sentiment, but somewhat hollow since you're already asking your babies to risk disease for the sake of your principles.

We are going around in circles Lweji

I have said several times that my children will not take a risk from a vaccine they do not need. This is both sensible and moral.

You might catch more flies with honey but you catch less life threatening diseases with immunisations.

Anti vaxxers are selfish stupid fucking pricks.

Way to take the comment I made completely out of context...

However you made my point perfectly. People reacting like you didn’t help realise I was being lead down the wrong path.

Thankfully people who did realise you catch more flies with honey took the time to do so or I wouldn’t have been able to stand up to the pressure and have mine vaccinated.

We are going around in circles Lweji

Only because you're avoiding pertinent questions.

You're saying they don't need the vaccine. I'm questioning this stance and how you got to that conclusion, but you're ignoring most of my arguments and questions.

It's easy to say that you catch more flies with honey, but when we start really digging into the "reasoning", we start feeling like Paxman vs Howard.

The fact is that there is no reasoning, and it's not based on any actual data, no actual research. It's just putting fingers in ears and going la la la to anything that goes against beliefs.

It's because Jim Corr.

The ugliest Corr.

september

Your DD's could one day be both wanting to get pregnant and immune compromised such that they can't be vaccinated themselves.

What do you want then? A country in which the overwhelming majority have been vaccinated for rubella and hence its not circulating, and your DD's can try for a baby?....or a country with what 10% of people like you who say 'I won't vaccinate my child because its up to women planning pregnancy to do it themselves' where they probably haven't gotten it yet, but they may acquire it during the pregnancy?

Not all pregancy is planned and sometimes pregnancy happens to women who can't be vaccinated themselves. And those women may be your DD's in the future.

I have said several times that my children will not take a risk from a vaccine they do not need

But specifically which risks are you worried about and how common do you believe those risks are?

Not every pregnancy is planned.

That’s still not a good enough reason for adult women to demand babies take risks for them.

The vaccine is to protect the babies too. It helps reduce the risk of them contracting rubella and potentially developing complications related to it.

Again, which specific risks associated with the vaccine are you concerned about?

That’s still not a good enough reason for adult women to demand babies take risks for them

Y'know, not all babies grow up to be virtuous and good...some of them will end up murdering and raping other peoples' babies...just sayin'

What are the rubella vaccine risks and what are the odds?
What are the rubella risks and what are the odds?

It's worth to keep asking.

I don't think the reason is because most anti vaxxers don't understand risk, I think the reason is deeper. Many of my friends who are working in science-intense fields are choosing not to vaccinate.

I think it is due to the same moral conundrum as with the famous trolley problem. Take conscious action (I.e. vaccinate your child) and cause "lesser evil" or cause "bigger evil" by inaction.
Experiments show that in practice people prefer the second option.

I cannot and will not be vaccinated against everything going because of adverse reactions in others and nor
Would I ask them to do so for me.
You're asking them to take the risk of catching rubella despite the risks of the disease causing them an issue being many times greater than the risks of the vaccine causing an issue. The mathematical probability has been quantified for many decades across hundreds of millions of people; you are asking them to take a greater risk either because you don't understand the maths or because you don't believe the maths; which is it?

Actually, unless you're a statistician you may not understand risk properly. There are articles that explain these tricky subjects to scientists. Risk assessment is not a basic science topic.
And even the ubiquitous 5% significance is often poorly understood or applied.

That's why I mentioned earlier on that a little knowledge is dangerous.
Most people underestimate how much they don't know and tend to think they're smarter than they are. Educated people are probably the worst.

Because people only trust doctors when their kids are sick and desperate... not when the same doctor tells you a vaccine is safe and effective...

Actually, unless you're a statistician you may not understand risk properly.
I will be more specific - I know actuaries working in healthcare who are anti vaccination.

@EEmother

Ok... What are their reasons?

And are they against vaccinations through the NHS or only for their children?
Would they go to a yellow fever country without having the vaccine?

It's also interesting that it's the generation who grew up being vaccinated and seemingly didn't suffer from it that wants to deny their own children and their children's generation that resource.

@Lweji - that generation hear about the very few cases of vaccine illnesses and don't hear about the huge numbers of deaths and life-changing injuries from the diseases themselves (though that's changing of course as the vaccination rate goes down). If they don't look into the details very far then it's easy to be persuaded by the internet lies.

@EEmother - I think you're mistaken about what their jobs are or what they're doing regarding vaccinations, certainly for there to be more than one of them. With the changes in vaccination rates and the amount people travel, it's very clear from the data that nobody can rely on just herd immunity any longer.

Another factor anti vaccsers don’t comprehend is viral load. Oh my children will just get a small dose of a mild disease but my eldest child got a small dose of a mild disease but then my younger one who was necessarily with her 24/7 got a full blast of the viral load - when a mother talks about 7 coffins I believe it because chicken pox which as the older child who got it first so I thought it just a childhood disease left her hospitalised with breathing difficulties and with spots in every orifice unimaginable discomfort. Remember SARS - a really hard virus to catch it turned out but if you were exposed to a high viral load via lift buttons or your shit plumbing system then you died.

@MRex
I am not mistaken about what their jobs are as we are working together, pretty much in the same field, that's why I know so many of them.
Understanding of risk has almost no impact on the personal appetite for risk. I know an aviation pricing actuary who does not fly due to aerophobia too.
As I said, for me it looks more like an ethical dilemma rather than a knowledge issue. You are taking a small risk when choosing to vaccinate, but you are making this decision consciously and explicitly. Not vaccinating leads to higher risk, but it is effectively "inaction", and for some reason this agrees with people better. You don't have to make a decision, you just let it go. Or at least this is how I am explaining this phenomenon.

I think it is due to the same moral conundrum as with the famous trolley problem. Take conscious action (I.e. vaccinate your child) and cause "lesser evil" or cause "bigger evil" by inaction.
Experiments show that in practice people prefer the second option.

This is still indicative of a failure to understand risk. If this were a trolley problem, it would be like 'send the trolley down track A and the likelihood of harm is so small we can't statistically quantify it. Leave the trolley on the road it's on, and there's a 1/2,000,000 (not a real statistic) chance your child or someone else's child will die'.

If you choose to leave the trolley on the track, you don't understand risk.

@EEmother and how is it that you know such a large number of incompetent actuaries?!