Why the sudden hostility to anti-vaxxers? (Not here, I mean in the culture at large...)

[Rocaille]

Sorry, this will be garbled: I'm thinking aloud. First of all, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't think I've ever refused a vaccination, either for myself or DD. But in the last year or so, I've noticed a sudden ramping up of hostility towards people who choose not to vaccinate their children, not necessarily on Mumsnet, but certainly in the culture at large. Even the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a new coinage, I think.

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

For me, it's reminiscent of the way that, some years back, the trans agenda appeared suddenly at the forefront of public discourse. In my tinfoil-hat-donning moments, I wonder who decides what issues we debate, when we debate them and to what end. Why now for anti-vax? I suppose there have been some serious measles epidemics in recent years, but that doesn't seem to account for the heat and urgency of debate, or the way anti-vaxxers are being characterised as a certain type of person.

Another thing that makes me associate pro-vax with the trans agenda is that it's potentially about the compulsory medical treatment of children, and removing the parent (mother) as the final arbiter of what can and cannot be done to her child's body. That's where I see pro-vax going.

Could this be another dimension of the same agenda, or have I completely lost the plot?

Vaccine damage (though not autism) does happen, but the risks of vaccine damage from childhood vaccines are minuscule, compared to the risks of being unvaccinated.

Observing and appreciating there are valid concerns for those affected, is not an argument to not vaccinate at all. Many comments on this thread fail to understand that fears are from acknowledged vaccine damage. That does not equate to ‘don’t do it at all’, it just helps communication and hopefully achieving the end goal of better vaccine rates but less adverse effects. Telling people they’re idiots etc etc is not helpful.

To the poster who said being anti vax is superstitious - no it's not. And I know a few people who haven't vaccinated but it's not because they believe Wakefield.

Some people refuse to accept vaccine damage is real, but even the uk government accepts that it is. That's why you can claim a vaccine damage payment from the government. Here is a Gov.uk link confirming.

www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/how-to-claim

“Some people refuse to accept vaccine damage is real”

I’ve never met one.

Surely anti-vaxxers have a lot more in common with TRAs, than the opposite? They are both bullying cults with an insistence on ignoring basic scientific fact, and forcing their opinions and perceived "rights" on the rest of society regardless of the potential damage.

This seems the most sensible response.
In my US state all medically able dc have to be vaccinated to attend any type of school (public or private)

Listening to news today it appears that law may be changed to prosecute parents who don't allow their DC to have measles vaccine.

Good move I say

I'm posting to find out, has anyone else noticed this, and if so, what do you make of it?

Yes, of course; I've noticed too.....For me it is very much about the new 'scientific orthodoxy'. These days everything has to be seen to have a biological or genetic cause, and science, in general, is the new god of the age. The new cliched, catch-phrases and memes are all about 'peer reviewed' this, that and the other....

Aligned to this is the power of big pharmaceuticals and bio-technology - who fund most research programmes.

I'm not, necessarily, suggesting anything in particular about vaccinations, as such - but this contemporary way of thinking and approach is very much the new orthodoxy. anyone who says otherwise, or shows studies to the contrary is a wacko- or slightly un-hinged in some way.

No hostility as long as my child is vaccinated against everything ... sadly he is not old enough to be covered for measles etc ... so if an anti vaccine kid gives him that at his tender 7month age I may be rather upset based on the side effects / how ill it will make him when it could have been avoided x

Because this is about herd immunity, not just your kids

The herd immunity thing doesn't work with flu, though. Every year the pharmaceuticals have to come up with a new vaccine based on predictions of which virus strains are going to be prevalent. and every year people have to be re-vaccinated. It is a bit of a lottery.

People who get the flu vaccine still get flu. And so many have now given up on the vaccine. My mother had a very bad reaction to the vaccine too. Apparently this is quite common.

You having a laugh op?

I threatened to pin any idiot who's idiot choices lead to my babies becoming infected, to a wall. The health visitors LOVED ME.

That was 16 years ago.

You here to screen shot te*fs being anti science?

This has been a battle since that evil wanker Wakefield.

*No hostility as long as my child is vaccinated against everything8

Is it really healthy or desirable to be vaccinated against 'everything', though. I often think that modern medicine wants to eradicate death itself. But death is part of life. I think we can go too far in trying to protect against every eventuality - and it all has knock-on effects on the rest of our eco-system.

anyone who says otherwise, or shows studies to the contrary is a wacko- or slightly un-hinged in some way.

could you give an example of "studies to the contrary". It might help understand your point. Science is the new god of the age because science, like religion, is an attempt to explain the universe and our place in it and aid our journey through it. Except science does it by scientific methods and religion did it through belief. What is wrong with science being the new god of the age? It is more effective than the old god of the age.

What is the problem with this new way of thinking? Are you afraid your medicines don't work or your water treatment plants are ineffective because of scientific orthodoxy?

These days everything has to be seen to have a biological or genetic cause
As opposed to what?

The new cliched, catch-phrases and memes are all about 'peer reviewed' this, that and the other....

Okaaay...you'd rather trust non-peer reviewed this, that and the other?

this contemporary way of thinking and approach

Rational thinking on the basis of evidence, that'd be.

The herd immunity thing doesn't work with flu, though

Indeed. This is why flu vaccine is optional, not standard, and not required for anyone afaik (though maybe some healthcare facilities require it for their employees?).

No one can deny the brilliance of the scientific method, but if I understand correctly, one of it's inbuilt limitations is that it can only ever provide tentative, provisional answers, and never certainties. The scientific method provides an incomplete, low resolution image of reality. That's good enough for me when I board a plane or indeed receive a vaccination. But to suggest that science can provide a god-like rendering of reality is just not reasonable.

For those earlier in the thread dismissing chicken pox as a minor illness and “not a big deal”, er, it can result in death or permanent brain damage, etc.

It can be, but the question is how often, and how sick, do people have to get to make vaccination worthwhile?

Chickenpox is a fair bit less dangerous than measles, for example.

There is no correct answer to that really. Obviously the vaccine has to cause less damage in the population than the disease, but beyond that you can weight things differently. Is it about what would save money for the health service? If so, s there a fixed amount of funding you need to distribute? Do you take the view that anything that is preventable should be prevented, or a more conservative view that sees less interference in bodily systems as better unless there is a clear significant benefit?

To a large extent things like that are value judgements.

I think that you can look at support of trans stuff and anti-vax sentiment as similar in some ways and different in others. And it also depends on the individual.

One way in which they are often opposites is many people consider that the medical science, or the people in the know, those who have authority, are telling them that the genderist ideology is in fact true and scientific. So they are basing their acceptance of it on trust.

Whereas the anti-vaxers typically have an extreme distrust of those they see as claiming medical authority.

I think this says something about the nature of the problem, in that it is not at all odd that people distrust authorities, there have been so many instances when they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Either biased, corrupt, or stupid.

Justhadathought

Have you run many clinical trials?

Yes, I think you're right Goosefoot. Both the trans stuff and the vax stuff are claims from authority. To some extent necessarily so, in the case of vaccinations: I certainly didn't have time to train to be a biomedical scientist and engage in a comprehensive literature review in advance of DD's vaccinations.

No one can deny the brilliance of the scientific method, but if I understand correctly, one of it's inbuilt limitations is that it can only ever provide tentative, provisional answers, and never certainties

Not really. The answers to some questions are certainties. Others are works in progress. There are misconceptions about what is meant by terms such as 'theory' and 'falsifiability'.

OTOH, none of the alternatives can actually provide even as much as you suggest. The fact that they may claim to merely means they're basically either delusional or unethical.

death is part of life

FFS. Childhood vaccines mainly prevent deaths in childhood.

Have you seen many children die? Because I have seen a couple of hundred - from many causes, but a significant number from preventable diseases. I have seen the kids suffer, I have seen the agonising grief of their families. Tell them that "death is part of life", why don't you? See what response you get.

Without modern medicine (including public health measures like clean water & vaccines), natural childhood mortality rates are 30-50%. Is that the world you are pining for?

I quite like contrarian people though. Granted anti-vaxxers often take the skepticism too far and it becomes dangerous, and conspiracy theorists are just plain annoying. But I think, in general, we could do with a bit more skepticism.

Contrarians (people who oppose or reject public opinion) may be objectively right, or they may be wrong - because current public opinion may be wrong or right. The trick is knowing the difference...

Rational skepticism on the basis of sound evidence is a good thing. Irrational skepticism on the basis of opinion, gut feeling or anecdote isn't.

Yes, Errol, I'm not worried that they sky will cave in tomorrow, or that I'll wake with two heads. While these things are technically possible, I'm not living my life as though they might happen at any minute.

But I think you may be over-stating the completeness of medical science. There is so much that is not known. Especially about female bodies. The book I mentioned earlier in the thread was about immunology (a pop book, I'm by now means a boffin, regrettably). Apparently this field has been utterly transformed in recent years and they believe they are on the cusp of many new discoveries that could mean radically different approaches for treating disease.

Goosefoot

Well, sure people can make their own risk assessment for themselves but herd immunity is not just about thinking of the self. I live in an area wide a significant anti-vax (and even anti-“Western medicine”) population. It puts everyone here at risk. It has put their own children at risk (a couple is currently on re-Trial for the painful, horrific death of their child from meningitis because they chose “alternative therapies” over medical attention)

Again, quoting from cdc.gov:

Chickenpox is a highly contagious disease caused by the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). It can cause an itchy, blister-like rash. The rash first appears on the chest, back, and face, and then spreads over the entire body, causing between 250 and 500 itchy blisters. Chickenpox can be serious, especially in babies, adolescents, adults, pregnant women, and people with a weakened immune system. The best way to prevent chickenpox is to get the chickenpox vaccine.

Chickenpox used to be very common in the United States. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized, and 100 to 150 died each year.

Chickenpox vaccine became available in the United States in 1995. Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of chickenpox, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by chickenpox vaccination in the United States.
...
Serious complications from chickenpox include:

Bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children, including Group A streptococcal infections
Infection of the lungs (pneumonia)
Infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
Bleeding problems (hemorrhagic complications)
Bloodstream infections (sepsis)
Dehydration

Some people with serious complications from chickenpox can become so sick that they need to be hospitalized. Chickenpox can also cause death.

Deaths are very rare now due to the vaccine program. However, some deaths from chickenpox continue to occur in healthy, unvaccinated children and adults. In the past, many of the healthy adults who died from chickenpox contracted the disease from their unvaccinated children.

Not having 100 deaths appears to me better than 100 deaths. And that does not account for those who may be permanently injured due to other complications like encephalitis.