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?

What about fathers OP?

I think that if you want to be anti vax, you should also foregoing all rights to healthcare, not have a Medicare or NHS service applied to you.

If you don't trust medical professionals then don't use them for anything - broken bones, chronic illness anything.

Because measles is coming back.

More people are likely to give their real opinion online as opposed to in person and more people are taking part in forums than before or passing comment online in general (e.g., commenting on Kat Von D's posts)

In the past, more people were likely to believe the autism cobblers so were less likely to question other parents' choices based on that. Now we know it was cobblers.

I see no link to the trans agenda.

in general, mothers are the best watchdogs for the care of their children

Except when they ignore medical and professional expert advice and listen to someone online.

With current social media, the lies being spread and being spread faster than ever before and targeting people who are scared but want the best for their child. But when they listen to the lies and don't see them as lies they aren't been given the best information.

Medical professionals, scientists, vaccine experts can be held to account if they knowingly spread false information (afaik) but a youtube video circulated through a mums group.....where's the oversight or accountability.

It's so rife I would never recommend a child attend a Rudolf Steiner, or similar, school, where 50, 60, 70 percent of kids are not vaccinated. It's only a matter of time before there is a serious outbreak.

loud anti-vaxxers who shout down anyone who disagree. Yes, unfortunately we have one of those in our school-gate WhatsApp group. Annoying.

Also there has been a strong anti-vax push against the HPV vaccine in certain areas in recent years, resulting in a massive drop off in uptake for the vaccine in girls here (in Ireland). This effectively obliterates any potential for herd immunity.

HPV is an interesting one as, at least in my Scottish experience, it cannot be said to be relying on herd immunity. We only vaccinate girls and my understanding is the virus is common amongst both sexes.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, I'm by no means an expert, but I have long thought boys should be vaccinated too. Largely because I grew up at a time when only girls were vaccinated against rubella, which still left some pregnant women and their foetuses at risk from any boys and men suffering the disease.

I don't know that it is new.

I do know that the fact that most 'antivaxxers' are female feels relevant to the language used by some people who engage publicly on this issue.

I don’t see this as a feminist issue or akin to the trans agenda at all. The question isn’t why we’re debating this, but rather why- in a golden age of science and information - people are so willing to ignore actual proven scientific facts and instead trust some unqualified loon on Facebook.

It’s truly terrifying that some people in 2019 are anti-vaccine, creationist, flat earth, believe the moon landings are fake etc. That’s the issue. It’s like a mass mobilisation of uneducated, easily led people. Which seems to nicely fit in with the likes of Trump at the moment. Whipping the masses into a frenzy. That’s the truly horrific part. I have no basis for this assertion but my belief is that there was a huge cross section of people at the Trump rally yesterday ‘send her back’ - who are anti- vaccine / flat earth etc etc.

Plus, as per PPs, the reason it’s seen as urgent now is that babies are now dying/ being mutilated from diseases which had practically been eradicated because of the selfishness and stupidity of those parents.

the term anti vaxxer has been something I've used for...10 years at least?

If there's been an increase, I imagine it relates to the increase in diseases that were dying out.

What about fathers OP? Yes, fathers too. It's just that, rightly or wrongly, it's still more often than not the mother who takes a lead on these kinds of decisions.

With no herd immunity children will die. Vaccinations save lives. Fact!

One of the reasons may be the reported numbers of late teenagers/early 20s who are catching communicable diseases and developing complications. They're the generation whose parents opted not to vaccinate them because of concerns around MMR etc. and epidemiologists warned of this time-delayed bulge at the time.

Interesting question. On one level I agree that people are angrier because the results (vulnerable communities) are getting more obvious now. But there is also evidence that social media has been weaponised to polarise the debate: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/.

Health organisations like WHO use terms like "vaccine hesitancy" instead, to try to build bridges and support better communication.

I think it's a super reach trying to link anti-vaxxers and people who oppose the use of surgery for children to relieve gender dysphoria.

And saying that mothers are the best people to make choices about medical care for their children? I have very little medical knowledge. I place my trust in doctors and specialists to know what is best for them, hence I vaccinate without hesitation.

This is a really difficult subject area.

It does tend to have people reacting strongly, on both sides.

I have been vilified as an anti-vaxxer for years on MN.

My eldest child was vaccinated - no question about it, liked up happily - right up to the point where vaccine damage (medically corroborated) occurred. Unsurprisingly, I then stopped to reassess.

And that’s when the shitstorm started. Suddenly, I was hectored, bullied, told I wasn’t able to understand information (the very last vaccination I took my eldest child to, I was refused the package insert to read, and relentlessly badgered until I consented to the vaccine being administered. This could not in any way have been taken as the informed consent it was supposed to be, because I was refused the relevant information, told I wouldn’t understand it even if they did give it to me, that they wouldn’t give it to me because it would only lead to me questioning (!), and lastly that I would be directly harming my child if I didn’t allow the vaccination to go ahead).

Again, unsurprisingly, this reaction gave me reason to consider further.

I had a second child, and knowing that the type of reaction and ultimately damage that my first had been through could well happen again, I took a different path.

My second child needed some medical investigations, and throughout the whole time, every single doctor I saw would relentlessly push me to vaccinate, even after hearing my rational reasons for the way we were doing things. Even after hearing that my choices had medical backing.

This culminated in an appointment to discuss my second child’s tests results, where the consult refused to hand over the results unless I agreed to have my child vaccinated (yes, ridiculous, but true).

It transpired that the results he was refusing to hand over actually meant that vaccination was contra-indicated for my second child.

Now that is disgusting, not me deciding to not vaccinate my child.

This isn’t unfortunately not an area where it is easy to get clear, full information, if the information you are trying to get is in any way not the official party line of ‘vaccination is fine and dandy for all’. It isn’t, and while that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be happening, there should absolutely be ways to be able to question the wisdom of pushing forward with a one-size-fits-all approach that sometimes, doesn’t work very well for a lone individual.

Collateral damage is never acceptable.

Because we're getting outbreaks of these easily preventable diseases due to lack of sufficient levels of herd immunity.

Some of the vaccinations do wear off in some people. There's a lot of outbreaks of mumps at the moment among students. One of DDs friends had to take a gap year because of it. She's just had an MMR booster (ie 3rd dose). DH somehow escaped catching any of these diseases as a child so is in the process of getting vaccinated. He felt a little rough at the relevant times after the first dose, which means he probably didn't have natural immunity.

And because there is now overwhelming evidence that Wakefield was wrong.

I don't really see the problem with compulsory medical treatment of children - I don't believe parents 'rights' should outweigh responsibility. Obviously not all children should be vaccinated, for medical reasons - such children need herd immunity from the rest.

because together with antimicobial resistance it is a serious public health concern.

There is a difference, though. People who demand antibiotics for colds and viruses aren’t yelled at for being a specific type of person in the way that antivaxxers are. There’s no “YOU FUCKING IDIOT, SHARON” Twitter yelling in the same way.

People refusing vaccines for their children really is a huge public health concern but I don’t think screaming at people will help to actually fix it. For every vocal conspiracy theorist antivaxxer who thinks The Establishment is covering up the harmlessness of measles(!) or something, the ones you won’t get through to no matter what you say or do, there’s ten more people who pick up on a few of the talking points and get scared. We can’t reach the first lot but we probably can reach the second. Making it into some kind of culture war thing about the kind of person they are just makes people harden in their positions in every discussion.

There are other approaches. Thinking of it as a phobia can be a useful way in - yes it’s totally irrational to be scared of vaccines, just like it’s totally irrational to be scared of spiders, but some people are all the same. How do we get past the phobia to educate people on the actual risks, and what these diseases are actually like?

the "Anti-vaxxer" term doesn't exist in my language yet, I imagine it will soon when it starts showing up on the news from other countries.
I don't know anyone from back home who does not vaccinate, and anyway, vaccination is compulsory for school children so if you want them to go to school that's that.
Home education is not really a thing.
On top of that, people are highly educated about diseases as we probably had some for longer than other countries, and we didn't have the medical resources others did until later.

Honestly, I wish it was the same here.

I have seen too many children failing to thrive, ill, etc from places where vaccines can't be afforded for anyone to think that anti-vaccination movements are one of the highest form in which white privilege can manifest itself.

It is an insult to those who lose children to illnesses that have been eradicated in other places and a slap on the face for science.

Because they are spreading preventable, life changing, fatal, diseases.

it's not a different issue.
severe illness opens the door for opportunistic (bacterial) infections. especially if a severely ill measels (example) patient is hospitalised.

Oh! Missed the point! I don't think there is more hostility now, I think before I wasn't even aware that non vaccination was a thing, just that now they are more vocal so I am more vocal

It may well be because of preventable diseases' outbreaks and deaths, I'd guess.
Just a thought...

Oh my goodness - thank you, everyone for responding to my questions! Unfortunately I've managed to delete some of my replies and I'm cross-posting like crazy - gonna go back and catch up...

Because vulnerable people die because of idiots that make idiotic choices ?