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?

Teaching children about this in schools and how changing your mind is not a weakness but a strength would help the population immeasureably

Agreed! Although I don't think the bigotry you describe is the preserve of those on the political right. I think that, for better or worse, we're all to some degree hard-wired for it.

Also, the hpv vaccine must present a huge financial boon for the NHS. I've recently had an hpv infection, resulting in a series of colposcopies which must have been costly. I guess that in a few years, as the vaccinated population comes through, spending in these areas will be greatly reduced. There's a big financial incentive not to look into the claims of the women who say their health has been ruined

That doesn't make sense.

If the vaccine ruins the health of so many women, then it will cost the NHS.
Saving the NHS money means that there's more money to be spent on things like treating the women who do get cervical cancer, for example. It's not a bad thing per se and it's a perfectly legitimate goal.

LondonJax, the story you tell about your family's loss is so very sad.

Good post, londonJax.

More light and less heat would be good!

If the vaccine ruins the health of so many women, then it will cost the NHS

Not necessarily, it could ruin the health of quite a few women before it no longer represented a cost saving. Abnormal smears are really common. Colposcopy, etc must cost a fortune.

Transgenderism and vaccines have the pharmaceutical industry in common.

I do personally question the safety of some vaccines, but such an opinion gets a lot of abuse on here, unfortunately.

How many are a few compared to people who get cancer and need treatment or who die?
What is the cost-benefit on that? Because that's the most important benchmark.

@Rocaille and @ErrolTheDragon. You know my mum now has Alzheimer's and is in a care home. When we show her family photos she recognises all her brothers and sisters. Every time she sees her sister (my aunt) she always says 'that's x, she died with diphtheria' and retells the story about the GP running down the road telling my gran to get the children out of the house. My mum was 8 years old at the time and is now approaching 90 years old - some things never leave you though. Even with dementia. Bless her.

How many are a few compared to people who get cancer and need treatment or who die?
What is the cost-benefit on that? Because that's the most important benchmark

Yes, I suppose that would be one approach. But would it be ethical to weigh harm deliberately done to a woman's health to harm that has occurred as a result of a proverbial 'act of God', eg. cancer?

I'm not convinced the hpv vaccination does cause harm, BTW. Just talking hypotheticals.

the anti-vaccine moral superiority phase

When exactly was that? Did it ever exist?

I suppose that would be one approach

It IS one of the parameters that is evaluated.

It's not deliberate harm, it's accidental harm due to the vaccine. The vaccine is not designed to harm women. Some women react badly.
But we do the same calculations when deciding to vaccinate ourselves. We compare the likelihood and seriousness of harm from not vaccinating with the likelihood and seriousness of harm from vaccinating.
Unfortunately, most of us are not equipped with knowledge or tools to make that assessment, so health agencies or professionals do it for us.
It's an ongoing assessment that is not perfect, but has led to changes in vaccination schedules and recommendations.

In the late nineties, many parents I knew were very into homeopathy and very opposed to vaccines.

There was a lot of moral judgement of parents who chose to vaccinate.

It was at the time of the Andrew Wakefield ‘evidence.’ There were tv programmes, media articles etc.

In the late nineties, many parents I knew were very into homeopathy and very opposed to vaccines.

In your circle probably.
But even then, vaccine coverage was still higher than 50%.

And certain types of media.

Wakefield results were questioned from the beginning.

Yes, the majority of parents still vaccinated and had no involvement in the whole debate.

But that’s true of most issues. Most people aren’t involved in transgenderism, don’t think you can change sex etc.

But you only need a loud minority to push for something for it to have an impact.

"Also, the hpv vaccine must present a huge financial boon for the NHS."

Almost totally off topic, but I was interested to discover (if this is correct) that you can't get it on the NHS once you are 18 - is that right? If so, what's the rationale? If it's cost effective, isn't it still so after age 17 - or is there an assumption that the majority of women will have had sex by then, so on a population level it won't be effective (as it is most effective if you have it pre starting to have sex)? (My impression is that such an assumption would be wrong by the way, but I have no factual evidence on that!)

My aunt died two weeks later, a few weeks before her 11th birthday, unable to swallow and with her neck and shoulders paralysed. An agonising death and my mum had us all vaccinated because of it.

That is one of the worst things I've ever read

I vaccinated my kids during the anti-vaccine moral superiority phase, but I do think something is going on. I’m on Tumblr, in parts where people don’t ever really mention anything to do with bringing up kids or related topics. And yet these vitriolic posts loathing anti-vaxxers keep coming up. It is strange and disturbing.

Anecdotally, I have one friend who is extremely vocal and even belligerent about hatred of anti-vax stuff. Interestingly she is also that way about other issues, like trans rights, autism awareness, etc. She tends to be a very black and white thinker and doesn't see nuances generally, she also sees herself as a skeptic and very pro-science, but isn't actually very good at it. For example she's been advocating lately for our province to fund a vaccine that it doesn't, obviously not one of the major ones, and she's not able to really have a discussion about how you would choose what to fund - what the risks are, what the outcomes for people who get the illness, or even what wouldn't get funded if you spent the money on the vaccine. As far as she is concerned preventing an illness is always good, because science. I actually find it significantly more annoying then some of my anti-vax friends even though I think they are more wrong objectively about vaccinations themselves.

Why is this on the feminist board?!?

I vaccinate but I had to take a slower timetable with my youngest as he had mild/moderate reactions to vaccines he is still fully vaccinated

My friends daughter is vaccine damaged her youngest has not been vaccinated because of her elder sister their uncle is vaccine damaged too the drs agree with the decision how can we keep children like them safe if those that can vaccinate dont?

Anti-vax movement is a far-“left” (not really left, actually neoliberal), antimaterialist, hyperindividualist position, just like the TRA movement.

So no, I do not believe being pro-vax is like being pro-TRA at all.

I do think it would be BETTER if we would be able to use education rather than compulsion to improve vaccination rates.

However requiring vaccination for entry into high risk government institutions like schools I think is OK. And private businesses should likewise be allowed to ban the unvaccinated if they so desire for the safeguarding of their stakeholders.

Why is this on the feminist board?!?

Haven't read the thread so this may have been covered, but, I've noticed TRAs consistently linking gender critical feminism with the anti-vax movement, particularly in the context of Mumsnet. It never seemed to make sense to me because I haven't seen any feminists here with anti-vax views. It's just an attempt to smear, like saying GC feminists are white supremacists or Christian evangelicals.

Vaccine damage does happen

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.

Are you anti-seatbelts because, occasionally, people are trapped by them and unable to escape from a car crash? Do you refuse to strap in your children because one person in a million is killed by wearing a seatbelt ? Or do you understand that the odds of being harmed by a seatbelt are much, much lower than the odds of being harmed by not wearing a seatbelt?

Of course vaccine damage happens. Anything that works has side effects.