
How the Anti-Vaccine Community Is Responding to Covid-19 - kyle_morris_
https://undark.org/2020/04/16/anti-vaccine-covid-19/
======
beefield
There are a couple of other groups I would like to be interviewed as well.

\- Economists who have bought into the crowding out theory. Are they
consistent and still oppose government spending? [1]

\- People/corporations who have lobbied for and taken advantage of all kinds
of loopholes in taxation as to avoid paying taxes and who think taxation is
theft, and are now expecting government to pay them out from this mess. [2]

\- The ones that vouch for strong IP and patent protection. Do they propose to
not share any information between research groups and give them even longer
patents to incentivize better innovation?

[1]
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp)
[2] I cite no examples. I am astonished if there is none, though.

~~~
defertoreptar
Your three examples run in a similar vein: individual rights vs the role of
government. I think many of those you would see as holding contradictory views
would say that government intervention in these areas actually fall under the
domain of something they believe is one of the few justifiable functions of
government: defense. Only, it's not a war this time.

~~~
dariusj18
In addition, you can be against something but believe that as long as it's
being done it should be done right, or to your advantage.

------
Zenst
One fair point "Floyd said, “are talking about washing your hands, but why
aren’t they talking about things you can do to boost your immune system like
vitamin D?"

Given that in some countries in the northern hemisphere we are seeing a
disproportionate number of ethnic minorities deaths from this, the aspect that
vitamin D or lack of, does seem to be a factor and certainly one in which such
advice would do more good than any harm I can think of beyond stock pilers
effect. Though lack of vitamin D is not something that is the prevail of any
pigment, just more likely and given the data, I'm supprised that such advice
is not more vocalised. Though for many it will be basic health knowledge akin
to basic first aid, that many is not all.

For reference
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1211435)
[https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-
launched...](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-review-to-be-launched-
into-why-ethnic-minorities-worst-hit-by-covid-19-11974116)

~~~
Tainnor
I don't find this evidence convincing. Your first link just lists health
benefits of vitamin D, and discusses how different ethnicities absorb it
differently, which I don't want to dispute. The second link just states that
minority populations are more at risk without making any link to vitamin D.

This is, at best, a correlation (in fact, I'm not even sure the data does go
that far) and implies no causal mechanism.

Sure, if vitamin D is healthy, which it probably is, do go outside and get
some more (though do beware of sunburns). As it stands right now, I haven't
heard of any claims linking this to Coronavirus yet, though.

What's more problematic is the claim that you should "get vitamin D to boost
your immune system". Even if that worked (I don't believe it does), you don't
want to necessarily boost it because that might lead to bad consequences. [1]
In fact, people have died from covid19 in part due to the immune system
overreacting. [2]

[1] [https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-
you-d...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-do-to-
improve-your-immune-system)

[2] [https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-
storm/](https://www.newscientist.com/term/cytokine-storm/)

~~~
Zenst
Sure it's a correlation, in much the same way SAD syndrome more prevalent the
further North you go. But some things may well have better papers or links, I
was just pointing out what seems to be logical - however - watch this please:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs)

A Doctor who has been doing a fair and most excellent overview with a critical
mind upon this whole COVID-19 from early on and focused upon evidence. He
covers things in a way that may hold more gravitas to that aspect.

One of the many useful reference links from that video that I think covers all
this fair and square.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252338](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32252338)

~~~
Tainnor
Thank you for the link. I was not aware of any such suspected connection, now
I know better.

The abstract concludes that " randomized controlled trials and large
population studies should be conducted to evaluate these recommendations".
This seems to indicate that the finding is still quite preliminary (the study
is rather new), so in that light it doesn't surprise me that it isn't a
general recommendation yet.

------
shezi
In one word: predictably.

~~~
throwaway5752
I don't usually award glib posts with upvotes but I did for you.

I think you capture the fundamental issue: who cares what they think?
Objectively, we should care less about what they think about covid-19 than
_any other group_ because of their track record of scientific illiteracy on
the precise subject under discussion.

Aside from anthropological and related disease mitigation strategies, what
anti-vax people think about this is not worth a second of attention. The odds
favor that objectively ignorant people will continue to make poor assessments
based on facts.

edit: thankfully it is flagged.

------
Invictus0
It's amazing how the avalanche of knowledge offered by the internet does
nothing to counter even the tiniest seed of doubt planted in these people's
minds. Undoing the brainwashing is going to be one of the major challenges of
our time.

~~~
lpah4all
It's difficult to mandate self-evolution through education. Most people just
binge-watch vapid fiction after vapid fiction.

------
toss1
Often overlooked in commentary on anti-vaxxers, and by the anti-vaxxers
themselves, is this:

Freeloading

The anti-vaxxers are freeloading on the herd immunity created and maintained
by the smart people.

That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before
vaccines, when families often had 10 children to see a few survive to
adulthood.

There is plenty deliberate ignorance of history, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and
confirmation bias in their 'arguments', but the root seems to be a (likely)
unconscious willingness to freeload on the benefits provided by others.

This is unfortunately coupled with a deliberate ignorance of and/or
willingness to deliberately endanger the small subset of people with bona-fide
medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination, and so genuinely rely on
the herd immunity to survive.

It is far past time to coddle this deliberate ignorance and freeloading. If
anti-vaxxers want to stay that way, fine, but they need to choose and not be
permitted poison the well - vaccination needs to be required for alk access to
public buildings, schools, transport, etc.

~~~
GCSAQCMIYI
>That herd immunity prevents the regular epidemics & pandemics common before
vaccines

Like Scarlet fever?

~~~
toss1
No.

Scarlet Fever is bacterial, not viral, and are fought by different parts of
the body's immune system.

Few if any attempts at creating vaccines against bacteria are successful,
whereas vaccines against viruses are typically more successful, although
viruses such as Influenza can evolve new versions frequently, requiring new
vaccine versions.

------
lpah4all
Vaccines are an absolutely revolutionary technology.

That said, mixing profit with essential medical technology is a recipe for
failure.

The first way to make something more profitable is to cut costs.

What corners do these corps cut to up their margins? And how does that
decrease health outcomes for some percent of the population?

The bottom-line is that no for-profit corp can be trusted with your health.

Vaccines must be developed and distributed by the government for the benefit
of all human beings. Sure, we need to minimize cost but not to enrich the
select few wealthy enough to be investors in the first place. If there is a
surplus (profit), that money gets invested right back into R&D. No pharma-bros
needed or wanted.

I am pro-vaccine and anti-for-profit-corps.

Yes, my kids are vaxed for measles and a few others, but, no, I did not go in
for the entire schedule, which is frankly insane. Just compare our vax
schedule in America to what they do in Europe. It's maybe 2x. And, yes, we
will all get a Covid vax as soon as it is available.

But, remember, selling three of something (ETA: instead of two) that has a
little margin gives you a 50% increase in profit. B-School types don't care
that that third dose might be too much; besides, they can find/fund
researchers to goal-seek safety for that extra 50%.

And, yes, vax is big business, just not as big as other meds.

And, yes, anti-vaxxers piss me off, too, the fucking anti-science morons. But
people who trust for-profit corps with their health are stupid marks.

~~~
AshamedCaptain
There's something very wrong in your message, practically the same bias as the
vaccine "denialists".

First you establish your order of trust as:

1\. Government

2\. For-profit-corporations

Then you acknowledge that your actual practisting order of trust is:

1\. Your gut (why is "the entire schedule frankly insane"?)

2\. European Governments

3\. Your American Government

The later ranking is not justified at all by your early statements.

If you trust governments better than corporations as a matter of choice, fine.
It may actually be a sensible choice in this bullshit world. If you trust your
gut more than governments fine, it may also be a sensible choice, even.

However, be consistent, and realize your biases.

~~~
secstate
I'm in the same boat as OP. The entire childhood vaccination schedule is
insane because it lacks longitudinal studies demonstrating effectiveness and
safety.

Why is varicella in the schedule? The plague upon our house that is chicken
pox will hopefully be annihilated one day, only to reappear in a much more
painful form later in life as shingles because you need a constant re-up of
the varicella vaccine to keep it at bay. What the actual fuck is going on here
and who controls the schedule?

~~~
lpah4all
Regulatory capture and goal-seeking driven by profit-seeking B-school
acolytes.

------
maxdo
This planet will always have people who are always not happy with something.
And don't get me wrong it positive. Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns
caused better results evaluation. And since this is a liberal society where
you can't force people to stay at home even if it will cause death, oh well...
this is the only way, someone should die without vaccine first.

~~~
smt88
> _Even stupid alarming vaccine campaigns caused better results evaluation._

What does this mean? It doesn't make sense in English, so could you please
elaborate?

> _someone should die without vaccine_

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of why anti-vaxxers are a problem.

They don't just kill themselves. They break herd immunity and put other people
at risk. They have already caused outbreaks that have killed adults and
children who _did_ get their vaccines.

~~~
dariusj18
I think they mean, the science is more rigorous because they have to deal with
anti-vaxxers.

------
wbhart
This was an interesting read. The style of presentation is quite unique. The
overall tone of the article is in favour of vaccination, but it nevertheless
provides many exact quotes of antivaxxers and other conspiracy theorists,
usually without trying to directly refute what they say.

It's also well investigated, in the sense that caveats to the usual responses
to antivaxxers are included.

I personally felt like I came away with a better understanding of what the
conspiracy theorists are actually thinking/claiming. I learned some
interesting facts about various vaccination campaigns, and overall felt like I
came away with more information than I came to the article with.

I'm interested to see where this style of journalism leads.

------
vearwhershuh
Here is the pattern:

1) Establish a false dichotomy ("All vaccines are good, all vaccines are bad")

2) Come up with a pithy slur for the other side ("Antivaxx")

3) Emphasize the looniest people on the other side, ignore and hide the
reasonable people on the other side.

4) Use this slur to browbeat moderates, the skeptical, the unsure and the open
minded into silence.

It's very effective.

~~~
Tainnor
The problem is that 1) is just a strawman no medical expert agrees to.

~~~
lpah4all
We're not talking about medical experts here.

~~~
Tainnor
Yes. The article clearly discusses how select individuals disagree with
majority medical opinion with basically zero evidence. So the opinion of
medical experts matters.

~~~
lpah4all
That's not who the OP was talking about, not-Einstein. He's talking about the
idiots who idiotically polarize needed conversations that need nuance. _a-hem_

------
bradleyy
I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a
delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified
schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO.

For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're
getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors,
like the aforementioned pediatrician.

~~~
generalpass
> I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a
> delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified
> schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO.

> For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're
> getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors,
> like the aforementioned pediatrician.

It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to
ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be
used.

I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more
cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more
nuanced.

I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that
states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people
catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no
longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply
labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract
an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition
is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities.

EDIT:

It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are
unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.

~~~
MiroF
> but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak
> occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized

Source? Regardless, the large majority of aggregate cases of measles in the
United States are among people who aren't vaccinated, which is a massive,
massive over-representation and suggests that the measles vaccine is
effective, regardless of specific anomalous cases.

I find this take of "being fair" to "nuanced" views quite common, but when I
patiently let the whole anti-vax view be laid out, it is generally not
particularly coherent nor well-sourced. I think stigma can be an effective way
to change beliefs, because people can pretend they never held the belief in
the first place. When you have someone lay out their whole argument, they
often become more entrenched.

My source: [https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-
outbreaks.html](https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html)

~~~
CydeWeys
For what it's worth, I'm 34 and had to get the MMR vaccine again last year
because blood titers showed that I was no longer producing meaningful
antibodies for rubella. Given that the average person has been vaccinated
against over a dozen diseases, odds are good that at least one of them has
worn off and needs to be re-upped by now.

So that's another reason the herd immunity is so important: If enough people
opt out of just getting a simple shot, then now everyone else has to go
through the much larger burden of periodic retesting and re-vaccining for them
to be safe.

~~~
MiroF
Yep, plus the fact that certain vaccines aren't effective in every single
person but it is hard to know apriori who those people are.

------
peter_d_sherman
Opinion: Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or
forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do -- is no different than
forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman
NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it.

It's no different than forcing a man to join the Military if he doesn't want
to join, or forcing the man NOT to join the Military, if he does want to join.

A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be
medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the
right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not.

Our current Constitution supports these rights, implicitly, via the 9th
Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

(Although, in an increasingly legislative and legalistic society, those rights
may have to be asserted, asserted repeatedly, asserted to multiple people who
are not aware of them, and asserted hard...)

~~~
bryanlarsen
Unvaccinated people put the immuno-compromised, newborns and the elderly at
risk. The state doesn't have the right to force you to vaccinate, but they do
have the right to force you into quarantine if you're not.

~~~
peter_d_sherman
I've studied U.S. Law for close to 10 years.

First, please define what you mean by "state".

Are we talking Federal Government, or one or more of the 50 U.S. States?

Next, please explain to me why you think that entity has the power to do
that...

Also, please explain to me your understanding of "Consent Of The Governed".
What does that term mean, where does that originate from, how does that apply
to to the U.S. Federal and State (and also local) governments?

Think of this as a test of your understanding of U.S. Law...

