
How do you argue with anti vaxxers? - garyfirestorm
Any literature&#x2F;paper books that will help open someone&#x27;s eyes?
======
sirspacey
Ask open-ended questions recursively. People often have a story or experience
at the root of their beliefs. Uncovering that root (with your questions) also
gives the anti-vaxxer an oppprtunity to ask new questions about why they
believe what they believe. Generally, we need new questions to arrive at new
answers.

~~~
Vaskivo
> People often have a story or experience at the root of their beliefs.

This. So many time this!

------
Mz
Unless you actually need to argue with them because, say, you share custody of
your child with one, you probably shouldn't bother.

I am neither an anti vaxxer nor pro vax. I get hated on by both camps. Neither
side is very rational about this. So, you should probably put this in, say,
the same box as religion and try to a) be respectful of their right to live
their lives as they see fit and b) avoid the topic.

~~~
danieltillett
This is one case where one side 'choice' affects the other side. Thanks to
herd immunity the anti vaxxers imperil not only themeselves, but also those
that are vaccinated.

~~~
Mz
That street runs both ways. Your insistence on herd immunity and that they,
thus, must get vaccinated also impacts their right to do with their body as
they see fit.

I have a medical condition where most people get the flu vax annually. I
stopped getting mine because all of the people actually helping me get
healthier after doctors basically wrote me off for dead were strongly antivax
in opinion. I am not, but I decided to go with skipping my flu vax because
these people seemed to know what the hell they were talking about. I have
gotten steadily stronger ever since.

I have had people on the internet give me hell for choosing to forego my flu
vax on some theory that maybe I would be some danger to their child with
respiratory problems, though there was no reason to believe they would ever
actually run into me.

I sleep in a tent in the wilderness and I have minimal contact with people. I
am not harming anyone and no one is catching my germs. (I also have not had
the flu in many years.)

There are ways to handle germ control other than vaccines. I don't know how
humanity will sort this question out. But as someone who needs a high degree
of control over my body to have any hope of staying well, I think both sides
are equally assholish here.

~~~
krapp
>I sleep in a tent in the wilderness and I have minimal contact with people. I
am not harming anyone and no one is catching my germs. (I also have not had
the flu in many years.)

You're an outlier. You, in your tent out in the woods are not the problem.
Thousands or tens of thousands of people sending their non-vaccinated children
to schools and living in the same cities as everyone else weakening herd
immunity is the problem.

It's not an issue of bodily autonomy versus freedom, it's an issue of bodily
autonomy versus the likelihood of mass death.

~~~
Mz
We have a lot of mystery diseases currently that are occurring in large
numbers. Autism is just one widespread issue of the modern world. Anti vaxxers
believe at least some of these problems are being caused by the widespread use
of vaccines.

Given that we don't really know what is causing them, pro vaxxers are not
really in a position to argue that vaccines are not part of the problem. But,
they do it anyway and are at least as closed minded as they accuse anti
vaxxers of being.

~~~
krapp
>Anti vaxxers believe at least some of these problems are being caused by the
widespread use of vaccines.

Great, but people believe a lot of things, so show me some evidence. Believing
some vaccines to be harmful is, at least, a defensible (and scientifically
testable) position. But that's not the same as believing vaccination as a
whole should be avoided. Vaccines do work, and herd immunity is a thing. Even
if we didn't truly understand the long-term ramifications of vaccines, we do
already understand what happens in their absence.

Pro-vaxxers aren't being closed minded, we just don't want our children to
have to worry about whooping cough and polio.

------
propogandist
why has the government given vaccine manufacturers blanket immunity from
injuries and deaths attributable to vaccines?

------
xchip
I'd use a technique called Street Epistemology, it does wonders with religious
people. There are lots of videos showing people lowering their level of
confidence after just a few questions. I recommend watching this trailer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moApG7z2pkY&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moApG7z2pkY&feature=youtu.be&fref=gc)

------
akulbe
You don't. They're convinced, and you're not going to change their minds.

------
kleer001
Don't start with the goal of convincing them. Instead listen and ask for more.

------
djob
So many brainwashed people out here.. So sad :(

------
oldandtired
You don't argue with either side. Neither side has a recognition of the
other's concerns. If you have close friends that are doctors or even nurses
who will be candid with you, you quickly come to the realisation that the
range of reactions to any vaccine is dependent on the many factors, including
effectiveness of vaccine in each recipient (from totally effective and full
immunity to total ineffectiveness and no additional immunity to detrimental
effects).

Some people react very badly to the current vaccines and when this is not
recognised by those who are pro-vaccination, this just re-enforces the anti-
vaccination viewpoint.

As a child I was around others who were infectious with chicken pox, never got
sick. But as an adult, I came close to dying from chicken pox that I got off
my children. No reaction as a child but near deadly as an adult.

Yet Tetanus vaccines (which I have had at various times) cause me no side
effects at all, even though most people I know have a fairly severe pain
reaction for a period of time after the injections.

When it is not recognised that there have been manufacturing errors in various
vaccines over time or that there are proportion of people who suffer very
adverse effects from vaccines (up to and including death), this only goes to
strengthened the viewpoint that vaccines are dangerous for those who are
against vaccinations.

I have come across various people who know that a specific vaccine would kill
them or their children but have the viewpoint that everyone else must get
vaccinated so that they (the unvaccinated) would be protected.

Where we should be putting our research is to find some sort of standardised
way to pre-test an individual for efficacy or adversity of any specific
vaccine.

There is no point giving a vaccine to someone who will have strongly adverse
side-effects to it, nor is there any point in giving a vaccine to someone
where that vaccine will provide no additional protection to the person. Too
often, the excuse of "herd immunity" is used without thought to whether or not
this actually true for any specific vaccine. The problem here is that, if the
vaccine works and gives you immunity, then what reason are you concerned about
that someone else hasn't had their shots, other than passing this disease onto
other unvaccinated people.

I don't bother with a flu shot. But if you want it, go for it. I know people
who get sick every year after they have had their vaccines for the flu. I know
of one fellow did this religiously every year and every year he got sick.
After discussing this problem with his doctor, it was suggested that, over a
period of three weeks, he get a one third dose. Since then, he hadn't got
sick.

Vaccines have made significant inroads into certain diseases that cause a
great deal of grief for many in society. But no vaccine is 100% effective and
every vaccine will adversely affect some proportion of the population (however
small that might be).

Instead of demonising those against vaccinations, maybe, this demonising
should be against the companies that push the affordability of drugs and
vaccines (and all the other related medical technology) beyond the capability
of those who need it most just because they can and it will be most profitable
to them to do so.

Most have heard of Martin Shkreli and his antics with drug prices. What many
don't realise is that he was just following the general principles of the drug
manufacturers, he was just a little too obvious about it.

~~~
Mz
^ This.

The crux of the issue is that people who are rabidly pro vax and people who
are rabidly anti vax are both equally guilty of disregarding the valid
concerns of the other side. This fact means neither is willing to consider a
more nuanced discussion concerning when vaccines make sense and when they
don't.

Laws in the US generally try to balance the needs of the many versus
individual rights. So, for example, if we need to put in a new highway, we
don't simply willy nilly throw people out of their homes. There are processes
in place for trying to decide where and how to build it with the least impact,
then there are processes for compensating them.

We need to figure out how to do the same with vaccines, but that conversation
mostly is not happening because most people talking about it are talking in
absolutes. And, in their mind, if you aren't for them, you are against them.
Thus, no reasonable discussion can be had.

Pro vaxxers and anti vaxxers are equally guilty of ascribing to a one size
fits all solution and being extremists. This is why someone like me, who has
gotten vaccines for some things but has foregone them for others, is given
hell by both sides.

~~~
oldandtired
Agreed. But be assured that there are more in the middle ground than there
appear on the surface.

~~~
Mz
Thank you for saying that. I needed to hear that more than I expected.

------
bdibs
You don’t.

------
pneill
You don't. You can't argue with crazy. Or as philosopher once put it, you
cannot answer questions of value with statements of fact.

