
Anti-vax movement effectively reversing decades of progress internationally - rahuldottech
https://qz.com/1706261/the-anti-vax-movement-is-reversing-decades-of-scientific-progress/
======
DoingIsLearning
I will write the same comment I wrote on the reddit thread.

I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society allow
this discourse which gives it a legitimacy that it simply should not have.

The most immediate consequence of this is that suddenly journalists are forced
to entertain vacine ignorance as a 'valid' or defensable viewpoint to pretend
that we have both sides of the 'argument'.

It's 2019, there is no argument to be had, stop trying to be respectful,
entertaining this is a public health threat.

~~~
boomlinde
_> I think calling it a 'movement' is part of the problem. We as a society
allow this discourse which gives it a legitimacy that it simply should not
have._

But it is a movement. That it is has nothing to do with the legitimacy of
their goals and ideas. We haven't elevated it by calling it a movement. That
we call a spade a spade doesn't imply respect.

 _> The most immediate consequence of this is that suddenly journalists are
forced to entertain vacine ignorance as a 'valid' or defensable viewpoint to
pretend that we have both sides of the 'argument'._

What is the basis for saying that this is a consequence of calling it a
movement?

~~~
AstralStorm
Let's pick up the good old reductio ad Hitlerium.

Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of giving
them platform to spread their ideas.

Views that kill people are rightly prohibited.

What will be next, an anti-seatbelt league?

~~~
boomlinde
_> Neonazis are also a movement, but nobody thinks even a split second of
giving them platform to spread their ideas._

Hence no one has taken the word "movement" in that case to imply respect and
legitimacy. Why should you?

~~~
DoingIsLearning
Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is loaded
with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people will
automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people.

Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-
right groups. Although they are 'technically' a movement you would see them
described as far-right 'groups' or even far-right 'radicals'.

~~~
boomlinde
_> Although the word itself is technically neutral the word 'movement' is
loaded with positive connotations such as 'civil rights movements', people
will automatically associate it with a progressive/positive mobilization of
people._

So if I call something "neo-nazi movement" will people automatically associate
it with a progressive/positive mobilization of people? I think that you
overestimate the positive connotations of what you already agree is an
entirely neutral word.

 _> Taking the example from parent you would not see the wording used for far-
right groups._

I frequently see neo-nazi groups referred to as movements (especially in
plural, since there are many different ideologies with followers that can all
fairly be described as neo-nazi movements). To call them "far-right groups" or
"far-right radicals" is an euphemism because it drops specificity and bundles
neo-nazis together with other radical far right movemenents. Referring to
nazis and fascists as the "alt-right" has probably done them a greater service
than calling a spade a spade ever has.

------
rahuldottech
Full title:

 _The anti-vax movement is effectively reversing decades of progress in
disease prevention. WHO no longer consider measles to be eradicated in the UK,
Albania, Czech Republic, and Greece._

------
paulddraper
Weirdest intro I've seen all week

> It is a coincidence that the news broke the day after Boris Johnson, the UK
> prime minister, provoked widespread outrage by proroguing parliament.

It's not a coincidence; it's just something completely unrelated.

~~~
dev_dull
This is the age of confirmation bias. Something bad happening? It’s because is
your political opponents and policies you disagree with.

------
perspective1
It's so bizarre seeing measles come back. It's like some terrible thing out of
Jurassic Park, "life finds a way."

------
thecleaner
Well I guess the antivaxers will be eradicated before the diseases.

~~~
statguy
Unfortunately, they will end "eradicating" some sane people as well....

------
topologistics
Dividing the issue into pro-vax and anti-vax spreads FUD and obscures the real
problems: what preservatives are in the vaccines, what growth medium proteins
are in the vaccines due to improper filtering and poor manufacturing
processes, how many vaccines are administered at what age, and what all of
that that has to do vaccines harming kids (which happens all the time)...
bring up any of these issues and you'll be attacked as an antivaxxer who's
trying to send us back to the stone age.

~~~
larrik
I think the fact that we need to portray vaccines as essentially infallable in
order to combat the insanity of the anti-vax movement is indeed very dangerous
and worrisome. There's so much nonsense to combat that having an actual
conversation is impossible.

After all, vaccines aren't risk-free, but they don't cause autism.

~~~
Latty
This is one of these things that is technically true, but still misleading.

 _Nothing_ is risk-free. Eating food has risk, taking paracetamol has risk,
getting blood drawn has risk.

Saying something has risk without talking about the amount of risk and the
context of the risks it mitigates is pointless.

Vaccines introduce _negligible_ amounts of risk. Giving your child a peanut or
taking them for a drive is _much_ riskier, and we almost all do those things
without a second thought. By contrast, they mitigate _huge_ risks: the
diseases we vaccinate against can, did and do cause horrific harm up to and
including death, and do so very well.

Vaccines are not immune to criticism, it is just they have weathered all the
reasonable criticism leveled at them. If you are willing to put your child in
a car, giving them a vaccine should be a complete non-issue for you.

------
sgjohnson
Am I the only one who doesn't actually care what anti-vaxxers do?

It's their purpose of life and happiness. If they want to die from easily
preventable diseases, who am I to tell them otherwise.

~~~
mattherman
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity)

~~~
paulddraper
Sure.

That general principal for any number of partially or fully controllable
diseases.

But how far does that go?

How much can I assert control over general sexual behavior because I want to
contain AIDS?

