Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

psydkay t1_izog0wm wrote

This is definitely the case. You can present whatever scientific evidence to anti-vaxxers and they ignore it, just like flat earthers.

118

Justtryme90 t1_izpmq5f wrote

It's easy to get people afraid with wild conjecture, but it's really hard to then calm them back down with facts and logic. From what I can see, many topics today are all driven by a fear position and a rational position, where the fears have led to some sort of twisted belief system.

I am uncertain how to combat this, and it's quite frustrating. I have many former logical thinking family members that seem to have jumped off the deep end.

32

[deleted] t1_izpqcfj wrote

[removed]

2

Petaurus_australis t1_izr0gt5 wrote

Same here, although I begin to question their rationality / criticality / logic. One in particular is an engineer who's worked on and even managed some of the biggest projects in my country, although I've come to realize most of that is connections and charisma. It's interesting too because a lot of his "brightness" is sounding smart, but rather it's just a colorful intuition heuristic that he bases most of his thinking on, with major deficits in control of his own life and thoughts.

But yes, it's an rather strange combo to tackle. First you have the fear, the anxiety, the paranoia, a vulnerability of sorts to these ideologies, which is followed by some form of ego defense which tries to reinforce the topic from a perceived reasonable system. I think you can pinpoint the emotional basis too because they psychologically project; "Oh you are just scared of COVID, sheep" (the parallel is they are scared of the vaccine / something to do with the vaccine). The problem however is that you can't erode that foundation and expect everything else to collapse, they sort of shift their goalpost so that the further justification, the reinforcement of their view becomes the foundation of their ideology.

And then you have another complex set of events, the new harder to untangle goalpost is reinforced by fear, anxiety, paranoia as they begin to delve down the rabbit hole usually corroborated by some form of illiteracy, not knowing how to interpret studies or analytically filter information, but the real problem is the further paranoia / fear results in a rejection of the system which precedes the information the perceived opposition is creating, IE, science in general or the government. Therefore it's near impossible to install the literacy needed to begin tackling the goalpost view because they systematically reject the source or association of the literacy.

I'm going to actually maybe say something a little provocative, but I think the BASIS of this thinking is pathological. I think the BASIS is an already problematic belief system, the tinted glasses were already there. For a lot of men I know who hold these views, I think they characteristically fit the dismissive-avoidant attachment style category likely stemming back to cold and rigid parents, which has lead to a long life of striving to be very independent, a struggle to intimately relate to others well and a deep insecurity. I think in part this suspicion of authority leans massively into their pathological presuppositions, but I also think it gives them some form of unified community which they likely have a longing for.

2

SocialismIsStupid t1_izrn3fx wrote

I’d like to add it seems a large contingent are baby boomers who are in denial of their own mortality. They were the first true generation to be coddled with modern medicine. They grew up with modern antibiotics, anesthesia, and etc. Death to every generation before them was something normal. Boomers though were the first ones to grow up with out their peers dying from preventable illnesses. Only accidents and really rare occurrences. Now, they are over 60 and their friends are dying of natural causes and they see their time is running short. So they looking for something to blame. Something they can control. “It wasn’t their age or the years of partying and being overweight. It was the vaccine that killed Bob. I just gotta avoid the vaccine and I’ll be ok…Ya just gotta avoid the old vaccine and I won’t die that’s all I gotta do.” And they keep repeating that to themselves. The scary thing is every generation I think is going to have a large section like that going forward.

2

Chrissy9001 t1_izrvx72 wrote

This is not true. Vaccine uptake was lower in the younger age groups, as was mask compliance.

2

SocialismIsStupid t1_izrwe7f wrote

Uhh yes, it is. You're conflating people in their 20s and 30s not getting the vaccination because they really aren't at risk vs people who are at risk and push conspiracy theories.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boomers-misinformation-facebook-study-1005148/

4

Chrissy9001 t1_izrwtf6 wrote

Ok, I see what you mean now. I took what you said to mean that they were less likely to be vaccinated due to them believing antivaxx misinformation.

3

Anubisrapture t1_izt16tz wrote

Am older Gen X - I agree w YOU, i am vaxed and stopped masking for a little while but NOW am back masking. The anti vaxers in our family are those who live outside the city and only one who died was somebody over 65 living in rural texas - it is purely lack of education , plus the falling down into a evangelical mindset. The one time my partner got covid was when he was close to his unmasked and UNVAXED cousin at a funeral - am on the West Coast and so are my children SO we do not see this stuff until we travel back down South.

1

SnooPuppers1978 t1_izwfbog wrote

Are young, healthy people who did not take the vaccine anti-vaxxers or not?

And what should be done about convincing them?

1

TheClayroo t1_izooml8 wrote

The Venn diagram between those two groups is a perfect circle.

17

Daerrol t1_izr98jr wrote

Not at all, flat earthers are significantly more rare. Flat earth is based on personal observation over science mixed with general conspiratorial thinking and anti-gov' skepticism.

Anti-vaxx is much more a social movement, and is/was aligned heavily with US politic. The vax became a short hand for thoughts about lockdowns and other unrelated things. Like if you got the vax then you agreed Covid was a problem and therefore agree lockdowns should happen (illogical as this is, we get shots for tons of other diseases - the flu most notably- that we do not engage in special social measures for)

Then there's the whole hippy/naturalistic, and medicine skeptic crowds who all have their own motivations

6

SEND-ME-FEET-P1CS t1_izpyubw wrote

Its because science to them is satanic magic that doesnt actually exist, god controls the stars and the moon to go around and provide us with what we need, and space was just fabricated to drive us further from god.

Source: my dad is a religiois conspiracy theorist

3

deep6it2 t1_izqul2u wrote

Convince all those in the health/scientific community that don't agree the "evidence" IS scientific.

2

[deleted] t1_izq0umv wrote

[removed]

−11

TheDownvotesFarmer t1_izopf1v wrote

Is it not well known by now that flath-earth was just a psyop?

−22

TommyCollins t1_izp2kbm wrote

I thought it was a joke that got out of hand. Tangentially, r/birdsarentreal will have the same trajectory I am calling it here

19

Grouch_OMarx t1_izpc4ms wrote

To what end?

3

DivideEtImpala t1_izr8y2n wrote

"What, you think the virus came from a lab? I bet you think the earth is flat, too!"

Mostly for that reason. It makes it easier to dismiss any questioning of official narratives by asserting that the questioner also believes patently obvious nonsense.

You can see an example of this in the opening comment of this thread.

3

koebelin t1_izpyvpe wrote

Some ideas catch on all too easily. If they didn’t invent it, it would have happened anyway.

2

[deleted] t1_izp5pni wrote

[removed]

83

[deleted] t1_izpeftb wrote

[removed]

−70

[deleted] t1_izpvn0z wrote

[removed]

−76

[deleted] t1_izpwj69 wrote

[removed]

59

[deleted] t1_izqg9xr wrote

[removed]

47

[deleted] t1_izqvyba wrote

[removed]

−42

[deleted] t1_izoxt0s wrote

[removed]

19

[deleted] t1_izpq2p8 wrote

[removed]

−6

five707 t1_izotqwz wrote

Anecdotal over empirical evidence.

13

Justtryme90 t1_izpn43u wrote

It's more like no evidence over empirical evidence.

Anecdotes are often based in fact and reality, they are just not verified with sufficient rigor. What we have with the anti vax position, is wild claims based on layer upon layer of misunderstanding.

14

compchief t1_izq0y7b wrote

I'm curious, what are the usual anti-vaccine wild claims regarding the vaccine?

−7

Baud_Olofsson t1_izslbor wrote

The most popular one right now is claiming that people are dropping like flies from their COVID vaccines (simply made up, but "evidence" is presented by ascribing any and all deaths, regardless of actual cause of death, to vaccines). Other ones include:

  • "mRNA vaccines are gene therapy" (based on a complete misunderstanding of what mRNA is and what it does in our bodies).
  • "COVID vaccines cause AIDS" (simply made up).
  • "The vaccines contain tracking chips/5G chips/nanites" (simply made up, physically implausible/impossible).
  • "Vaccines make you magnetic" (simply made up, and physically impossible - but "proven" by sticking metal objects to skin (they stick because of sweat and oils on the skin; it has nothing to do with magnetism or any vaccines)).
  • "The vaccines shed to other people" (an actual but generally insignificant thing for some attenuated ("live") vaccines - of which there are none for COVID-19).
2

charliespider t1_izov8b3 wrote

Tell me you don't know the meaning of "anecdotal" without telling me you don't know the meaning of "anecdotal"

(EDIT)

LOLZ!

I interpreted the comment I responded to as meaning the study was anecdotal, but I see now that they meant the anti-vaxxers' tweets were anecdotal.

I had contemplated adding another line to my comment like:

>a scientific study is the exact opposite of anecdotal

but didn't because my response seemed sufficient as is. OOPS!

Now people think I'M the anti-vaxxer!

−32

five707 t1_izow1lz wrote

Anecdotal: based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation

It is exactly why these anti-vax messages are driven by based on the study. It is exactly what the study says ‘based on personal beliefs or values rather than hard evidence’. That is the exact definition of relying on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence.

Think it thru next time.

28

glawgii OP t1_izoe8oh wrote

Method:

>This study follows a quantitative design to analyse anti-vaccination
tweets posted from the UK. An exploratory content analysis, a strong and commonly used social research method for communication was employed.

8

icarus581 t1_izqlcv6 wrote

I'm highly skeptical to mdpi papers. Accepted within 14 days! This is too fast to be legit peer reviewed.

7

abaoabao2010 t1_izprms2 wrote

The easiest way to sell lies is to base your arguments on emotion and feelings. Of course it's no different for anti vax.

3

Tobz51 t1_izqman2 wrote

I have a friend who just won't shut up about how harmful the "jab" is. I stopped arguing with her shortly after I seen that anything I say doesn't matter because I'm being "lied to" by the government. Two years in, and she is still campaigning against getting vaccinated.

2

AutoModerator t1_izoddr4 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

PrizeRare2828 t1_izt9qn6 wrote

Why did my comment get deleted? When all I said is I’m healthy and have never gotten Covid or the flu?? Very odd

1

MickEAaroN t1_izw3vnh wrote

Vaccine science is proven. Traditional vaccines have certainly changed our world for the better. Unfortunately some recent changes to the definition of vaccine have taken an otherwise trusted term and diminshed its integridy.

1

mwallace0569 t1_izqfvr3 wrote

i mean, does this surprised anyone? all they do is lie and deceit. "oh, john gotten the vaccine 2 years ago, and he just gotten into a car accident on the planet bob... ITS THE VACCINE" no William, he died because of the accident, because a pole went into his heart.

0

rdizzy1223 t1_izqz0jf wrote

If you look at the studies for these vaccines, and take a look at how many people got side effects from the placebo injection (even things like myocarditis), that should tell you the majority of what you need to know. Same for most pharmaceutical testing, almost all people getting placebo get side effects of some type. I bet it's even worse in the past 20 years with the internet being so prevalent, if you are in a phase 3 study, you can look up the side effects from the phase 1 and phase 2 studies and that will inherently effect the outcome (what side effects you yourself end up with), regardless if you get the real drug, or placebo.

0

deegethesqueege t1_izs6uyw wrote

How can you present facts about long-term negative effects?

Last time I checked, the USA was a free country, meaning people can choose whether or not they want experimental poison placed in their bodies or not.

FWIW, I chose to get the vaccine. Now I choose not to as I had some negative side effects.

−2

Cheshire90 t1_izp2wfd wrote

One person's personal experience can't be assumed to generalize, but it's still a hard fact of what happened to them.

I'm pretty pro-vaccine, but this kind of "science says we need to suppress anyone who questions our narrative" paper really creeps me out. We should not have a problem with people sharing their concerns, much less their actual experiences. Aside from it being morally wrong to silence people and depriving us of one source of information, this is exactly the kind of thing that contributes to the "declining authority of scientific expertise in public debates" that the authors note.

−7

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_izppj7v wrote

The problem is there is no way to verify these experiences and there are many fake/disinformation accounts.

20

mwallace0569 t1_izqgs2o wrote

i don't care about my experiences, feelings, emotions, i know they can be wrong, i know that we can make the wrong connections. i know my experiences isn't the hard facts, so i don't treat them as such.

i learned not to treat as such, because there people in my life who thinks their experiences, emotions are the hard facts, the be the be all and end all. it can be really frustrating trying to argue with them

7

Cheshire90 t1_izr9yyy wrote

The fact that no authority controls discourse has always been part of the tradeoff of an open society. It is significantly more immoral to silence someone genuinely giving their experience than it is to allow some hucksters to speak.

You should also consider that whatever power you give to censor people is going to end up also being wielded by whatever group you currently hate most.

−7

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_izs9uoj wrote

No one is silencing anyone. Science papers go though more rigor than some anonymous post on twitter. You are discounting expertise. With that logic of open source discourse the next time you need surgery just take a random account’s opinion off twitter to treat you.

6

Cheshire90 t1_iztjzqr wrote

Um are you worried that if people on twitter are allowed to say wrong things your surgeon will use that when treating you?

−1

WorldlinessAwkward69 t1_iztl6w2 wrote

No, I'm just saying because some idiot said it on twitter doesn't make it true/verifiable, and this guy knows it because he wouldn't ask some random twitter/reddit/social media moron to perform brain surgery on him.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztxxup wrote

So? You seem to have this set up as a dichotomy where either we have complete trust in twitter people or it's so threatening that they be allowed to say what they want that we need to take action against them. Neither of those things are true.

0

MariachiBoyBand t1_izpvie9 wrote

I’m honestly tired of these off base emotional but ultimately bad faith arguments of “being deprived” of information when all that is being critiqued is the bad misinformation that is being peddled like some cheap currency. Maybe take the points that scientists are making also?? Add them to your narrative and see how it all plays out?

Most of the people that comment like this, rarely do any due diligence on their own “skepticism” and have a hard time sifting through the data and often get confused. Mind you, this CAN happen, to get lost in the information and no, it’s not because of intelligence, it’s mostly training and education.

13

Cheshire90 t1_izr9gis wrote

I stated up front that I am not really skeptical of the COVID vaccines. I'm not the one who's afraid that good evidence won't beat bad evidence.

Considering that I basically agree with the pro-vaccine position I'm really curious, what's the bad faith motive that you're accusing me of for saying "just don't censor people"?

I will say that if someone has a bad reaction to any medical treatment it is flatly immoral to tell them they can't share their experience or to try to silence them. It's completely crazy to me that responsible people would think that's what they should do to control "misinformation".

−4

MariachiBoyBand t1_izraydg wrote

Again, you’re using emotional pleas to “get your message”, the people that get a reaction, should speak out but also, the percentage of people that get a reaction should be part of the conversation. Generally when I read a message of a bad reaction to vaccines, it’s accompanied by absurd messaging of “what else are they hiding” paired with mistrust with no actual source nor due diligence as to the percentage of people affected, this is the crux of the bad faith arguments, fear and exaggeration of vaccines is part it.

7

Cheshire90 t1_izrciqp wrote

What emotional plea? I'm advocating against the emotion-based argument that we have to suppress people because maybe rationality might not win out.

People who are reporting their own experience aren't responsible for putting that in context of the rest of the population. They are literally just saying what happened to them.

The rest of us should take their report in context of the balance of evidence, not try to dismiss it because we need all evidence to point 100% in one direction. There will always be evidence for and against any position.

It's not really that threatening for people to be allowed to say wrong or exaggerated things; it going to happen all the time no matter what you do. Sorry to break that news. A lot of it will by by people who are on "your side" of any given issue.

2

Anubisrapture t1_izt2umm wrote

Not in this situation. One side is actually vetted, scientific and the other side is linked to things like Q anon and the hysteria of the far right- which leads to or includes violence and other cult like situations. Both siding this is not a good thing.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztj19u wrote

Which right wing politicians do you think should be in charge of deciding who gets to speak when they have the majority? Whatever standard you advocate for is going to be applied by the exact people you're afraid of.

Free speech is not about equivalency between sides. The idea that you can vet out who is right and silence anyone who doesn't meet your standard is both a fantasy and will surely backfire on you.

1

Anubisrapture t1_izt2ia4 wrote

Well for an example of what allowing any old speech will do- look at how Twitter is currently tanking from misinformation, constant ridiculous / bUt hUnTeR'S lApToP threads from Elon himself , and the opening of ALL speech which lead to the constant far right dangerous hate speech on it now.

1

Cheshire90 t1_iztjg8q wrote

Great example. Now that someone you don't agree with is in control of the company, do you still want them to use your standard of censoring any speech that he thinks is bad?

1

xAfterBirthx t1_izpojzy wrote

And this is the problem with people thinking they are somehow superior to non vaccinated people. I am vaccinated but I see people do this all the time.

−12

clumsy_poet t1_izpviuc wrote

I think it's important to say that they made a stupid decision not that they are stupid people.

7

Cheshire90 t1_izra7nw wrote

It's taken on this weird in/out group aspect since it became so tied up in politics and people's personal identity that really does not serve us well, no matter what your goals are.

0

[deleted] t1_izok4di wrote

[removed]

−19

Randybiz117 t1_izp09rx wrote

I recently got the Tdap vax, but I didn’t feel comfortable getting the Covid vax. Does that make me and anti vaxxer?

−27

[deleted] t1_izp137i wrote

[deleted]

−13

TommyCollins t1_izp3231 wrote

Bro 90%? I’ll literally film & eat my old leather wingtips if some study is done which shows even 10% of COVID vaccines “skeptics” don’t hold at least 3 other counter factual and incompatible beliefs.

22

DivideEtImpala t1_izrb2gz wrote

> hold at least 3 other counter factual and incompatible beliefs.

How many humans on this planet do you think don't hold at least 3 counter factual and incompatible beliefs?

2

TommyCollins t1_izseipg wrote

Tbh I wasn’t really prepared to eat my wingtips so I hedged my bet & hoped it would fly

3

n0ttomuch t1_izp2ybb wrote

No, it dosen't. Ultimatly if a medicine has side efects that you aren't sure you could handle then it's better not to take it

−22

SocialismIsStupid t1_izrm0qb wrote

Literally any medicine can cause side effects. Even people in placebo groups get side effects. We would have no medicine with this view point.

6

n0ttomuch t1_izrruha wrote

some side effects are worse then others. Doctors literely wont prescibe you medicene if side effect are too storng for a patient.

−1

SocialismIsStupid t1_izrsnqb wrote

So wait do you trust doctors or not? 99% of doctors recommend the Covid vax. Yes, there are a few quack doctors on the Internet. That’s one of the main issues with the internet. You get one doctor saying these crazy claims then 99 others saying it’s safe. Yet, anitivaxers hold on to that 1% dearly acting like it’s 50/50 divide when it’s 99/1.

6

n0ttomuch t1_izp0n7i wrote

So people who had side efects from vaccines talk about having sideefects from vacines?

−28

TommyCollins t1_izp3bjr wrote

At least click the link and read it thoughtfully before reflexively commenting

19

[deleted] t1_izol9cd wrote

[removed]

−45

[deleted] t1_izotwks wrote

[removed]

−9