I don't think that anyone seriously believes vaccinations don't "work." I thought that what the anti-vax crowd said was there were other things in those needles, like unnecessarily high amounts of mercury, that may hurt people with underdeveloped immune systems.
They also often believe (want to be believe is probably more accurate) the diseases vaccine prevent isn't that dangerous.
Actually... I saw a segment on either Erin Burnett or Bill O'Reilly (honestly can't remember, but think it was Bill) where they had a woman who was the head of some organization here in the US that is against vaccines. She flat out argued that they don't work, or at least that there is no science that they work. Her argument was that diseases go in cycles and that there was no proof that the increase in vaccinations led to the reduction of measles outbreaks (specifically referenced this one) and that many scientists believe it was simply coincidental that the vaccinations timed with a down cycle for the disease. She repeatedly stated that there was ZERO evidence that vaccines have ever prevented diseases and said that doctors have lied when they made claims about eradicating polio with vaccines. Edit: It was a point-counter point segment with the other person laughing at her.
From what I can tell of the anti-vaccination movement is a mix of issues: 1. That vaccines contain preservatives that have mercury and these are causing autism and other neurological issues. 2. That too many vaccines are given, too soon overwhelming children's immune systems. 3. That the government, drug companies, AMA and etc.. are misleading people into thinking that so many vaccination are needed. 4. That natural developed immunity is better than immunity through vaccination. 5. That the diseases that the vaccines protect against aren't that serious. 6. That there already is enough herd immunity so it's not worth the pain to their own children and expense to get vaccinated when most children are already vaccinated. 7. Religious / cultural views against modern medicine. These views span the political spectrum but all in their own way are damaging to public health overall. They are either based on misunderstanding the available information, ignorant of the issues, or either just callous.
Is there any statistics out there that indicates the actual reasons for the "anti-vaccinators"? I'm curious because I gave them the benefit of the doubt in thinking they believed that vaccines either caused autism or they didn't like to be forced to vaccine their kids(invasion of private life kind of thing).
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Anti-vaxers pretty evenly split by party. D: 13% R: 11% I: 15% <a href="http://t.co/SN3xwlUS8E">http://t.co/SN3xwlUS8E</a></p>— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) <a href="https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/562430749635534848">February 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Have your children received MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccinations? D: 82% R: 88% I: 79% <a href="http://t.co/SN3xwlUS8E">http://t.co/SN3xwlUS8E</a></p>— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) <a href="https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/562432344314085376">February 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pathetic, yet still better than the strong hold right wingers have on young earth creationists. You guys can keep them.
% of Anti Vax Pandering Presidential Hopefuls for 2016 Democrats - 0% Republicans - 100% (Chris Christie) (Rand Paul)
I think this is a good summary. The theme I see running through the whole list is a suspicion of a principal-agent problem. Parents' primary interest is the success of only their own children. But, they know the primary interest of the government is not that, but the more generalized success in public health. Given its incentives, the government may be more willing to shoulder some costs of side-effects from vaccinations to avoid deadly outbreaks. But, individual parents' incentives may dictate that it'd be preferable to take the small risk of an outbreak in order to avoid such side effects. So, anti-vacc parents don't trust the government or the scientists to tell the truth or even to seek the truth because that truth might cause parents to make choices that are individually optimal but not desirable for public health. That position is anti-science, but I don't think its irrational. Its certainly conceivable that the government might encourage people to do something for the public good even if it wasn't in an individual's best interest. I lean authoritarian, so I'll side with the government on protecting public health. But, I can understand how people can look at the situation and believe that they can't trust the authorities (even independent scientists and the sacred scientific method) to tell them the whole truth.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>"Excuse me, I'll decide when to stop my car, not the government."</p>— Drew Magary (@drewmagary) <a href="https://twitter.com/drewmagary/status/562678063897784321">February 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I don't know, but I think there is an assumption that is wrong there. Science doesn't drive anything. People use Science to drive whatever. Science give people info. People use that info in whatever way they want. The info Science provide, is by far, so far, the most accurate one. I would like to think, people with better more accurate info make better informed decision. Some people fear that (break their beliefs, doesn't jell with their culture, ...) and so I guess, when they fear it to a point where they reject the info Science provide, they aren't facing "reality". And they then may be called anti-Science (or not willing to face the info Science provide).
Holy **** GOP Senator: Don't Force Employees To Wash Their Hands After Using Toilet Next we're going to have wingnuts denying germ theory. This would all be hilarious if it wasn't ****ing terrifying. But, you know, it's all good because science can't tell us how the easter bunny transmogrifies chocolate eggs into the blood of Jesus. Stupid science.
I'm conservative, and I don't consider myself anti-science. I support funding for NASA and other scientific research. NASA has advanced technology in many fields in addition to exploring space. 1. As far as climate change goes, I think the climate is changing. However, I am against alarmist claims such as "climate change is causing more frequent and severe tornadoes/hurricanes," which simply aren't true. 2. I didn't realize vaccinations were a conservative or liberal issue. I think they are more of an education issue. People who don't understand biology don't get vaccinated. Everyone else does. 3. I'm a Christian, and I have heard arguments both supporting and refuting evolution (from a Christian perspective). If you want my honest opinion, I don't know what I think. I definitely agree with microevolution (natural selection, etc). I am much more skeptical of macroevolution and especially of "scientific" ideas of the origin of life. 4. Stem cell research has advanced technologically to the point that we don't need human embryos. Thus, I support stem cell research, and I think this development is why the debate has subsided in recent years.
I think you have misread the context/intentions of his remarks. I think his argument has to do with personal liberty. The Senator is not endorsing the idea that it's ok for employees to not wash your hands. I think having a health regulation in this particular situation is fine, but let's not fall into the trap of sensationalizing this story like the article did.
I don't have a problem with his position on hand-washing. But, I'm confused why he thinks a rule that a store must put up a sign that informs customers that the employees aren't required to wash their hands is somehow less regulatory than a rule that simply requires the hand-washing directly. I'm not sure why he or anyone would think this was a good example of the power of deregulation. You still need an enforcement apparatus to make the stores put up their signs. (And, if its any comfort to the senator, I think we can say with some confidence that adherence to the hand-washing rule is spotty at best.)
The position is irrational when the overwhelming evidence is that there is very little risk associated with vaccines. It is paranoia or willful ignorance to not get your child vaccinated because you are basing it on debunked and anecdotal versus a preponderence of data showing that vaccinations will keep your child from getting and passing on diseases. I don't really care which side of the political divide someone falls on who doesn't vaccinate their kids. It is a bad idea and one that has a direct effect on their own and public health no matter what the motivation.
Except even taking his argument fully it is a flawed argument and also one that would be dangerous for public health. It relies upon a fallacy of perfect and complete information that is available which would never work. For instance if we take his argument that all they need to do is post a sign saying that "Employees aren't required to wash their hands" where would that sign be posted and how large and etc..? What if Starbucks just posted that sign in 6pt font under the sink in the bathroom. What about blind people? Would they be required to post that sign in braile or have a loudspeaker broadcasting it. Even if we accepted that argument that we shouldn't regulate hand washing as long as customers were informed you would have to regulate how the customers were informed to make sure that most customers could have the information to make a decision whether to patronize Starbucks. I see JV posted something similar.
Seriously? Why stop with hand washing? Why don't we make compliance with all food safety regulations voluntary? Restaurants, grocery stores, factories can just put up signs informing consumers about their non-compliance.
