Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. And especially please don't perpetuate flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Over simplification. Sometimes very intelligent people can convince themselves and others using very intelligent reasoning. You and I are also likely to do it from time to time, but hopefully in much less important matters. (Like which framework is good for what, which in the grand scheme of things often matters little compared to all the other problems we face.)

Intelligent people who disagree with me is an oxymoron.

I mean, honestly, do you think that vaccines are harm free panacea for all that ills humanity? One of the reasons that the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous is precisely because vaccines are dangerous and some people's bodies are intolerant to them (most obviously imuno compromised individuals).

There is a big difference between saying "a very small percentage of the population can have an adverse reaction to vaccines, consult your doctor" and "vaccines are harmful, you should avoid them". I don't think anyone would have a problem with the first. There are a lot of problems with second.

What I find so bizarre is that the debate feels like a ball game between two rival teams where one team is crushing the other. The losing players start talking trash and all the players on the other team have to do to shut them up is say "look at the scoreboard".

For vaccines, the scoreboard is pretty clear. Child mortality rates are at historic lows globally. Vaccines are the clear winner by a huge margin. In other words, "look at the scoreboard".

Not to mention some people who have reactions to aluminium and/or MSG in some shots as well. These people do exist, and them being dismissed out of hand does not help anyone.

Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings".

> Anti-vaxxer refers to refers to someone who rejects the mountains of data (often having no data analysis skills themselves) based upon their "feelings".

I thought it was someone against vaccination?

Re-defining words that don't have hard, universal, definitions is a powerful, if dishonest, debate tactic.

Orwell wrote many essays about this. Orwell wrote very many good essays.

Have you personally looked at the mountain's of data and come to your conclusions? I mean articles on journals like "Vaccine" Or have you just read pseudo-scientific articles on nytimes and the such meant for mass consumption?

Have you re-created the paper's data analysis from the (typically not easily available) data? Turns out some medical communities, like physiology, suck at data analysis.

Because if not, then you're just as uninformed as the anti-vaxxers with a healthy mix of arrogance.

If you are a researcher in the field, keep up the good work, but this arrogance towards the little ones fuels anti-vaxxer movement.

I despise people who are "on my side of the debate" belittling those they disagree with. Such incivility!

Do you know exactly how your car works? How every food you eat is specifically processed? Anti-vaxxers are disrespected because they use "mom science" rather than respecting the evidence created by those whose job it is to research it.

"...exactly how your car works?" Yes, car geek

"How every food you eat is specifically processed" To a large extent yes - foodie.

Better example: web development. I don't care, I don't care to read about it. I also offer little judgment on that matter. I respect the opinion of those who seem to have an informed decisions on the topic, but I don't belittle those who don't trust the opinions of these, largely self appointed, experts.

As to medicine, the medical field has a long and rich history of abuse of patient rights (from forcibly stopping breast feeding, forced sterilizations, forced infection with syphilis, not treating said victims, ect) and hubris (refusing to wash their hands is my favorite).

While I believe in vaccines, I don't fault any one for not trusting medical authorities. Dr.s are, typically, (because they are trained this way) very patronizing people that historically have not respected their patients agency.

Thanks for the respectful discourse. I appreciate the civility.

People with vaccine allergies aren't dismissed out of hand. Vaccines are administered by medical professionals who will jump into action if there is an allergic reaction. Then they tell the patient you can't receive the vaccine because of allergy and here are your options. And they will provide a note to school if the vaccine is necessary for admission.

Yes, some people react to shots, including for instance, people who are allergic to egg and can't receive vaccines created in that medium.

Nobody is dismissing this "out of hand", but the minuscule percentage of the population these issues effect is being used as a crutch for the anti-vaxxer movement.

What about the integrity of the people whose lives you threaten by not getting vaccinated?

Why is it always about you, and not the people who can't get vaccines due to legitimate medical reasons whom might get ill because of people voluntarily compromising herd immunity due to ignorance?

Very few people support forcing adults to get vaccinated.

I have strong feelings about people forcing their BS non-scientific beliefs on their minor children.