I don't think such treatment is productive.
A) It makes members of the group feel persecuted, which tends to not change anyone's mind
B) Also benefits the pro-side by giving them a demon to slay
However, neither A nor B will answer any real disagreements possessed by the targeted group, and will thus not eliminate those holding to the position on a rational basis. Instead, it'll just perpetuate A and B, leading to greater polarization. It may also grow the targeted group, since at least we Americans tend to have sympathy for the underdog position that appears unfairly persecuted.
Keyword here being believe. Their opinion is based on purely belief without any proof. All it does is give the kids their immunity later giving the pathogen a window to get them sick and spread the pathogen further
You trust those B-schoolers and their hand-picked goal-seeking researchers to shade toward safety or profit?
I am pro-vax (within a sensible schedule) and anti-for-profit-corps, who NEVER EVER give a shit about your health, only that you can't prove that it was their product that harmed you.
I did, you should note, get told not to come back to a doctor's group -- after a single visit to establish a PCP -- for quote "asking too many questions".
My wife was with me and was confused because I was in no way belligerent. And, for sure, that doctor was a piece of work. She just wanted to go through her checklist and be done with it, and her attitude showed.
Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?
Why, pray tell, are the US's vax schedules so heavy compared to Europe? Are all their doctors quacks are is our medical system bought-and-sold by B-schoolers?
I know the answer and I doubt you're willing to even entertain the truth much less accept it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.
My wife's son is a doctor. He said he wouldn't go to 80% of his fellow med school graduates for care. Being good at memorizing does not make one a good doctor, even though it's essential.
What are the differences in vaccination schedule that you're worried about? We need to be specific in these kinds of discussion. It may be true that there is no difference in vaccination schedules, but it may also be true that the countries you claim have different vaccination schedules are responding to local needs (vs. being worried about 'heavy' vaccination regimens).
That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?
Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.
I think a cornerstone of curious discussion should actually be understanding, rather than villainizing, viewpoints that lead a person to a cognitively dissonant state, but that is not what I observe, even among very well educated people.
I think it's concerning to have thought leaders like Bill Gates spouting lines like "it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world."[1] Clearly high-risk sections of the population (health care workers, elderly, sick) should be prioritized, but to rush a vaccine across the entire population invites a lot of risks. For some groups, prioritizing drug treatment and improved healthcare practices might be better. Or perhaps not! -- but we should be able to have these discussions without being dismissed as insane conspiracy theorists.
We all have confirmation bias, (perhaps I'd feel differently if I had experienced a COVID-19 infection) but I see articles like this as a preemptive dismissal of opposing viewpoints, an invocation of blind trust that potentially leads us to a dark place, particularly when combined with new mass surveillance vectors like app-based contact tracing.
[1]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/bill-gates-says-that-thin...
also, tangentially, I think that blanket distrust of authorities is just as irrational as blanket trust. it should really depend on the situation which is why it's by no means cognitive dissonance to trust authorities in some respects but not in others.
Cognitive dissonance comes from encountering something that goes against your confirmation bias, and runs the risk of knee jerk reactions.
Example of knee jerk reaction: the GP's example of the article (and possibly you) conflating a doctor who says "maybe we should slow down" with anti-vaxxers.
It doesn't really change the fact that both have no real evidence to provide for their claims and are promoting practices that, if not well-supported, are clearly dangerous.
But more importantly, Bob Sears's opinion on e.g. measles doesn't even matter because we're talking about covid19 right now and there is no vaccine yet, so there is no way to "slow down". By contrast, what he does offer in the context of this new disease are recommendations such as "boosting your immune system" which are patently laughable, see: https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/what-can-you-d...
edit: I'll have to correct myself, Bob Sears didn't say that (at least not in this context), his cohost did. I do assume we'd know if he disagreed though.
I mean, the govt could do it, if they weren't in the pockets of the corps.
What I'm saying is that if you're waiting for the pharma corps to provide the necessary studies to show their products ineffective or even dangerous, I'd call you a fool. Or do you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund such studies?
Of course, you also choose to ignore how many people don't die anymore from totally curable diseases that were a certain death sentence even just decades ago (e.g. take AIDS).
> For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.
It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be used.
I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more nuanced.
I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities.
EDIT:
It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.
Source? Regardless, the large majority of aggregate cases of measles in the United States are among people who aren't vaccinated, which is a massive, massive over-representation and suggests that the measles vaccine is effective, regardless of specific anomalous cases.
I find this take of "being fair" to "nuanced" views quite common, but when I patiently let the whole anti-vax view be laid out, it is generally not particularly coherent nor well-sourced. I think stigma can be an effective way to change beliefs, because people can pretend they never held the belief in the first place. When you have someone lay out their whole argument, they often become more entrenched.
So that's another reason the herd immunity is so important: If enough people opt out of just getting a simple shot, then now everyone else has to go through the much larger burden of periodic retesting and re-vaccining for them to be safe.
That's nice. Now go present it to someone that is having a discussion about that. My discussion above is regarding calling people names instead of presenting evidence.
A better use of your time time might be to take a remedial reading comprehension course.
One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.
If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.
> If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.
You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs.
Why?
I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.
> I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.
There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling.
I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims.
Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.
I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).
> I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).
With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.
For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.