Mind Trapped by: Ask a Vaccine Hesitant anything.

[Vandaler]

Anyone who starts doing "his research" and not scientifically litterate can arrive to just about any conclusion on any subject since there is so much disinformation on so many subjects. AntiVaxxers are quite similar to FlatEarthers as they grow in numbers in the precise same way... disinformation combined with lack of scientific knowledge, scepticism in autority.

At least flatEarthers are harmless.

I really feel bad reading of childern of Antivaxxer getting sick on stuff totally avoidable. In some cases, it can be said that disinformation and heavy scepticism can lead to public healt crisis.

[Sigfried]

Indeed, it does get me riled up when people who are otherwise fairly smart get taken in by outright lies and deception. Especially when the result is further spread of these deceptions and the endangerment of people.

But I think people cling to this stuff not because they are really analyzing the information, but because it gives support for the view they really want to hold on to.

[MindTrap028]

Anyone who starts doing "his research" and not scientifically litterate can arrive to just about any conclusion on any subject since there is so much disinformation on so many subjects.

I think this is true, that is why my primary objection regarding a credibility issue is the main cause of my hesitation. If it were a clear cut answer, there would be less room for hesitation.
On the flip side of your observation is the fact that if you are scientifically literate, you can make a study come to whatever conclusion you want. We saw this play out with the Cigarette companies.

AntiVaxxers are quite similar to FlatEarthers as they grow in numbers in the precise same way... disinformation combined with lack of scientific knowledge, scepticism in autority.

This is actually not true. Because the most staunch "AntiVaxxers" are ones who have had their claim proven TRUE, in a court of law and been paid for their injuries.
This is the kind of propaganda on the other side that goes too far with it's claims, and feed right into my personal hesitation. It isn't enough for the pro-vaccine side to say "Look it is a risk worth taking", and they have to move to the extreme of "If you think there is a problem.. then your a flat earther.

I really feel bad reading of childern of Antivaxxer getting sick on stuff totally avoidable. In some cases, it can be said that disinformation and heavy scepticism can lead to public healt crisis.

Like what?


---

Indeed, it does get me riled up when people who are otherwise fairly smart get taken in by outright lies and deception. Especially when the result is further spread of these deceptions and the endangerment of people.

When we "researched" this issue, there was no internet on the topic. We read books written by practicing Dr's. I watched a gov hearing on vaccinations, in which the top brain specialist in the nation challenged the vaccine company in regards to thomerisal in vaccines. It wasn't deception and lies that were being presented, but questions that ought to be answered that it was clear the vaccine companies were refusing to answer.
And again, the most hardened people against vaccines are the ones that have actually proven vaccine injured children. Again that isn't lies and deception.
Another thing that isn't a lie or a deception is the choice to prefer the disease over some of the side effects.

But I think people cling to this stuff not because they are really analyzing the information, but because it gives support for the view they really want to hold on to.

I think this is a very real thing on both sides.
The major difference being that the side that makes the billions of Dollars, is the side with the power over the "official" information.
A mother who wants to blame vaccinations for her child actually unrelated problem, is a real and natural thing.
But so is the temptation to cook the books to receive a billion dollars.

That latter is what we should fear the most.

[Sigfried]

When we "researched" this issue, there was no internet on the topic. We read books written by practicing Dr's. I watched a gov hearing on vaccinations, in which the top brain specialist in the nation challenged the vaccine company in regards to thomerisal in vaccines. It wasn't deception and lies that were being presented, but questions that ought to be answered that it was clear the vaccine companies were refusing to answer.

A number of studies have been carried out and demonstrated that Theriomersal does not lead to any kind of mercury poisoning (as advocates claim) nor has autism ben positively linked to mercury poisoning or to vaccines. There are clear answers to these challenges. It's been carefully studied and found to be wrong. None the less, because people were forgoing vaccinations out of this misguided concern, they stopped using it for the most part anyway so that people would get over their fears and get vaccinated. So its been answered in multiple dimensions, by proving the suspicion is wrong, and by placating peoples fears.

And again, the most hardened people against vaccines are the ones that have actually proven vaccine injured children. Again that isn't lies and deception.
Another thing that isn't a lie or a deception is the choice to prefer the disease over some of the side effects.

And waterbeds kill people. So have toaster ovens and golf balls. Lots of things can kill you in the right circumstances.

But the facts remain, literally billions of vaccinations have been done, hundreds of millions every year, and the number of children who get sick or have serious problems from vaccinations is tiny. While at the same time, numerous very serious illnesses are pretty much eradicated. Illnesses that most severely impact children and the elderly. The net public health effect was revolutionary.

I think this is a very real thing on both sides.

But you are mostly wrong. Most of the people who support vaccines don't work for vaccine making companies. It's a dodge to say that just because people make money, means they twist the facts. It's a genetic fallacy. The people who invented vaccines did it to save lives, not to make money. But this is capitalism, everyone makes money if they can, including doctors. The CDC is not run by vaccine companies. Neither is your local hospital or clinic, neither is your doctor. And nearly every web site you can find that rails against vaccines is selling books, products, and other stuff to the gullible folks who will buy it.

Every government, every global health organization, every medical professional association, and just about any historian covering the topic promotes vaccination and cites the incredible revolution in health brought about by the technology. They are not all part of some grand cabal to sell vaccines and syringes. They are simply using historical data, and the available science in a rational and objective way.

But there are always people who fear things they don't really understand and there are a few who lend their technical expertise to these arguments and cherry-pick the available information. They often make serious money for themselves appealing to this niche market as well.

Yes, vaccines are not 100% safe, they are more like 99.999% safe and at the same time have saved millions of lives around the world.

[MindTrap028]

A number of studies have been carried out and demonstrated that Theriomersal does not lead to any kind of mercury poisoning (as advocates claim) nor has autism ben positively linked to mercury poisoning or to vaccines. There are clear answers to these challenges. It's been carefully studied and found to be wrong. None the less, because people were forgoing vaccinations out of this misguided concern, they stopped using it for the most part anyway so that people would get over their fears and get vaccinated. So its been answered in multiple dimensions, by proving the suspicion is wrong, and by placating peoples fears.

I think you miss the context of what I was saying.
Which is, that was about 15-20 years ago.
The objection at the time was rendered moot when themerasol was removed from the vaccines.

And waterbeds kill people. So have toaster ovens and golf balls. Lots of things can kill you in the right circumstances.

But the facts remain, literally billions of vaccinations have been done, hundreds of millions every year, and the number of children who get sick or have serious problems from vaccinations is tiny.

Incorrect, the number injured are unknown. The CDC's own reporting system for injuries is only at 1percent rate.. per their own estimation.

But you are mostly wrong.

As you have yet to accurately reflect my position, I dismiss this out of hand, but thanks for your opinion.

Most of the people who support vaccines don't work for vaccine making companies. It's a dodge to say that just because people make money, means they twist the facts. It's a genetic fallacy. The people who invented vaccines did it to save lives, not to make money. But this is capitalism, everyone makes money if they can, including doctors. The CDC is not run by vaccine companies. Neither is your local hospital or clinic, neither is your doctor. And nearly every web site you can find that rails against vaccines is selling books, products, and other stuff to the gullible folks who will buy it.

Most of those you are appealing to are an appeal to authority fallacy. My local Dr is not doing vaccine research, neither is the local hospital. They advocate vaccines because that is what the CDC says, and the CDC says so, because the vaccine companies have done the research and gone through the process.

As to the genetic fallacy. It is not a genetic fallacy to say you don't trust a source because they are heavily monetarily incentivized to tell you what they are telling you. It is only the genetic fallacy to say they are WRONG because they are getting paid. Which is not what I am saying, or my position. so this is an example of how you get the opposition wrong.

As to the assertion that the contrary websites etc.. that is actually the genetic fallacy.
Rather, what the case is, is that those who oppose the vaccines and have positions within the system pay a huge personal price.
Dr's who do not push vaccinations loose money, and even dr's who argue simply for alternative vaccine schedules are demonized.

Every government, every global health organization, every medical professional association, and just about any historian covering the topic promotes vaccination and cites the incredible revolution in health brought about by the technology. They are not all part of some grand cabal to sell vaccines and syringes. They are simply using historical data, and the available science in a rational and objective way.

I'm not sure you have noticed this, but other than my mild objection that vaccines were not necessarily responsible for the MAJOR DROP OFF of polio. I am not and have not objected that vaccines have an effect and even a significant effect on the various diseases.
That is an anti-vaxer position you are attacking not my position or where I am at.

Yes, vaccines are not 100% safe, they are more like 99.999% safe and at the same time have saved millions of lives around the world.

So, when I first started looking into this that was about 15-20 years ago. At the time it was mostly just mom's voicing concern. A perfect example of this was the people who went on to start one of the vaccine injured magazines. A Dr and a nurse who had to fight in the vaccine injury courts, which was expensive and took a long time. They spoke on a radio program, and the station had so many calls and e-mails (at a time when internet wasn't what it is today) they felt compelled to start a publication addressing the issue. There was also a DR in New-Orleans (which is close to where I live) and so we had access to a book she had written. Her practice was specialized in treating vaccine injured children. At that time, the issue was dismissed they were called Kooks and paranoid etc, with a whole lot less evidence than what you have available to you for your argument today.
What I see today, is that it has moved from the mothers, into the realm of local Dr's. Where there are practices that are not pushing vaccinations, and can notice a difference in their client base.

The point is, there is something going on.. and the side your representing is only half the story, and despite the massive amount of pressure the pro-vaccers are putting, the vaccine hesitant and the anti-vaccine argument is actually getting stronger.

edit..
On the other side, what we are seeing is movements to punish the vaccinated and expel them from public interactions, such as school (not simply during outbreaks). Not that this has been successful or put into action everywhere.. just the trend.

[Sigfried]

The point is, there is something going on.. and the side your representing is only half the story, and despite the massive amount of pressure the pro-vaccers are putting, the vaccine hesitant and the anti-vaccine argument is actually getting stronger.

"Something is going on" is not a point, its a vague utterance with no real meaning. A point would say what you think is going on and ideally include why and how.

The pressure from "Pro-Vaxers" is because vaccinations save huge numbers of lives from suffering and anti-vaxers are putting that at serious risk. The "vaccine-hesitant" whatever that is supposed to mean exactly are simply repeating the talking points of the anti-vaxers misinformation and spurious arguments.

What matters is whether people get Vaccinated or they don't get vaccinated. If too many people opt not to get Vaccinated then nasty diseases start coming back into the US population and causing a lot of misery and pain. That's a bad outcome and we should all endeavor to prevent that outcome. So whatever the level of your conviction, if you are not getting your kids vaccinated or you are arguing against the motive to get people vaccinated, then you are encouraging a public health problem.

On the other side, what we are seeing is movements to punish the unvaccinated and expel them from public interactions, such as school (not simply during outbreaks). Not that this has been successful or put into action everywhere.. just the trend

That is because they are willfully making themselves a potential public health hazard. So ya, if you want to endanger other people you might be asked to kindly keep away from other people. Some folks have very legit reasons why they can't safely take a vaccination and no one is especially bothered by them and the numbers are small enough that it's not a serious problem. But when too many people do it it really risks undermining the entire effort.

Incorrect, the number injured are unknown. The CDC's own reporting system for injuries is only at 1percent rate.. per their own estimation.

I said it is tiny and it is. Considering the number of vaccinations done if such reactions were indeed very common it would be very easy to demonstrate that. But they are not, they are exceedingly rare while vaccinations are incredibly common.

Most of those you are appealing to are an appeal to authority fallacy. My local Dr is not doing vaccine research, neither is the local hospital. They advocate vaccines because that is what the CDC says, and the CDC says so, because the vaccine companies have done the research and gone through the process.

It is not an appeal to authority. They have done the research and the research is the direct evidence upon which the argument rests. And the research is something you can directly examine. To get an understanding of it we do rely upon people well versed in science to evaluate and explain it to those who don't understand it as well. But the argument is not from their authority but from their work.

As to the genetic fallacy. It is not a genetic fallacy to say you don't trust a source because they are heavily monetarily incentivized to tell you what they are telling you. It is only the genetic fallacy to say they are WRONG because they are getting paid. Which is not what I am saying, or my position. so this is an example of how you get the opposition wrong.

If your lack of trust leads you to doubt what they are saying, aka claiming they are not right or that they may well be wrong, then yes it is a Genetic fallacy. You are saying the truth of the claim is in doubt due to the characteristics of the source of the claim.

You could say you don't trust them but this in no way informs whether to trust the information they provide.... but that is not what you seem to be suggesting.

As to the assertion that the contrary websites etc.. that is actually the genetic fallacy.

It is not, I am pointing out that the reason you distrust (money motive) is found on both sides of the argument and thus is not really a good argument for either side's case.

Rather, what the case is, is that those who oppose the vaccines and have positions within the system pay a huge personal price.
Dr's who do not push vaccinations loose money, and even dr's who argue simply for alternative vaccine schedules are demonized.

Many doctors and clinics lose money on vaccinations according to what I've read while persuing this topic. They are not high-profit medicine for the most part. It is true that some who have come out against vaccination have been criticized and ostracised, but I think we should expect that doctors putting the public health at risk will face some resistance to that.

The people making money are not the doctors but the laymen who have made a cottage industry of this and similar quack health subjects. The "alternative" medicine market is around $30 billion. It is a big business in and of itself. It's not all quackery of course, but there is a chunk of it that definately is.

I'm not sure you have noticed this, but other than my mild objection that vaccines were not necessarily responsible for the MAJOR DROP OFF of polio. I am not and have not objected that vaccines have an effect and even a significant effect on the various diseases.
That is an anti-vaxer position you are attacking not my position or where I am at.

You used evidence used by anti-vaxers to make an argument against the effectiveness of vaccines and then tell me that arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines is not your argument. That makes no sense. It just makes you seem duplicitous. (I know its not your intent but that's how it comes off)

The general concensus is that as far as public health goes is: sanitation and clean water is the number 1 modern marvel and vaccines are number 2. They have had a massive positive impact on public health.

What I see today, is that it has moved from the mothers, into the realm of local Dr's. Where there are practices that are not pushing vaccinations, and can notice a difference in their client base.

I don't see any kind of push back from local doctors about vaccination concerns. There is a lot of push back from worried parents who read a lot of misleading junk from the anti-vaccination crowd. And doctors try to accommodate their patient's wishes, they are not in the business of dictating medical care. And its better to spread out a vaccination than to have the parents balk and refuse it altogether. But these parents are putting their kids and other kids at risk.

Let me offer you some kind of olive branch.

1. I think it is good not to blindly trust doctors or the medical industry. That said, in this case, I think a thorough investigation of the issue will show that Vaccines are largely very safe and largely very effective and that it is irresponsible to avoid them.

2. Even though they are generally safe, they are not always safe. There are some people who cannot receive them. And there are adverse reactions, especially when vaccinations are done incorrectly. It is good to educate yourself about when they could pose real risk and to talk to your physician about it.

3. I think it is reasonable to always be looking for ways to improve anything, especially something as significant as public vaccination. If there are ways to make vaccination safer and more effective than that would be a nice step forward.

4. More people are not vaccinated because of economic factors than whom refuse it out of specific fear of side effects. If we could better address that concern, then we could probably allow more people to make the largely misguided choice of forgoing them. Rates of 70-80% seem to be sufficient to maintain general "herd immunity" so we can afford some dissenters if we can make sure everyone willing has easy access.

[MindTrap028]

"Something is going on" is not a point, its a vague utterance with no real meaning. A point would say what you think is going on and ideally include why and how.

That is overly critical, especially given I was referring to the social aspect and the rational decisions of rational people that are contradicting what we are told SHOULD be the decision.
It is a valid observation, which apparently you just don't care for because you don't understand it.

The pressure from "Pro-Vaxers" is because vaccinations save huge numbers of lives from suffering and anti-vaxers are putting that at serious risk. The "vaccine-hesitant" whatever that is supposed to mean exactly are simply repeating the talking points of the anti-vaxers misinformation and spurious arguments.

It isn't clear that the anti-vaxers are putting anything at risk.
And the vaccine-hesitant, is not the hard position that vaccines don't work at all, but recognizes that some of the rationality for some vaccines are flawed, or simply not ascribing to the rational at all.

Like some people just have the mind set that the healthiest thing is to not put foreign chemicals into your body. Not just in regards to vaxxines, but over all. I would object to outlawing their convictions. After all, not everyone has the time to investigate everything they put into their bodies,and ends up adopting very general rules they follow.

Also I'm not going to argue that the vaccine for Hep B is not effective. But I would argue that vaccinating every child at birth for it, is simply not necessary and is more of a blanket approach.
Babies simply are not at risk for Heb B, unless the mother has it.. which is easy to find out.
So it isn't unreasonable for a parent to say... We will wait on that one.
But that is cast as an "anti-vax" position. As though it were the same as saying "you babie is going to die!!!!!!"

It is in such an example that a lot of the arguments you offer start to ring hollow.
Like the putting others at risk, or "public health threat".. Please, they have not problem with kids who actually have it going to school with other kids, but it is the ANTI-VAXERS that are going to be blamed?
Yea.. that is where I start to say "something is going on".

What matters is whether people get Vaccinated or they don't get vaccinated. If too many people opt not to get Vaccinated then nasty diseases start coming back into the US population and causing a lot of misery and pain. That's a bad outcome and we should all endeavor to prevent that outcome. So whatever the level of your conviction, if you are not getting your kids vaccinated or you are arguing against the motive to get people vaccinated, then you are encouraging a public health problem.

That is not established in any way.
your just blaming unvaxinated for your boogy man.
See example above for how when it is applied.. it is an inconsistent reasoning.

That is because they are willfully making themselves a potential public health hazard. So ya, if you want to endanger other people you might be asked to kindly keep away from other people. Some folks have very legit reasons why they can't safely take a vaccination and no one is especially bothered by them and the numbers are small enough that it's not a serious problem. But when too many people do it it really risks undermining the entire effort.

Calling people who are not sick a "pubic health hazard" is a false slander.
Especially because you are not arguing for the ACTUALLY SICK to not engage in the same way.

Are you going to argue that children with Hep B not go to school?
After all, they are a walking health hazard?
How about people who have Aids... again a walking health hazard.

You are cherry picking here, and not applying a consistent standard, and it is discussing.

Honestly, I'm really not comfortable with placing blame on people for other people getting sick with the same thing.
If that is an actual standard we are going to apply... it has far reaching implications. I think appealing to it is shaky.

I said it is tiny and it is. Considering the number of vaccinations done if such reactions were indeed very common it would be very easy to demonstrate that. But they are not, they are exceedingly rare while vaccinations are incredibly common.

Yes, you said it was tiny.
but the fact remains that it is unknown.
It is not unknown because it is not detectable, it is unknown because the reporting system is recognized by the CDC as being limited.

Your claim that it is exceedingly rare is at best based on a hasty generalization fallacy.

As this applies to me personally.
I simply don't have the burden to disprove vaxxines, in the end, the Gov and Drug makers are SELLING ME A PRODUCT!
That means that If I feel they are half-assing something, I am more than justified in declining their services. In the case of injury reporting.. that certainly seems to be the case.

It is not an appeal to authority. They have done the research and the research is the direct evidence upon which the argument rests. And the research is something you can directly examine. To get an understanding of it we do rely upon people well versed in science to evaluate and explain it to those who don't understand it as well. But the argument is not from their authority but from their work.

Appealing to a Dr, who's only training in a drug or treatment is to hear from the CDC, is an appeal to authority fallacy.
The DR himself is not an "authority" on it. And that is what you did.

If your lack of trust leads you to doubt what they are saying, aka claiming they are not right or that they may well be wrong, then yes it is a Genetic fallacy. You are saying the truth of the claim is in doubt due to the characteristics of the source of the claim.

You could say you don't trust them but this in no way informs whether to trust the information they provide.... but that is not what you seem to be suggesting.

First, your TRUST is also a genetic fallacy in the same way.
IE if you trust a DR or authority, it is a genetic fallacy in the sense you are applying to me.

I don't think it is an actual genetic fallacy, because I am not appealing to the history of the claim.
I am pointing to the the lack of credibility of one appealing to their credibility in order to make the claim believable.

It's like believing a drug addict. Appealing to their past behavior, is not a genetic fallacy in ascribing distrust to their claims (that appeal to their trustworthiness).

It is not, I am pointing out that the reason you distrust (money motive) is found on both sides of the argument and thus is not really a good argument for either side's case.

As I pointed out, it is not found on the both sides in the same sense.
In that, the people pushing vaccines the most, are those that are making a lot of money from it.
While, those that are the staunches against it, have no monetary gain involved, and rather have lost money or are losing money in their efforts.

Many doctors and clinics lose money on vaccinations according to what I've read while persuing this topic. They are not high-profit medicine for the most part. It is true that some who have come out against vaccination have been criticized and ostracised, but I think we should expect that doctors putting the public health at risk will face some resistance to that.

If you are asking me to believe that Dr's offices that require 100percent vaccination rates in order to even be a patient of theirs
is losing money in that process... Then you are going to have to support it.

If you can show that such a practice is actually losing money, then I will conciede the monetary point..
I mean this in more than just a debate sense.. i mean that will actually effect how I think about this topic.
I don't think that Dr's are evil and just in things for the money..

The people making money are not the doctors but the laymen who have made a cottage industry of this and similar quack health subjects. The "alternative" medicine market is around $30 billion. It is a big business in and of itself. It's not all quackery of course, but there is a chunk of it that definately is.

Lets not get silly. the people making "The money" are the pharmasuticals. As each vaccine alone is worth 30billion a year.
It would be the hight of naivity,that the push for every adult in america to become fully vaccinated (which is coming)
is not driven by the fact that it would push vaccine makers from the billion dollar industry to the trillion dollar industry.

I'm not going to say that the "alternative medicine" doesn'have some meney in the game. But they are not selling a competing product, they are selling books.
Which simpy don't compare.

You used evidence used by anti-vaxers to make an argument against the effectiveness of vaccines and then tell me that arguing against the effectiveness of vaccines is not your argument. That makes no sense. It just makes you seem duplicitous. (I know its not your intent but that's how it comes off)

Not the "effectiveness" but the ultimate effect.
If your going to say "at least we should agree that X did Y"
Look the claim by the pro vaxx is not, man the polio vaccine really finished off that declining polio epedimic. Whew.. so glad we have modern medicine.
No.. it is POLIO!!!! IT WAS KILLING EVERYONE AND MODERN MEDICINE SAVED THE WORLD!!!!
What.. you don't buy that ANTI VAXXER!!!!
It's like the push to make measles A THREAT OF DEATH!!!! AHHHHHHH!!

It's not that it doesn't have elements of truth.. it's just that it isn't as significant as it is being portrayed as.
It's more propoganda than evidence.

I don't see any kind of push back from local doctors about vaccination concerns. There is a lot of push back from worried parents who read a lot of misleading junk from the anti-vaccination crowd. And doctors try to accommodate their patient's wishes, they are not in the business of dictating medical care. And its better to spread out a vaccination than to have the parents balk and refuse it altogether. But these parents are putting their kids and other kids at risk.

If you don't see it.. I would offer.. maybe you aren't looking in the right places?
I mean it isn't a ground swell in that are or anything, but the fact that I can find DR's who won't vaccinate, or who will be watching their unvaccinated patients and comparing them to the vaccinated ones.
That just didn't exist at all 15 years ago.... but then, ther wasn't any internet presense like now..so who knows.

Let me offer you some kind of olive branch.

Thanks, because this doesn't have to be a death battle. I'm not a Dr, I don't pretend to have special knowledge on this.
At the end of the day.. I am content to sit in the very grey area of "somethings going on.. not sure what.. I'm willing to let it play out for a while".

1. I think it is good not to blindly trust doctors or the medical industry. That said, in this case, I think a thorough investigation of the issue will show that Vaccines are largely very safe and largely very effective and that it is irresponsible to avoid them.

The thing is, pro vaxxers want people like me to trust "research" over personal experience.
What reseach can you offer that will over come the fact that what I see, is my own children who were vaxxinated.. are the sickest.
That my children were ALWAYS sick when we listened to the Dr, but then rarly became sick when we stopped.
IE no more ear infections, no more fevers, no more Dr visits where my kids required drugs (We still take them on occasions, but havne't been prescibed drugs of any kind for years).

2. Even though they are generally safe, they are not always safe. There are some people who cannot receive them. And there are adverse reactions, especially when vaccinations are done incorrectly. It is good to educate yourself about when they could pose real risk and to talk to your physician about it.

What concerns me on this point, is that there seems to be a push to move this out of the hands of your DR.

3. I think it is reasonable to always be looking for ways to improve anything, especially something as significant as public vaccination. If there are ways to make vaccination safer and more effective than that would be a nice step forward.

I'm with you bro.

[QUOTE=SIG] 4. More people are not vaccinated because of economic factors than whom refuse it out of specific fear of side effects. If we could better address that concern, then we could probably allow more people to make the largely misguided choice of forgoing them. Rates of 70-80% seem to be sufficient to maintain general "herd immunity" so we can afford some dissenters if we can make sure everyone willing has easy access.
I think the idea of "allowing" people to not be vaxxinated is more serious objection than the one I would make against the appeal "herd immunity".

I mean, i don't think you are appealing to the strongest sense of how that "allowed" is trying to be applied.. but just so you know, it is being applied very differently in politics right now.
Whatever the debate on vaxxines we fall on, I really don't think giving the gov ultimate control of your medical procedures is a wise thing.

[Sigfried]

Mindtrap

I want to talk about the two Fallacies before moving on to the other points. I think understanding the logical fallacies is important and I think you don't understand them or are mis-applying them.

#!: Appeal to Authority
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

Appealing to a Dr, who's only training in a drug or treatment is to hear from the CDC, is an appeal to authority fallacy.

I am not appealing to a doctor and saying, "because he says it is true, it must be true."

I am arguing that the CDC has a large body of research and emperical data upon which they rest their scientific claims for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They have done more research and have access to more data than nearly anyone else. They are experts in evaluating this data. The conclusion these experts have reached, using the best available data, is that vaccines are largely safe and effective. Other doctors know this, and often abide by their reccomendations. This is not an appeal to authority. This is looking at the best evidence and the most expereince experts and reporting on what they have concluded. Not because they are experts, but because they have evidence and understanding.

#2 The Genetic Fallacy
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came."
"This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."

First, your TRUST is also a genetic fallacy in the same way.
IE if you trust a DR or authority, it is a genetic fallacy in the sense you are applying to me.

I don't think it is an actual genetic fallacy, because I am not appealing to the history of the claim.
I am pointing to the the lack of credibility of one appealing to their credibility in order to make the claim believable.

It's like believing a drug addict. Appealing to their past behavior, is not a genetic fallacy in ascribing distrust to their claims (that appeal to their trustworthiness).

When you make an argument it should be about the merits of the claim, not who told it to you and their character or nature. A drug addict can tell the truth. Assuming they are always lying is a genetic fallacy even if they have lied in the past. Theri propensity to lie is not a reason to say what they claim is true or not true. It is true, this means you should not simply beleive what they say, but neither does it mean you should simply disbelieve. It is in fact, not really a factor in determining the truth of their claim for better or worse.

History has nothing to do with anything here, nor does credibility. The moment you use the word credibility, you pretty much invoke the genetic fallacy. Expertise, knowledge, experience are things that you can include for a positive claim. Reputation, credibility, motivation etc... are not.

So, saying "I don't trust vaccines because I don't trust doctors who give them" is a genetic fallacy.

[MindTrap028]

You have mis applied the gentic fallacy here. Because to say "i dont trust you" is not the same as saying "your claim is false". The gentic fallacy is about claims to truth or falsehood.. And that is not what i said.

Second your appeal to authority fails to recognize the context it was used in this thread. You appealed to hispitals and the gwneric local physician. That wad the context of the objection. I am the one who brought up the cdc and drug makers as the ultinate proper authority to appeal to.

[Sigfried]

You have mis applied the gentic fallacy here. Because to say "i dont trust you" is not the same as saying "your claim is false". The gentic fallacy is about claims to truth or falsehood.. And that is not what i said.

Hmmm you must be on a phone.

You can not trust people all day long, I don't much care.

The facts are: Vaccines are largely safe. Vaccines are super effective at fighting diseases. It's irresponsible to avoid vaccination due to your personal fears or lack of trust. This is my case. If you are arguing that doctors cannot be trusted and therefore we should not accept these three claims, then you are making a genetic fallacy. If all you are doing is telling me you don't trust doctors, then sorry, I don't much care.

Second your appeal to authority fails to recognize the context it was used in this thread. You appealed to hispitals and the gwneric local physician. That wad the context of the objection. I am the one who brought up the cdc and drug makers as the ultinate proper authority to appeal to.

I think you are somehow confused about my position then. Let me clarify.

The evidence for the efficacy of vaccines are...
The scientific research into the mechanisms by which they operate
The clinical trials that show their effectiveness at fighting disease
The public health outcomes of diseases being almost completely eliminated from the population where vaccines are wide-spread.

The evidence for the safety of vaccines are...
The clinical trials studying the effects of vaccines
The clinical record of millions and millions of vaccinations with very few reported adverse reactions
The dirth of contrary evidence showing a persistent danger
The scientific understanding of the ingredients and mechanisms of the vaccines (which though imperfect is pretty strong)

This information is best understood by the CDC and other doctors who have studied this research and the science surrounding vaccination. When they speak on the topic, they speak from knowledge and experience so they are the most trustworthy voices to listen to on this topic.

Am I making any appeal to authority in this line of argument in your opinion?

[MindTrap028]

Hmmm you must be on a phone.

Yea.. I was

You can not trust people all day long, I don't much care.

You care enough to call me irresponsible. (I don't mean in the name calling way). You also care enough to get worked up on the issue (not a reference to your attitude towards the thread or anything).
The way I take this, ..and correct me if I'm wrong.
Is that what you really mean is that you don't care enough to respect it as a valid decision and you are willing to use the gov to usurp it.

The facts are: Vaccines are largely safe. Vaccines are super effective at fighting diseases. It's irresponsible to avoid vaccination due to your personal fears or lack of trust. This is my case. If you are arguing that doctors cannot be trusted and therefore we should not accept these three claims, then you are making a genetic fallacy. If all you are doing is telling me you don't trust doctors, then sorry, I don't much care.

I am not saying that I do not trust DR's in general, and I am not guilty of the genetic fallacy.

I think you are somehow confused about my position then. Let me clarify.

The evidence for the efficacy of vaccines are...
The scientific research into the mechanisms by which they operate
The clinical trials that show their effectiveness at fighting disease
The public health outcomes of diseases being almost completely eliminated from the population where vaccines are wide-spread.

The evidence for the safety of vaccines are...
The clinical trials studying the effects of vaccines
The clinical record of millions and millions of vaccinations with very few reported adverse reactions
The dirth of contrary evidence showing a persistent danger
The scientific understanding of the ingredients and mechanisms of the vaccines (which though imperfect is pretty strong)

This information is best understood by the CDC and other doctors who have studied this research and the science surrounding vaccination. When they speak on the topic, they speak from knowledge and experience so they are the most trustworthy voices to listen to on this topic.

Am I making any appeal to authority in this line of argument in your opinion?

Not a fallacious one.

[Sigfried]

You care enough to call me irresponsible. (I don't mean in the name calling way). You also care enough to get worked up on the issue (not a reference to your attitude towards the thread or anything).
The way I take this, ..and correct me if I'm wrong.
Is that what you really mean is that you don't care enough to respect it as a valid decision and you are willing to use the gov to usurp it.

No. I mean on a level of personal judgment. I think it is irresponsible behavior. You put your family and others in your community at increased danger based on what seems to me to be an irrational fear. I think it's a poor decision.

But more than what you personally do, I feel compelled to argue against the idea of your distrust and choice so that others do not follow in your footsteps and act irresponsibly as I feel you have.

Government policy is a slightly different matter. I feel policy should be nuanced such that the level of coercion is similar to the level of damage caused. This is not great crime, just irresponsible behavior. There may be consequences such as being barred from some accommodations or facing a fine or limitations on insurance coverage from a state program or the like. If you endanger others then there are generally some consequences.

I am not saying that I do not trust DR's in general, and I am not guilty of the genetic fallacy.

That doesn't matter. Not trusting people is not a fallacy. Arguing that what they say is wrong because you don't trust them is a genetic fallacy. If you don't trust vaccines because you don't trust doctors that recommend them then you are committing a genetic fallacy. Honestly, its become less and less clear what your argument even is at this point.

Not a fallacious one.

Well, at least that much is settled.

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

Calling people who are not sick a "pubic health hazard" is a false slander.
Especially because you are not arguing for the ACTUALLY SICK to not engage in the same way.

This is the next thing I'd like to address in focus.

First off, it's important you understand how Vaccinations work, specifically the effect of "Herd immunity"
This graphic demonstrates how it operates by showing the simulated spread of infection in populations with varying levels of immunity.
https://imgur.com/gallery/8M7q8#J7LANQ4

You can read in detail on the mechanisms here...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics.../herd-immunity

Those who choose to vaccinate contribute to the immunity of the overall population while those who choose to forgo vaccination endanger it. They also directly endanger themselves, and their loved ones as Vaccines offer real protection against these infections.

As to people who have infections and easily transmissible diseases...
They are often subject to significant restrictions. Someone with Meassels is not allowed to attend public school for instance.

You mentioned Hep B a lot. It is not so easily transmissible. Most of the transmission is a sexual activity or blood transfer. None the less, it is a serious disease and one that is widely found in the population. This is a little bit more of an edge case than most other vaccines and patients. It's certainly better to get vaccinated than not, especially if you are sexually active and not monogamous. But I don't hold it to be as essential as something like Rhubella, Small Pox and the like. But likewise, it is the lack of casual transmissibility that makes it so that patients can go to public school. So long as they avoid certain high-risk activities, there is no real danger present.

We can have an argument about what sick people should or should not do. We'd probably mostly agree. But the topic at hand for me at least is this.

Should you or should you not get vaccinated barring a specific known medical reason not to.

[MindTrap028]

That doesn't matter. Not trusting people is not a fallacy. Arguing that what they say is wrong because you don't trust them is a genetic fallacy.

Actually.. no
A genetic fallacy is when you point to the source as evidence that a claim is true or false.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...enetic-Fallacy

If you don't trust vaccines because you don't trust doctors that recommend them then you are committing a genetic fallacy.

That is actually not correct at all.
The genetic fallacy doesn't speak to "trust" at all. The genetic fallacy only applies to when you are claiming something is true or false, not when your evaluating trustworthiness.
If you say "A Dr said that vaccines are good and contribute to the overall health of the nation and individual, and it is true because a Dr said it"
That would be a genetic fallacy.
But to say "I don't trust Dr's because I have had to many encounters where they harmed me personally".. is not a genetic fallacy at all. I mean, do you "trust" used car salesmen? Can you distrust ANY profession?
You trust Lawyers and Politicians I suppose?

My point of contention doesn't take that form at all.
I think this line originated from me pointing out that vaccine companies stand to make billions and even trillions of Dollars on the sale of a given product, and that they are also the ultimate source of most if not all of the "science regarding those products. That isn't a format that I put a lot of faith in. Especially given the politics that get involved where the people ultimately approving (the CDC) end up having jobs for the companies that sell the product they approve.

That isn't a genetic fallacy, because I'm not saying that because this is the case, then they are therefor lying, or that the science is thus false. I just don't put a lot of faith into them. And you are certainly free to think it foolish, but it simply doesn't take the form of the logical fallacy that you have pointed to.

If you endanger others then there are generally some consequences.

I generally reject the idea that anyone is being endangered. Especially as a blanket statement for every vaccine equally.
You would have to support this assertion. Specifically in some liability way.
I have to tell you, this is some of the rhetoric that is really bothersome in the general discussion(not this thread) Because I can't imagine a rational and consistent application of it.

For example, how would you argue that I am endangering others by not getting vaccinated for X, and then allow people who actually have X to not be prosecuted for spreading it.
Further
Endangering has nothing to do with any cure or possible prevention. For example a person with an incurable disease (like typhoid mary) would still be "endangering" others. So then how does that apply consistently to everything else that doesn't have vaccines?

I don't think it is actually livable in a consistent way other than a rhetoric tactic. "Your endangering others fool, buy our product!...grrr /shun".

Honestly, its become less and less clear what your argument even is at this point.

I'm more than happy to answer any question you have.