When it comes to spreading disinformation about climate change or the risks of smoking, I can clearly see how it protects economic interests (e.g. the value of the assets of the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry). I therefore understand that these lies are (have been) regularly pushed by people who do not necessarily believe in them.

But what are the strategic considerations behind the active spread of anti-vax theories? Who gains from this? Is it just an effective topic to rile up a political base? Because it hits people right in the feels? Is it just a way to bring people together on one topic, in order to use that political base for other purposes?

Or is anti-vax disinformation really only pushed by people who believe it?

  • Freeman@lemmy.pubEnglish
    1·
    1 年前

    I was talking specifically of covid vaccinations. Conflating the way covid was pitched and the reasonable doubt people had with it, and attributing the same label you to to those that questions other vaccinations is it’s own issue.

    Measles is one of the oldest vaccines out there. There’s generations of data on its efficacy.

    I have been labeled anti-vax because I expressed doubts about the Covid-19 vaccine. And that’s not an accurate depiction of my stance, or of the medical decisions I made for myself and my family both during the pandemic and since (or before for that matter). In fact we required family to get tdap boosters to see my premature daughter back in the early 2010s because of pertussis and the specific risks to newborns, especially premature kids. And I couldn’t bring her home because I had a fever at the end of her multi-week NICU stay.

    • jmp242@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      1 年前

      I agree with the stance of wanting to see effectiveness a d safety before taking the rushed vaccine. By the time it was offered to me, there was millions of people worth of data across the world. Probably the best statistics ever for a new vaccine (and basically a huge clinical trial). By the time it was widely available, (Pfizer and Moderna) you had to basically buy into conspiracy style thinking to distrust the safety or effacacy of the vaccines. I suppose you could have not thought the long term studies of similar vaccines were similar enough to take the small risk of long term effects, but that is going against all other data on all vaccines, and incongruent with taking a much larger error bar on long covid.

      • Freeman@lemmy.pubEnglish
        0·
        1 年前

        While true. The push was hard out the gate. With states

        And there’s plenty of history of drugs being pulled after long term side effects are noted that didn’t show in trials. Less common with vaccines but still. There have been some. Flu vaccines even now do have side effect risks, not necessarily with the vaccine itself but it’s handling/storage and transport etc. One of my good friends ended up with GBS that was linked to tainted flu vaccinations. He was otherwise extremely healthy, playing tennis competitively. These are outliers and the GBS is less long term but there were some pulled for concerns with MS.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

        I am seeing some reports here and there on links to covid and birth issues. Some linked to vaccination and others to the virus itself. Don’t think there’s any settled science on it yet. This wasn’t a concern in my case, we are past child rearing age at this point. But those would have been something to consider if I was a healthy young adult, especially female. I don’t want to post any of the studies because nothing is peer reviewed but the point is, in the early stages of 2020-2021 it wouldn’t be unreasonable for a healthy adult to consider these as risks. Especially as the fatality rate of covid wasn’t nearly as high as predicted, especially in those age/risk groups.

        • jmp242@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          0·
          1 年前

          Sure, but I think by April 2021 there was over 6 months of thousands of health care workers data, and 2 months of millions of elderly people data. Everything you risked with the vaccine was risked, at far higher rates, from getting covid. And remember - most people aren’t healthy in the US by the definition of no comorbidity.

          In 2020, I was skeptical, by April 2021 the data to me was pretty clear that everything regarding covid was better for you if you had the vaccine.

          I guess the big question I always had was why would you think something designed to protect you was more dangerous than something evolved or maybe designed to infect you, with no care about if it hurt you or maybe intentionally made to hurt you?

          It’s kind of like saying I don’t trust these people making armored cars, thet might fail, I might have something happen inside them, whatever. I will risk going under this rockfall walking because “it’s safer”.

          • Freeman@lemmy.pubEnglish
            0·
            1 年前

            True. By that point for me, I had gotten it as had the wife. So we knew the outcome for our particular situations.

            Don’t get me wrong. A buddy of mine had cancer in September of 2021 and on his Rec I got a vaccine to go see him and make peace.

            And agree. There’s a significant percentage of folks with hypertension, one of the biggest comobidities.

            I think my point is, this was an event where things like healthcare choices no longer became personal for large swaths of folks opinions. Not something I could really agree with. Especially once it was clear herd immunity wasn’t ever gonna happen. In the same way I think abortion is a medical and personal decision that the government and employers don’t really have any business regulating. My employer had contact traces that would ask deeply personal questions, like sleeping arrangements at home, and if I hugged my wife. I told them my wife was fine and was out mowing the grass and they reported me for violating isolation protocol. We live on multiple acres……