Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Will the rapid spread of COVID-19 Change Anti-Vax'rs Thinking?

Recommended Posts

Current vaccines have nearly or completely eliminated many of the diseases they target, so it's easy to not be afraid of them.  In fact, many of the anti-vax'rs probably grew up never having contact with many of these diseases: polio, measles, mumps, etc.

Now we are seeing a new and serious viral disease spread rapidly around the world.  It should be a powerful lesson about what happens when the population isn't vaccinated.

I sure hope that folks take this lesson to heart.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Republican governor of Oklahoma does not vaccinate his kids, and last week was tweeting pictures of him and his kids out at a crowded restaurant and suggesting others do the same........what do you think?  These people abhor science.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cideous said:

These people abhor science.

I'd caution against lumping people together.  People don't vaccinate by political party.

I just did an interview yesterday regarding my vaccine refusal article, and was asked a very similar question.  I do think that anti-vaxers will be put to shame and hopefully abandoned by the populace. The hard core true believers will probably still be there (the flat earth society has members from all over the globe, after all) but hopefully the images of body bags stacked like cordwood here in the USA will make being anti-vax about as socially acceptable as a swastika tattoo.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting topic,I don't think it will change their minds much. Vaccine acceptance is majorly influenced by its application as a theory, unfortunately it cannot be concretely proven. Now that doesn't mean that a use of something based on theory is not useful or even wrong, it just makes it more difficult to accept. Covid-19 is not treated by vaccination.  i wonder how a healthy vaccinated ( not a covid-19 vaccine) patient and a healthy unvaccinated patient would respond to COVID-19. Would there be any difference in symptoms/severity/recovery?

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JMPA said:

interesting topic,I don't think it will change their minds much. Vaccine acceptance is majorly influenced by its application as a theory, unfortunately it cannot be concretely proven. Now that doesn't mean that a use of something based on theory is not useful or even wrong, it just makes it more difficult to accept. Covid-19 is not treated by vaccination.  i wonder how a healthy vaccinated ( not a covid-19 vaccine) patient and a healthy unvaccinated patient would respond to COVID-19. Would there be any difference in symptoms/severity/recovery?

Here we go again. 

I won’t even entertain your incoherent rant. However, assuming you’re a person of science as a clinician, I can’t stand by and watch you use basic scientific terms incorrectly. Your complete misuse of the term “theory” is mind-boggling. You’re convoluting everyday usage of theory with scientific theory. Scientific theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. 
 

Much like relativity, evolution, and vaccine efficacy. These are facts. Not left to interpretation as fiction based on your “theory”.

Edited by ANESMCR
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should give your answer some more though. "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena". "Held as an explanation" is not proven fact, it is an accepted view. Words are very important, choose them wisely. Your idea of evolution as a fat demerits your entire argument. try again, keep the dialog going, it is with discussion that progress is made

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JMPA said:

interesting topic,I don't think it will change their minds much. Vaccine acceptance is majorly influenced by its application as a theory, unfortunately it cannot be concretely proven. Now that doesn't mean that a use of something based on theory is not useful or even wrong, it just makes it more difficult to accept. Covid-19 is not treated by vaccination.  i wonder how a healthy vaccinated ( not a covid-19 vaccine) patient and a healthy unvaccinated patient would respond to COVID-19. Would there be any difference in symptoms/severity/recovery?

JMPA: this will be my last response to you regarding vaccines, and I would suggest that all others ignore you as well, until you respond to my posts from both of the other anti-vaccine threads.  It is simple...I gave you published data that supports the efficacy and safety of vaccines, and I have requested that you provide published data for your position.  You are of the minority stating that vaccines are not proven to work and questioning their efficacy and place in medicine.  As the minority, you need to support your statements.  Provide published data from a respected scientific and/or medical journal that supports your position in any way.  Until you provide a single published article in a respected scientific and/or medical journal it will be my position that you are either a troll or should have your PA license revoked.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JMPA said:

You should give your answer some more though. "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena". "Held as an explanation" is not proven fact, it is an accepted view. Words are very important, choose them wisely. Your idea of evolution as a fat demerits your entire argument. try again, keep the dialog going, it is with discussion that progress is made

Again, this is simply coming down to the fact that you do not believe in proven scientific process that has existed for thousands of years, instead placing your individual beliefs on literally nothing other than your own personal opinion. With nothing but responses of circular logic and fallacy in nature. That is completely fine. You’re entitled to that. However, you are not entitled to expose patient populations to it. It calls into question your hippocratic oath. To do no harm. Your opinion is nothing but harmful in so many ways and I can’t fathom you provide care to patients or anybody taking you serious as a provider. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will change the mind of a slice of them. How big that slice is depends on how this all shakes out in the end. The greater the severity, the more of us that lose parents and grandparents, a healthy dose of the primal fear of plague and contagion, will shock many of them to their very core beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcclane said:

It will change the mind of a slice of them. How big that slice is depends on how this all shakes out in the end. The greater the severity, the more of us that lose parents and grandparents, a healthy dose of the primal fear of plague and contagion, will shock many of them to their very core beliefs.

I would say this is the same as parents who are anti-vaxx with no vaccines for kids, but then everyone in the family gets vaccines when one of the kids is diagnosed with cancer or some other awful disease that will cause an immunocompromised state. Won't catch all of them, but some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah they will all be dead because they believe it is FAKE, or that the vaccine doesn't work

 

darwinism......

 

as a preceptor early in my career said "there is no cure for stupid"

 

 

As for the facebook video - report it to facebook - they are starting to remove stupid false wrong things....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ANESMCR said:

Again, this is simply coming down to the fact that you do not believe in proven scientific process that has existed for thousands of years, instead placing your individual beliefs on literally nothing other than your own personal opinion. With nothing but responses of circular logic and fallacy in nature. That is completely fine. You’re entitled to that. However, you are not entitled to expose patient populations to it. It calls into question your hippocratic oath. To do no harm. Your opinion is nothing but harmful in so many ways and I can’t fathom you provide care to patients or anybody taking you serious as a provider. 

. when you administer a vaccine to a patient, do you tell them that it will prevent them from getting said disease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mgriffiths said:

JMPA: this will be my last response to you regarding vaccines, and I would suggest that all others ignore you as well, until you respond to my posts from both of the other anti-vaccine threads.  It is simple...I gave you published data that supports the efficacy and safety of vaccines, and I have requested that you provide published data for your position.  You are of the minority stating that vaccines are not proven to work and questioning their efficacy and place in medicine.  As the minority, you need to support your statements.  Provide published data from a respected scientific and/or medical journal that supports your position in any way.  Until you provide a single published article in a respected scientific and/or medical journal it will be my position that you are either a troll or should have your PA license revoked.

not interested in your diatribe, if you cannot participate as an adult in a productive way to the discussion than i am not interested in your views

Edited by JMPA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JMPA said:

not interested in your diatribe, if you cannot participate as an adult in a productive way to the discussion than i am not interested in your views

*then

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JMPA said:

. when you administer a vaccine to a patient, do you tell them that it will prevent them from getting said disease?

I tell them exactly what I can tell them, leaving my opinion out. The known efficacy and proven results. Which would you like to start with? Gardasil 9? That it’s 97% efficacious in preventing HPV associated cancers? That a country like Australia has had its HPV rates dropped 70% in a decade d/t 80% of school-aged children being vaccinated. That they may experience redness, pain, and swelling at the injection site? Why explain more to you? You’ve previously been presented evidence then refuse to respond coherently. But you already knew what I would respond with. So...the better question is, do YOU tell them that it will help prevent them from getting said disease??? Since no vaccine is 100% effective, do you instead tell them that administering said vaccine will not prevent anything and is therefore unnecessary? How about a colonoscopy? Do you tell your patients not to get them anymore since they only prevent 9/10 cancers? That some polyps can be missed? Therefore the screening is useless? We’re all DYING to know what you tell them! Let’s see if you can produce an intelligent and grammatically correct response for once. Your laziness exhausts me. 

Edited by ANESMCR
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ANESMCR said:

I tell them exactly what I can tell them, leaving my opinion out. The known efficacy and proven results. Which would you like to start with? Gardasil 9? That it’s 97% efficacious in preventing HPV associated cancers? That a country like Australia has had its HPV rates dropped 70% in a decade d/t 80% of school-aged children being vaccinated. That they may experience redness, pain, and swelling at the injection site? Why explain more to you? You’ve previously been presented evidence then refuse to respond coherently. But you already knew what I would respond with. So...the better question is, do YOU tell them that it will help prevent them from getting said disease??? Since no vaccine is 100% effective, do you instead tell them that administering said vaccine will not prevent anything and is therefore unnecessary? How about a colonoscopy? Do you tell your patients not to get them anymore since they only prevent 9/10 cancers? That some polyps can be missed? Therefore the screening is useless? We’re all DYING to know what you tell them! Let’s see if you can produce an intelligent and grammatically correct response for once. Your laziness exhausts me. 

 

FFC0995A-E79C-4607-A918-4053259A2876.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2020 at 7:22 PM, Cideous said:

The Republican governor of Oklahoma does not vaccinate his kids, and last week was tweeting pictures of him and his kids out at a crowded restaurant and suggesting others do the same........what do you think?  These people abhor science.

The governor, like Mike Pence, is a dolt.  The VP should not be standing inches away from 4 people in the line of succession to the presidency, telling the public he's going to get tested for the virus when the government is telling the public they don't need to be tested if they're asymptomatic.  

I'd like to point out, as was previously mentioned, that yes...the antivax folks are present in both political parties.   What I've noticed over the past 20 years or so is that more often than not, regardless of political affiliation or their belief in God, they tend to be better educated than those who accept/follow vaccine recommendations.  They tend to be lots of Masters of Fine Arts-degreed stay-at-home moms with medical degrees from Google University who've done lots of "research" on the internet and had their beliefs reinforced by their antivax nutjob friends on their antivax Facebook pages.  

Interestingly these same folks do seem to abhor science....but it's the science that runs contrary to their beliefs.  Many of these folks are the first ones to make a doctor's appointment to ask for a prescription for antibiotics when they get a runny nose, or ask for prophylactic Plaquenil/Zithromax because the Great Orange Leader says they should.  Without science, there'd be no plaquenil or zpak.  Try to employ logic against these folks and you'll fail.   They can't be made to see reason.  They only see what they want to see.  The circles they choose to run in also reinforce their ludicrous beliefs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ANESMCR said:

I tell them exactly what I can tell them, leaving my opinion out. The known efficacy and proven results. Which would you like to start with? Gardasil 9? That it’s 97% efficacious in preventing HPV associated cancers? That a country like Australia has had its HPV rates dropped 70% in a decade d/t 80% of school-aged children being vaccinated. That they may experience redness, pain, and swelling at the injection site? Why explain more to you? You’ve previously been presented evidence then refuse to respond coherently. But you already knew what I would respond with. So...the better question is, do YOU tell them that it will help prevent them from getting said disease??? Since no vaccine is 100% effective, do you instead tell them that administering said vaccine will not prevent anything and is therefore unnecessary? How about a colonoscopy? Do you tell your patients not to get them anymore since they only prevent 9/10 cancers? That some polyps can be missed? Therefore the screening is useless? We’re all DYING to know what you tell them! Let’s see if you can produce an intelligent and grammatically correct response for once. Your laziness exhausts me. 

So lets clarify, you dont tell them that it will prevent the disease, you simply state that it is "efficacious in preventing" said disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JMPA said:

So lets clarify, you dont tell them that it will prevent the disease, you simply state that it is "efficacious in preventing" said disease.

Owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ANESMCR said:

Owned.

so therefore you are unable to state that a vaccine will prevent a disease in a given patient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More