Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test. Not all vaccines are created equal--including some that are intended to solve for the same thing. And all too many who blab their opinion on pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine do so with a minimum of research and evidence to support their opinion.
Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.
As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
No, we are not overlooking that. Some of us have looked into the evidence and figured out that people who convince themselves that they are "intelligently selecting vaccinations" are in fact making poor choices.
What do you say to someone making poor choices when you know their choices are poor, and they are so convinced they are right that they won't listen?
Y'all are totally overlooking that there is a broad swath of the population that is intelligently selecting vaccinations based on current research
I disagree; the people I've encountered who claim to be making this kind of selection are not doing it based on current research. They're doing it based on (often slightly hysterical) websites, niche talk shows, celebrity opinion and op-ed pieces designed to sell newspapers. Doing it based on current research would require a great deal more effort, knowledge and time.
> Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.
Can you provide some examples (three or four would be ok, that should count as "some") of these vaccines, backing your results with real, reputable research?
>current research indicating which vaccines pass the cost/benefit test.
Citation needed, and also important to share if you really believe that unicorns like this exist.
>As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.
No, it's a fallacy to expect that the right answer must always be in the middle of two sides of an argument. The Law of Averages isn't really a law, it's a mistake.
Here I hear a lot of pro-vaccine chest pounding. Sure there are anti-vaccine myths just as their are pro-vaccine myths. Some vaccines provide almost no benefit and entail fairly significant risks.
As in most things, vaccination is not an all or nothing proposition and it's a fallacy to suggest it is.