How to deal with anti vaxxers

Last updated: April 29, 2021 References

wikiHow is a “wiki” similar to Wikipedia, which means that many of our articles are written together by multiple authors. To create this article, 22 people, some anonymous, worked to modify and improve it over time.

This article mentions 85 references that can be found at the bottom of the page.

This article has been viewed 19,170 times.

“Anti-vaccine” is a slang term for people who oppose vaccination. Meeting an anti-vaccine can be annoying, especially if you’re afraid of hurting others (for example, risking your children’s life or saying harmful things about people with autism). Getting angry or starting an intellectual debate is unlikely to work, even if you are right. Here’s how to deal with an anti-vaccine.

How to deal with anti vaxxers

How to deal with anti vaxxers

How to deal with anti vaxxers

How to deal with anti vaxxers

You can try a logical argument, even if it’s unlikely to work. [4] X Research Source Try to use logic only when someone seems genuinely interested in the debate.

Author

Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Sydney

Of their disclosure statement

Claire Hooker receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. You work for the University of Sydney.

Amplifier

The University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

Conversation UK receives funding from these organizations

  • E-mail
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Whatsapp
  • Messenger

Dismissing people’s concerns as unfounded, whether it’s the safety of cell phones or fluoridated drinking water, is one of the least effective ways to communicate public health threats.

Tuttavia, non è raro che le persone si "calmino" in questo modo, sia a casa che in posizioni professionali come esperti, impiegati o dirigenti d’azienda.

Un’altra strategia debole, ma comune, è cercare di confutare i "fatti alternativi" (menzogne ​​o affermazioni fuorvianti che si ritiene siano reali), come quelli che circolano tra i gruppi anti-vaccino o anti-fluorescenza.

If your role is to communicate public health threats, trying to help people understand the evidence is particularly difficult to resist. This is especially true when the risk is low and therefore public concerns are not only disproportionate but also costly to correct.

If an official’s or doctor’s response to a parent worried about fluoridated drinking water is to show them even more data about how safe and effective it is, they often won’t sound convincing. Instead, they’ll look incapable of unbiased discussion. Indeed, the more information they give, the more propaganda it may seem. This approach can even make the opponent’s argument more memorable.

Not only is calming people down and fighting disinformation ineffective, it can also cause a lot of harm.

Una comunicazione inefficace, anche con buone intenzioni, può anche rafforzare i "fatti alternativi" esaltando, non riducendo, le preoccupazioni delle persone.

Quindi i funzionari della sanità pubblica, i medici e i membri della comunità coinvolti devono cambiare le strategie quando si tratta di un rischio basso, dalla comunicazione delle prove alla rimozione di ciò che viene chiamato "indignazione", un altro nome per l’interesse pubblico.

1. First vent your own indignation

The first step could be to express indignation or fear at the consequences of public disinformation. Our own outrage stops us listening well to what’s driving public concern. We tend to correct or reassure when we’re motivated by our own worries, strategies that can worsen polarisation in a debate.

Public outcry needs to be addressed later. This is the type of response that focuses on your audience’s needs and stakes out a middle ground where there’s some room to manoeuvre.

2. Respect human fears

There are good research-based strategies for dealing with this type of outrage, starting with the principles of caring and honesty.

At minimum, this means acknowledging and respecting people’s fears. The fearful parent needs to know that we care about his concerns, for example, about vaccine safety and that we have listened to and understood his concerns. That’s before they will care about what we say.

3. Build trust

One of the strongest predictors of someone believing or acting on a public health message is trust; if we can’t trust the communicator, we won’t believe the message. Caring, honesty, competence and openness are all aspects of trust.

Trust is essential for us so that we can communicate effectively throughout the life cycle of a public health problem, whether it is a public policy mistake or new research leads to new information or recommendations.

So if you’re unsure about communication, always choose a strategy that builds trust, as discussed in a new article in the Sax Institute’s Public Health Research and Practice journal.

Expertise means that the integrity of the scientific methods and data in which they are discussed must be strictly adhered to. However, competence and openness together are best served by an honest approach to uncertainty and complexity. It’s better to err on the side of communicating early and often, rather than to wait in the hopes of providing a more reliable and consistent message.

4. Don’t panic with panic

If you communicate early and the messages change or are confusing, won’t people over-react? Yes, and your job is to vent your indignation and tolerate such early and usually short-lived reactions. People revert to their normal habits and choices once they find they are safe.

Tolerating early overreactions allows you to remain the reliable source that people hear, even if people don’t change their overall view of risk (and don’t expect them to).

Avoid telling people “don’t panic”. Even cAlling someone’s fears “panic” is a way of diminishing them. What “panic” for you is simply “don’t do what you think I should” in front of an anxious audience.

5. Your actions communicate more than words

Consider what your actions are saying to the audience. For instance, the Australian government’s decision to cancel All temporary visas from West African countries affected by Ebola virus in 2014 signAlled that Ebola was a real, terrifying threat. This news undermined the constant reassuring public health official that the risk of transmission to the community in Australia is extremely low.

Helping people reduce anxiety can be as simple as giving them some control over the situation, such as giving people specific actions they can take. For Ebola, this could mean monitoring their temperature if they think they have been exposed.

Public health agencies can also collaborate with community members to develop or co-design their own solutions. Deliberative processes, such as those in which people see their share of results, can be exceptionally powerful ways to increase public confidence in processes and institutions.

6. Play a long game

Comunicare il rischio in modo efficace significa giocare il lungo gioco del "arrivare al forse" in cui i funzionari possono ancora coinvolgere un pubblico riluttante, spaventato e persuaso dai "fatti alternativi".

The aim is to maintain the relationships and the dialogue, not to correct All people’s false beliefs. Ironia della sorte, questo fornisce la migliore protezione contro la polarizzazione e i “fatti alternativi” e quindi la nostra capacità come società di affrontare le minacce che affrontiamo insieme.

It seems that the number of people opposed to vaccinations – that is, anti-vaccines – is increasing every year.

So is there any truth to the widespread fear of immunization? Not really.

A new video from AsapSCIENCE has thoroughly exposed and deconstructed the most common arguments against vaccines.

Now, the next time you come across an anti-vaccine, you will be fully prepared and armed with the facts.

1. I vaccini contengono sostanze chimtheire "pericolose" come MSG, antifreeze, phenol, formaldehyde, aluminum and lead.

While it is true that many vaccines contain chemicals such as mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde, the doses are so small that these substances are not considered toxic.

"La dose è velenosa e le dosi di sostanze chimtheire nei vaccini sono trascurabili", spiega il video.

For example, vaccines contain small amounts of aluminum to make the injection more effective. The total amount of aluminum present is around 0.125 mg per dose, which is much less than the average of 30-50 mg that an average person consumes each day.

And while the mercury used in vaccines is also negligible, it was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 after public outcry.

2. Il sistema immunitario di un bambino non deve "sviluppare naturalmente".

By not weakening the immune system, vaccines actually strengthen the immune system. Vaccines carry a weakened form of the virus into the body so that your system can learn to identify itself and defend against future infections.

For young and old alike, strengthening the immune system with a vaccine is especially important. For example, children should be vaccinated against dangerous infections at a young age because their immune systems are more vulnerable.

3. Vaccines cannot cause allergies.

In 1997, people began to wonder if vaccines could cause allergies, but solid research shows that vaccines have the exact opposite effect – they protect against allergies.

4. "These diseases aren’t even that dangerous. If you have measles, what’s the worst that could happen?"

The vaccines have been so effective that they have prevented millions of people from dying and millions more people with physical and permanent disabilities.

In the 1960s, for example, smallpox caused millions of deaths, but two decades later it was completely eradicated thanks to an aggressive vaccination campaign.

5. Vaccines cannot cause autism.

In the 1990s, an article was published that found a link between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study was later found to be bogus thanks to many comprehensive, long-term studies.

Furthermore, 10 of the 13 authors of the original article rejected and withdrawn their original explanations.

6. "Le persone dovrebbero potersi vaccinare perché la scelta spetta solo a te".

Bad. Vaccines not only protect you, they also help other people around you stay healthy, especially the elderly, young people, and people who cannot be vaccinated on their own, such as people undergoing chemotherapy.

This is called herd immunity and it affects everyone’s health, not just you.

7. "È tutta una cospirazione e la grande farmacia sta segretamente cercando di ucciderci."

Of course, pharmaceutical companies make their money from vaccines, but that doesn’t mean vaccines are bad for you. In the U. S., between 1994 and 2013, vaccines created a net savings of $295 billion in direct costs and US$1.3 trillion in societal costs.

And while it’s true that some drugs have been withdrawn from the market due to unexpected side effects, vaccines are some of the more regulated substances we can put into our bodies. In the United States, it may take 10 to 25 years to approve just one vaccine, and even after it’s been marketed, it’s still closely monitored.

In fact, the chance of you responding to the MMR vaccine is one in a million, which is ten times less than lightning bolt death. The possibilities are clearly in your favor, so take your shots.

This article was originally published on our sister site, Science As Fact.

Business Ethics Professor, NYU Stern

Sometimes it takes a rebellious young man to help us see the error in our ways.

Consider Ethan Lindenberger, an 18-year-old from Ohio. His act of rebellion wasn’t staying out past curfew or avoiding his homework: It was getting vaccinated on his own, despite his mother’s protests.

Lindenberger’s mother opted her children out of vaccines and fed them messages about the dangers of immunizations. As she wrote on Reddit: “My parents think vaccines are some kind of government program. It’s stupid and I’ve had countless arguments over the topic.”

Then, when he turned 18, he asked Reddit how he could get the vaccines he was denied as a child: flu, pneumonia, chicken pox, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, HPV, meningitis, MMR, tetanus-like, and TDAP (cough whooping). .

The editors gave him directions and the thread went viral. The whole episode ended with Lindenberger’s testimony in Congress earlier this month. In New York, his testimony moved two state lawmakers so much that they’re proposing a bill in the state legislature Allowing teenagers 14 and up to get vaccinated—even if doing so goes against their parents’ wishes.

Lindenberger’s testimony and this bill couldn’t come at a more important time. A measles outbreak recently broke out in New York State, with nearly 200 confirmed cases nationwide. In Brooklyn alone, 133 cases of measles have been reported since last October. Nationwide, in the first three months of 2019, 12 states reported cases of measles, the fastest recorded infection rate.

This shouldn’t have happened. In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control announced that measles had been eradicated in the United States. So what has changed in two decades?

Simple: social media vaccine disinformation campaign that resulted in many unvaccinated people.

How do people become anti-vaccines?

Lindenberger’s mother is a prime case. Her information on vaccines came from Facebook’s “anti-vaccine” groups. As her son said, she “thought vaccines were a government conspiracy to kill children.”

She is not alone. Na Facebooku i w innych miejscach w Internecie ule dezinformacji i pseudonauki głoszą pogląd, że szczepionki są niebezpieczne – że prowadzą do autyzmu, że są spiskiem rządowym lub powodują choroby, którym mają zapobiegać.

Scientists and doctors have repeatedly completely refuted these claims. But in the digital world, myths pretend to be truth. And well-intentioned people like Lindenberger’s mother make unsafe decisions as a result.

How to stop anti-vaccines?

What can you do? First, the laws can help. In the same way New York state lawmakers took action, we need federal action to Allow young people to take their health and safety into their own hands when their parents won’t. We also need to strengthen and support laws that prevent unvaccinated children from attending school. SpecificAlly, lawmakers need to close “religious exemption” loopholes, or severely limit them with the input of medical and public-health professionals, as they Allow parents to put other people’s children at risk.

A federal judge recently supported this view: When parents of unvaccinated children tried to get their children back to school, which had recently been hit by a measles outbreak, a judge blocked their entry. He’s not the only one. In Italy, a new law went into effect this month that prohibited unvaccinated children under the age of six from attending school and fined parents of children over the age of six for not vaccinating their children.

This is not, as some critics have suggested, abuse of government. This is common sense and the proposed measures are similar to many accounting laws that protect the public interest, even if they prohibit individual conduct. For example, driver’s license requirements, prohibitions on smoking on airplanes, restrictions on falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater—these widely accepted examples put the public interest ahead of private interests. Vaccine legislation is working in the same direction.

However, it takes time to pass laws. What we can do now is to act on the sources of disinformation. The public needs to stand up and tell Facebook, Twitter, and other social-media platforms that enough is enough. Facebook has begun to take smAll steps in this direction: They’re banning anti-vaccine information from being promoted through ads, and lowering its rank in search results. But they could have gone further. For example, Pinterest blocked the search for vaccines, and Amazon pulled all vaccine documentaries from its directory. Facebook must completely ban vaccine posts, and public pressure could lead them to do so.

Finally, we need to hold our leaders and influencers accountable. No matter how many rights we change or how many platforms we repair, a loose comment from an authority can undo years of work. This is doubly for politicians, people to whom we entrust decisions in the public interest. So when someone like US congressman Butrk Green questions the value of vaccines, it isn’t enough to move on. Even though he has now flipped his position and insists he vaccinates his kids, it’s too late: He gave his credibility—and by extension, Congressional credibility—to those peddling dangerous hoaxes. This isn’t a purely partisan issue: Both Democrats and Republicans have questioned vaccines in Congress, sometimes going so far as berating the director of the Center for Disease Control. There’s no place for conspiracy theorists and science deniers in leadership, and they should be voted out of office when the next election comes around.

Ethan Lindenberger’s decision to disobey his mother is a clarion cAll. The vaccine debate is now over and our society is seriously at risk, allowing for an increase in the number of unvaccinated children and the spread of scientific falsehood. The time has come for social action on this issue: changes to our laws, improvements to our sources of information, and resolute resistance to those who trade in pseudoscience. Few actions could be more urgent or important.

The unvaccinated crowd has convinced many people. But public health can prevail.

How to deal with anti vaxxers

The editorial board represents the views of the board, its editor and publisher. It is separate from the editorial and editorial section.

The World Health Organization has named vaccination reluctance – increasing immunity to widely available life-saving vaccines – as one of the top 10 health threats in the world in 2019. This news will come as no surprise in New York, where the worst epidemic is underway. of measles in recent decades. Neither in California nor in Minnesota, where similar epidemics broke out in 2014 and 2017 respectively. Nor in Texas, where some 60,000 children remain completely unvaccinated, thanks in part to an aggressive anti-vaccine lobby.

The main threats to global health are usually caused by the plagues and dangers of low-income countries, but the reluctance to vaccinate is as American as it can be. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentage of unvaccinated children has quadrupled since 2001, although the overall use of most vaccines remains high. Over 100,000 American babies and toddlers have not received any vaccines, and millions more have received just a few key shots.

It’s no mystery how we got here. On the Internet, anti-vaccine propaganda has outpaced public health information on vaccines. Anti-vaccines, as they are colloquially called, have hundreds of websites promoting their message, a roster of tech – and media-savvy influencers, and an aggressive political arm that includes at least a dozen political action committees. The defense against this attack was modest. The C. D. C., the nation’s leading public health agency, has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice. The United States Surgeon General’s office has been mum. Likewise, the White House – and not just under the current administration. There remain only a handful of scientists who are bombarded with poison, including blatant threats, whenever they try to counter the facts of pseudoscience.

The consequences of this imbalance are significant: epidemics of measles, mumps, whooping cough and other diseases are on the rise; an increase in deaths from influenza; e i disastrosi tassi di vaccinazione contro l’HPV che secondo i medici potrebbero spazzare via efficacemente il cancro cervicale se usato meglio. But infectious disease experts warn that things could get worse. They argue that trust in vaccines is so severely clouded that these preventative tools could become useless. Another major disease epidemic “will not be caused by a lack of preventative technology,” writes Heidi Larson, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in the journal Nature, but “an emotional contagion that is digitally possible.”

To avoid this danger, a bold and aggressive campaign like that of the anti-vaccine contingent will be needed. And launching such a campaign would require overcoming severe inertia: a weakening of the public health system, counterbalancing policies and collective amnesia over the past devastation of these diseases. But being successful would save one of the greatest triumphs of human ingenuity over disease from oblivion and save countless lives.

Here’s how to get started.

Be difficult. Following the California measles outbreak in 2014, the state lifted non-medical exemptions from mandatory immunization. Following a similar outbreak in Mi suoigan, health officials at Mi suoigan began requiring people to formally consult local health departments before canceling mandatory injections. In both cases, these stricter policies have led to increased vaccination rates. Other states should go this route, and the federal government should consider tightening restrictions on how much room for maneuver it can give families willing to give up basic vaccines.

Be smart. The Vaccine Confidence Project is a London-based academic firm that monitors anti-vaccine websites for rumors and conspiracies and tackles them before the news goes viral. It also conducts regular aptitude surveys and publishes a vaccine confidence index. Federal health officials would do well to implement a similar program, make it public as much as possible, and pair it with an aggressive and targeted social media campaign that leverages celebrities as much as the anti-vaccine movement.

To be clear. Vaccines are, to some extent, victims of their own success. In the United States especiAlly, they’ve beaten so many infectious foes into oblivion that hardly any practicing doctors, let alone new parents, remember how terrible those diseases once were. A successful vaccination campaign must remind us: Vaccines prevent two to three million deaths worldwide each year. In developing countries, people queue for hours to get these photos. It’s also O. K. to get out of the gray zone. Scientists in particular are uncomfortable with black and white claims because science is all about nuances. But with vaccines, there are some hard truths that are worth a hoot. Vaccines are non-toxic and do not cause autism. Point.

Meet the enemy. The arguments used by the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement have not changed in nearly a century. These arguments are effective because they are intuitively attractive, but they are also easy to refute. Instead of ignoring these arguments, a successful vaccination campaign would be addressed directly with them, over and over, for as long as necessary. Yes, there are chemicals in vaccines, but they are not them. No, vaccines can’t overwhelm your immune system, whtheir already confronts countless pathogens every day.

Meet the audience. Not all parents concerned about immunization are rabid conspiracy theorists who perpetually resist vaccination. In fact, research suggests that less than 2% of all parents fall into this category. The rest of the families reluctant to vaccinate fall within a certain spectrum. Some people refuse all vaccines, but are still willing to receive information. Others only care about one particular vaccine. And others are still restless and looking for reliable information. Any successful campaign will need to pay attention to this diversity and prioritize listening to fears rather than debunking myths.

Get the right support. Some doctors and scientists have dubbed “problem-free immunization” as “the greatest story ever told”. While they may not spread online like the stories of horrific misadventures smuggled by anti-vaccines, these much more common stories of accidental vaccinations can be a powerful elixir for a nervous new parent. The best ambassadors of these stories will probably be the parents themselves. Surveys suggest that pro-vaccine families are often eager to help counter misinformation, but they don’t know where to start. If health officials bring these families together and train them in the basics of vaccine science, they can succeed where official rumors sometimes fail.

How to deal with anti vaxxers

Photo courtesy of the writer

Reluctance to vaccinate – defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines” – has been ranked by the WHO as one of the top 10 global health threats. While vaccines currently prevent 2 to 3 million deaths a year globAlly, a subset of the U. S. population still refuses to vaccinate their children.

It’s cAlled the anti-vaxx movement, and I used to be a part of it. I’m a “crunchy” mother of six. For my first four children, I followed the standardized immunization schedule established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But I stopped vaccinating my children altogether after the birth of my fifth child, around the same time I started hanging out with other parents who didn’t vaccinate their children.

Things began to change for me during the birth of my fourth child. When I was four, I realized that the one people I truly trusted for my comfort and safety were my husband and I. This was the beginning of my journey into community births.

I had a home birth with my fifth child, Parker James (we cAll him P. J.), and it was amazing, transcendental, and everything I ever wanted. It was much more powerful. I felt like I was having a baby for the first time, even though it was the fifth. I took him to the pediatrician when he was two days old and I think we started our vaccinations with him.

But when she was six months old, I started looking for a new pediatrician. We had a few shifts and our family was uninsured for a while. I was also talking to All these people who didn’t vaccinate their kids at the time. (It seems to me that when you go off the beaten path by having a home birth, you start to meet people who also prefer to approach health care differently. And within those circles, some people don’t vaccinate their kids.)

All of this led to my decision to stop vaccinating my children. I began to believe the belief of my fellow crunchy parents I spoke to that vaccines were driven more by money than by necessity and evidence. The thinking here—whtheir I subscribed to—is that the medical industry and big pharma both profit from vaccines because they build in a need for multiple doctor’s visits, and that the vaccines mean more money for the pharmaceutical industry. From what I’ve seen, because many anti-vaxx parents believe that vaccines cause illnesses like autoimmune disorders and autism (whtheir the CDC and several studies have refuted), they think that the medical industry and big pharma further benefit from vaccines by creating a need to treat these illnesses.

Plus I reAlly didn’t want to have any dependence on the mainstream medical establishment. My contact with mothers who had the same parenting style reinforced my hesitation about doctors and vaccines. These confident, engaged mothers weren’t vaccinating, and they could articulate why. I began to agree with the anti-vaccine sentiment that many modern ailments could be caused by over-vaccination.

I began to postulate that many of the problems I had seen in my family could be related to vaccines, particularly obesity and autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and chronic pain. I really believed that in general it would be better to live as naturally as possible and that this lifestyle would be sufficient protection against most diseases. The more I learned about childbirth and early childhood medical care, the more I thought I saw links to their pharmaceutical and other industries whose main motive I believe was profit.

When I became pregnant with my sixth pregnancy, I was about to leave the Mormon Church. The more I thought about it, the more I felt as if I had been set on fire repeatedly by institutions – religious, middle or similar – that I trusted and therefore wary of most institutions. The rejection of science was a collateral damage to my newfound commitment to listen to my instincts. I felt like I was only doing things because people had told me, including vaccinating my kids, and I was done.

My sixth child was also born at home and I didn’t take her to a doctor afterward. She was a big, healthy girl, and though I wished I had a medical provider to take her to, I wasn’t overly concerned. I wasn’t looking to men in white coats anymore about what was best for me and my baby.

When I left the Mormon Church, I lost many friends and social circles. I was looking elsewhere for a new group of friends and peers, and then they got so interested in natural parenting, I joined some of the crisp online parenting communities. But people there talked about the benefits of essential oils to the point that I was skeptical. I remember thinking You know this is bullshit, right? You can’t treat severe eczema with lavender. I started to question things again. I was on a wave of questioning things, being skeptical and doing my own research, so I started questioning things posted in these groups as well.

Skeptical circles were so strict about vaccine-averse parents and I wanted to be able to stand up for myself and get it right. The more I prepared for such arguments, the more I realized that I did not have a solid defense. But that didn’t mean I trusted the system. I started to believe that my children should be vaccinated, but I still didn’t trust pediatricians. So I did my research and started developing a plan for a revised immunization schedule. I tried to climb over the proverbial fence and find a measure where I felt comfortable.

I started mentioning what I had learned from my research on crunchy moms groups on the internet and felt they couldn’t tolerate it. It seemed like they were locking me up. Other parents who didn’t vaccinate their kids expressed fears that vaccinating would cause autism, behavioral issues, brain damage, or other unfounded claims, and they were staunch in their beliefs. But now I knew everything. I’ve read stuff from all over, including the Science-Based Medicine website from the creators of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast by Steven Novelli, a neuroscientist at Yale University School of Medicine.

I was trying to be very logical. Still, every time I would bring up the subject of vaccines when it was clear that I wasn’t anti-vaccine, either the thread was deleted or we were told it couldn’t be discussed anymore. I felt that some people had made medicine and science bad people and nature good, and that I was ostracized for my views on vaccines. I would say things like this publicly and then privately I would get six to a dozen messages that would say things like “I’ve reAlly been thinking about vaccinating” or “I feel the same way.” People were just scared to say it publicly and I wasn’t.

I had a very low tolerance for this dogmatic thinking because I had just left my religion. I needed people who could have difficult conversations.

How to deal with anti vaxxers

NEW YORK – It’s late Tuesday night during the worst measles outbreak in decades, and doctors, nurses and other health care workers gather at the medical center to learn better ways to talk to parents who don’t want to vaccinate their children.

Blima Butrcus, an oncology nurse practitioner, leads the two-hour session on how to do a better job listening to and responding to parents’ questions — and, in the process, cultivating their trust. The key, she says, is hearing people’s questions about the science behind vaccines and addressing those directly.

To refute the false claim that childhood diseases, for example, strengthen the immune system, he said doctors could explain that the immune system is not a muscle that is strengthened during exercise.

"Non è una buona idea esporre intenzionalmente i tuoi figli alla malattia più che rompersi le ossa delle gambe perché pensi che ricresceranno più forti", ha detto a un gruppo presso l’Ezra Medical Center nel quartiere di Borough Park di Brooklyn.

Butrcus, un membro della comunità ebraica ortodossa di Brooklyn, quest’anno ha contribuito a formare un gruppo di volontari per operatori sanitari per affrontare le fluttuazioni nelle vaccinazioni e i funzionari della disinformazione incolpano dell’epidemia di morbillo – giunta al suo decimo mese – che in gran parte disgusta gli ebrei ortodossi a Brooklyn. His group, the Vaccine Task Force, has written and distributed thousands of brochures about parents to counter the fears and myths spread by anti-vaccine groups attacking the community.

Now she and the other nurses are teaching doctors to respectfully and effectively respond to these concerns.

Health officials in New York and across the country are trying more and more new strategies for disseminating accurate vaccine information. They rely more on social groups than on government agencies, affirming a broad mistrust of science and government, especially in culturally isolated communities.

“We think if we speak louder, people will accept it,” said Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a London-based global health foundation. “We have to justify the science and understand why people question it.”

Another newly formed group, the Jewish Medical Association of Orthodox Women, operates a confidential helpline that families can call to request private vaccinations at home so that their children can be protected against measles without risking disapproval. of anti-vaccine activists.

In Portland, Oregon, where anti-vaccine sentiment is strong, the nonprofit organization Boost Oregon is hosting a free immunization seminar for new and expectant parents. Doctor-led seminars often last two hours or more to allow parents to get all their questions answered. The organization also provides seminars to doctors, nurses, midwives, naturopaths and others on how to address patients’ misunderstandings about vaccinations.

A recent Wellcome Trust global health and science survey conducted by GAllup World Poll found that more than 8 in 10 people trust healthcare professionals for health advice, with a doctor or nurse being the most trusted source of health advice.

Nurses in particular can play a key role.

"Siamo la prima e l’ultima persona che un paziente vede prima di prendere una decisione definitiva", ha affermato Melody Butler, specialista in infezioni al Long Island Good Samaritan Hospital, che dirige anche un gruppo chiamato Nurses Who Vaccinate.

In New York, the inability to fully engage the Orthodox community on vaccination has “been reAlly a lesson for us,” New York City Health Commissioner Oxiris Barbot said at a recent discussion at NYU Langone Medical Center’s Tisch Hospital. Given the community’s distrust of government, Jewish organizations are critical for providing information. “Public health doesn’t always have to be the messenger,” Barbot said.

In a recent session in Brooklyn, Butrcus referred to the most common misinformation spread by anti-vaccine activists. Her presentation was succinct and packed with practical tips: Here’s how doctors can show parents how to find reputable studies online. Here are answers to 13 common vaccine concerns, including ingredients and side effects.

If patients are concerned about the vaccine ingredients, Butrcus told suppliers as they ate pizza and chips, they explain that, for example, aluminum hydroxide is used to improve the immune response and make the vaccine more effective. He said half of the aluminum in the vaccine cleanses the body in 15 minutes and 99% is excreted within two days. The studies found no correlation between children who received aluminum-containing vaccines and cognitive development, he said.

The government can’t force people to get vaccinated, but businesses can bar people who are not. We just need a simple, reliable way to determine who’s had their shots.

How to deal with anti vaxxers

Jay Miarliaelson

Photo: The Daily Beast / Photo via Getty

Americans are entering a new phase of the pandemic where life-saving vaccines are finally a reality. The next few months will be confusing, with the light visible at the end of the tunnel, but the tunnel is darker than ever, amidst thorny questions about who should get priority.

But the months to come will be even more confusing and we need to start preparing to answer these questions now.

Most Americans who want vaccinations will get them by April or Buty, experts say. The problem is that, as of last month, about 40 percent of Americans still need to be convinced to get it.

In order for life and the economy to return to normal, most of these people have to participate. There is so much at stake: safe hospitals, shops, businesses, mass transit, schools, air travel and cultural institutions, not to mention dependent economies, our mental wellbeing and our entire way of life.

And yet, even with All the outreach that’s being planned now—to Black communities, rightly suspicious of the government; to conservatives poisoned by Trump’s and Fox News’s denialism; for left-wing anti-vaccines – it may take months to achieve “herd immunity”. And meanwhile, a 95% effective vaccine isn’t good enough if you still have a 1 in 20 chance of catching the deadly disease at the grocery store.

The stakes are too high to wait for people who refuse to vaccinate. We need a plan to move forward without them.

Let’s dismiss a few options out of hand. No, we won’t be locking anyone up for refusing to get a shot. Even if it would be constitutional, it’s un-American and would provoke massive resistance. In fact, no governmental compulsion to get vaccinated is consonant with our country’s values of liberty and freedom.

But freedom is a two-way street. You can also get drunk and drive as much as you want, but I have a right to stay on the street and not be killed by you. No freedom is absolute and your security is where my freedom ends.

Just as I might have the right not to wear a mask or give an injection, so you have the right to walk down the street and I won’t banish you from a terminal illness. Choosing not to get vaccinated isn’t “freedom” any more than driving drunk is. It’s endangering other people. This is deeply immoral. And it is also mandatory; the anti-vaccine forces me to swim in their viral discharge every time we share space in public places.

So? Anti-vaxxers are like drunk drivers, but we can’t force them to get vaccinated. Are we just stuck in a dangerous minority that is ruining lives and endangering the health of everyone else?

Ironically, given the COVID-19 policy, conservative American values ​​point the way: We need to empower people to make their own security decisions. And we do this by improving free enterprise.

Let’s imagine a world in June 2021, where everyone who wants a vaccination has gotten one, but where the virus is still spreading because of the large number of vaccine refusers. If I own a business, it may be in my own interest to rule out these denials. Butybe I want to protect my employees. Butybe I want to have a store, restaurant, bank, laundromat or school where people don’t have to wear masks, and where they can feel safe. And maybe I think that by doing that, I’ll get more customers.

Quindi, come oggi, posso mettere sulla porta "mascherine obbligatorie", il prossimo giugno posso mettere sulla porta "obbligatoria vaccinale".

The problem is that, unlike a mask, the vaccine is invisible. This is why we need to act now.

We need written proof of vaccination as hard to forge or forge as a hundred dollar bill. We need it to be standardized and easy to show to others. And we need to start implementing it at this stage of the pandemic, not the next. Call them “vaccination passports”; simple and standardized documents, digital or paper, which allow society and the economy to return to semi-normality without waiting for each recipient of the anti-vaccine to see the light.

This is what freedom looks like. Reliable proof of vaccination will enable individuals, businesses, churches and other organizations to make these decisions for themselves and their customers and members. their decide whether to participate or not. For myself, if given a choice, I won’t set foot in a museum, go to a show, eat at a restaurant, shop in a grocery store, or pray at a synagogue with unvaccinated people either.

And the only ethical way for me to follow is choice. Jeśli antyszczepionkowcy mogą zdecydować, że nie zostaną zaszczepieni, muszę mieć możliwość their uniknięcia. Otherwise, we’re back to moral asymmetry. They can endanger my life, but I can’t do anything about it.

We’ve seen how this can work in the educational context. Fine, don’t get your kids their shots—but then, keep them out of school where they might endanger others. That way, everyone has freedom, both the anti-vaxxer and the large majority of people who understand the science and want to keep their kids safe.

It all depends on reliable proof of vaccination. Medical records can work in schools, but every bar, cinema and restaurant needs a simple document, in standard form, with protection against fraud, which will be a kind of passport for life in 2021. to be free.

Ponownie, w jakiejś totalitarnej dystopii, rząd może dokonać wyboru z równania, wymagając od wszystktheir szczepień. But we don’t live in that world. In a free country, people have a choice. But All people can choose. Both the unvaccinated and people who want to live without the fear of contracting COVID-19.

And as a bonus, I suspect that when enough businesses and other public places go “vaxx-only,” that may incentivize some of the unvaccinated to change their behavior. If they can’t get into a basebAll game, a graduation, a diner or a veterinarian’s office, they might find themselves re-examining their opinions about the vaccine.

Which they obviously should anyway, because there is an objective truth in the novel coronavirus and the truth is that it kills people and can be eradicated if enough people are given a simple and safe vaccination against it. It may be someone’s constitutional right to be ignorant of science and reality, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to postpone our lives because of it.