Voices
in
Japan

poll

COVID-19: Are you an anti-vaxxer?

54 Comments
© Japan Today

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Why is it a dumb question? Some people are opposed to the vaccines for a number of reasons. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question.

4 ( +21 / -17 )

I'm a "pro-choice" for vaccination. When, which brand and how many jabs to take, I want to decide them all by myself. I'm responsible for it, too. Free vax is not free lunch, and I oppose vax authoritarianism.

2 ( +22 / -20 )

I'm an anti anti-vaxxer.

19 ( +40 / -21 )

none from two options.

i believe thats up to one and each person to decide freely of want be vaccinated or not.

so option no 3/unwritten/

-9 ( +17 / -26 )

Why is it a dumb question? Some people are opposed to the vaccines for a number of reasons. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question.

The problem is that most antivaxxers do the impossible to avoid characterizing themselves as such, they will endlessly say they are not against vaccines, just against the dangerous ones, it is just a coincidence that every single vaccine in the history of humanity (including any future one) is dangerous...

5 ( +28 / -23 )

I am apparently an anti-vaxxer according to some dictionary definition that got changed recently, but I would note that I am a fully vaccinated anti-vaxxer. (Apparently that is supposed to make sense to some people, although it makes no sense to me.)

I believe that people should be able to choose what they put into their own bodies of their own free will. It is no big deal if some people do not want to submit to the will of some other people, in my mind.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

I am not anti-vaxxer, but I am very much against these Covid-19 "vaccines". They have way too many serious adverse effects to prevent a disease that is generally very mild for healthy people, especially if they are treated early.

I believe that people should be able to choose what they put into their own bodies of their own free will.

I agree, but I believe in informed consent. When people only get one narrative, they are not informed. For example, when the head of the CDC admitted to withholding data because it might lead to vaccine hesitancy.

-12 ( +12 / -24 )

I am not anti-vaxxer for the vaccine perfectly safe, all the certifications got after 10 years etc...

According to Cambrigde dictionnary, vaccine is "a specialsubstance that you take into yourbody to prevent a disease, and that often contains a weakened or deadform of the disease-causing organism."

Pfizer substance etc... fit with this definition ?

Up to you to decide yes or not, I call that respect and freedom.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

 They have way too many serious adverse effects to prevent a disease that is generally very mild for healthy people, especially if they are treated early.

This is for example one of the very common argument antivaxxer groups tend to promote, but it is still completely false. Many people are mislead by someone categorically saying this, but the evidence clearly says the opposite. If the person repeating this supports exactly zero vaccines it becomes clear it is an antivaxxer, but the vast majority of those that belong to this category will not accept it, even if for them no vaccine is, has been or will ever be better than not vaccinating.

I think the best approach is to just ignore them. When you hear their opinions on a variety of topics, you see a pattern emerge.

Unfortunately this is as productive as ignoring people trying to push very obvious Ponzi schemes, just because you can see the fraud it does not mean others will also do it, and ignoring the fraudsters will only lead to more people becoming victims. A much better approach is to debunk clear examples of misinformations and disinformation before people get snared.

The only reason to ever make a vaccine mandatory would be to prevent (or slow down) the spread of a deadly disease, something that the Covid19 vaccines do not do,

The current best available evidence is that vaccines do reduce the transmission and that is still true after Omicron became prevalent

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01816-0

This effect can be added to the reduction of infection that has been reported in different populations

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7109e3.htm

Pfizer substance etc... fit with this definition ?

Yes, it is a substance that you take into your body to prevent a disease. This can be proved scientifically, it is not something people personally "decide".

13 ( +23 / -10 )

No, bring ‘em all on. Already Nietzsche said, what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. Personally I don’t like medication at all, but of course, I know that the body conditions of people in a highly industrialized and urban environment are such degenerated that only medicine or vaccinations can keep you alive. Most of us aren’t fit like our grandparents, working hard until 100 and still doing farm work, climbing mountains, walking many kilometers every day. No one of us, I guess, would nowadays survive that even when much younger. And that’s also valid for corona and the surrounding problems like LongCovid etc. We won’t stand it without any medication or vaccinations.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Has anyone else noticed how often anti-vaccination types have very predictable views about unrelated matters such as climate change, election integrity in the US and the like?

Indeed, the vaxxers tend to believe everything coming from the MSM. I don't think that makes them any more interesting though...

-11 ( +12 / -23 )

No antivaxxer is going to accept it, their whole purpose is to deceive people into rejecting vaccines without ever saying they are against them.

11 ( +21 / -10 )

I'm not. But I don't believe the Covid shot works. Plus now you don't need your Covid shots to travel to USA and Korea. Don't know other places.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

No antivaxxer is going to accept it, their whole purpose is to deceive people into rejecting vaccines without ever saying they are against them.

Sorry, but some idiots decided to define me as an antivaxxer, although I am fully vaccinated and convinced a family member to get vaccinated.

I am not anti many things, and vaccines is not one of them either.

What I am is pro-freedom and pro-respect for individuals and their choices about what they accept to put into their own bodies.

Rather than call vaccinated people with views like mine as antivaxxers, it would be more apt to define a term to describe the vaccine authoritarians. “fascist-vaxxers” has a nice ring to it, but I’m going to guess that only the authoritarians get to decide what labels to stick on people who don’t comply with their wishes.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

"...but I’m going to guess that only the authoritarians get to decide what labels to stick on people who don’t comply with their wishes."

That is the meaning and nature of "Authority". And, when the natural tendency of SOME Humans to question the habitual dishonesty and incongruency of AUTHORITY manifests itself, those people are made out to be 'deviants' of some sort who should be mindlessly shunned by the 'good' people who, despite knowing little or nothing about whatever it is, and despite the clear evidence of their own eyes and experience, 'believe' everything AUTHORITY tells them. In fact, the VERY 'good' people will trumpet the lies as if they were AUTHORITY itself forgetting that, in the Western World, AUTHORITY almost always means 'they who profit from AUTHORITY'. As one moves on through the short span of Human Life, a person who questions never quite gets used to how easy it is for AUTHORITY to fool people whose greatest fear appears to be seeming 'deviant' in some way, in ANY way. This is just a very old trick of religion and the word 'heretic', here, fully incorporated into the nuance of "anti-vaxxer". And the fire-stake is never far away...

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

No, in fact I have insistently pushed vaccines to my parents who completely lost any trust in public health, and did became kind of anti-vaxxers for covid-19.

But that doesn't stop people from saying I am when I criticize the lack of evidence for masking, when I criticize "covid measures" that are more about showing that you are doing something than actually doing something, like the acrylic boards there are everywhere, or even worse, when I criticize things like vaccine mandates.

Before 2021, anti-vaxxers where people who were against vaccination in general.

But now, if you criticize policy broadly around vaccines or covid policy, not vaccines themselves, you are still called an anti-vaxxer by many, even if that's not what the word actually means, rending the word rather useless lately.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Am I an anti vaxxer? No

Will I get vaccinated? Only if I need to make an emergency trip back home. And only Novavax.

If you want your mRNA, you can have your mRNA.

If your old, obese, diabetic, or have some other serious health problem, get it.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

COVID-19: Are you an anti-vaxxer?

Undefined term.

Regardless, 1 or 2 might be enough depending on the person. 3 or 4 are even being rejected by medical professionals in the US. Although a certain percentage is waiting for the bivalent vax.

The current best available evidence is that vaccines do reduce the transmission and that is still true after Omicron became prevalent

The best way to prevent transmission is not to become infected in the first place, according to every medical professional in the world.

Has anyone else noticed how often anti-vaccination types have very predictable views about unrelated matters such as climate change, election integrity in the US and the like?

No, in fact, it is a group of non-US citizens who are so over-focused on those issues of which they only have a remedial understanding.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Anti-vaxxer" is a term invented in a Big Pharma marketing department

Nope it was actually started by reporters decades ago when they shortened the "anti vaccination coalition" a group of people that refused to accept that their child's Autism was just a sad fact of nature in the same way cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, etc..are.

They decided it had to be something else, no way could it be their own genetics.

"My son/daughter was perfectly normal until the vaccine" as if these geniuses could tell,

As someone with ASD, a daughter with ASD and other family members from generations like myself pre vaccine this was obviously a false conclusion.

But to this day people need to blame someone why not "big pharma".

So it was print media in order to shorten articles and save space the coined the term.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Here is the thing that I use to define an anti vaxxer.

If they come out saying they aren't and then rant on that the Covid vaccine was created too fast, the technology too new, and then rant on how previous vaccines took decades to develop, then they are probably anti vaxxers trying to justify being anti vaxxer.

Because how a vaccine was developed in the 1950s 60s 70s and the technology available to are very different.

In the 50s,60s even 70s my congenital heart defect was fatal technology advanced and I am alive as are my siblings with the same defect, but try telling that to an anti vaxxer and they will say off hand these are not the same and that vaccines still should take decades to develop.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

If your old, obese, diabetic, or have some other serious health problem, get it.

If you don't have an specific contraindication against the vaccine get it, it can be proved objectively to reduce the risk even for young healthy people.

The best way to prevent transmission is not to become infected in the first place, according to every medical professional in the world.

You keep mentioning it, and then never producing those supposed experts that only you can see, that is not a real argument.

What the experts have said is actually the best option against the pandemic is the vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/vaccine-benefits.html

4 ( +12 / -8 )

No, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm just a human.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

This is a dumb question because "anti-vaxxer" is an insult used against anyone who (in regards to the Covid vaccine alone):

Acknowledges vaccine injuries

Doesn't personally want the vaccine

Is interested in potential side effects

Questions the lack of trial data

Supports the freedom to choose

It's not something people identify with themselves, because it's worded as a dishonest attack on people, pretending they hate all vaccines and want them banned.

I am all 5 of those things, but I am not an "anti-vaxxer". There are vaccinated people who're called "anti-vaxxer" including the inventor of the mRNA technology. So your poll is not going to get accurate results.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

I'm against using the covid vaccine as a precondition to participating in daily life, which includes getting a job, travelling, visiting relatives wherever they may be,, going to school or university on site, and so on.

If people want to take it, that's up to them, but they should ensure they give informed consent before taking it.

That doesn't make me anti-vax, it's just common sense.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Moreover, antivacvine people have hi education but only see pieces of the puzzle that match their wishes and thinking

There is no evidence that people that belong to antivaxxer groups have high education, this myth comes from a report of a social media poll, but since it had completely uncontrolled answers the only thing it proves is that people that reject vaccines are more likely to say they have higher education (even if they don't).

In reality vaccine hesitancy has been correlated in several studies to people with lower levels of education.

This is a dumb question because "anti-vaxxer" is an insult used against anyone who (in regards to the Covid vaccine alone):

Acknowledges vaccine injuries

Doesn't personally want the vaccine

Is interested in potential side effects

Questions the lack of trial data

Except for the second and last part that includes well respected professionals and experts that are never get called antivaxxers, in fact this is a requirement for people to work improving vaccines.

Antivaxxer would be the person that not only do not want to be vaccinated, but also spread false and misleading information to justify this decision as if it was supported by evidence, when in reality it is not.

For example, people that understand how safety and efficacy are investigated give no importance to details of a few thousand people that participated on the trials because it is very easy to see the data collected and analyzed by experts from all over the world about literally billions of people that have been vaccinated.

But antivaxxers will try to hide this fact and pretend any detail from a tiny group of people somehow is more important than the data from most of the population of the world, which is obviously not true.

Antivaxxers are not just choosing not to be vaccinated, they are trying to mislead others to do the same using false information to pretend this is the best choice even when it can be proved the opposite.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

No, I'm fully vaccinated, as is my wife. But we still haven't gotten our 4-year old vaccinated. He's already had Covid. I'm waiting to see if there are any issues for the kids his age who are being vaccinated now. I'm in no hurry. Statistically he's in more danger riding in the car to the doctor's office to get vaccinated than he is in danger of dying from Covid.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

If you don't have an specific contraindication against the vaccine get it, it can be proved objectively to reduce the risk even for young healthy people.

Are you also allowing people to value the risks like myocarditis and pericarditis in young males with mRNA vaccines and Novavax, or are those people still anti-vaxxers if they do not want to take that risk?

Usually the answer you get there is something along the lines that the risk of Covid is worse, but it is not always the case, specially in young people who are the people most at risk of adverse reactions for these vaccines.

The logical thing to do, if you really wanted to get as many people vaccinated as posible, and you do not want to cause unnecessary warm, would be to change the type of vaccine that is given to these groups, for example, not allowing mRNA vaccines for young people, and giving them AstraZeneca or Jensen, but I'm sure even if I say this, which is what some countries have actually done just to not put at some at unnecessary risks, I usually still get called anti-vaxxer.

The thinking around everything and anything that has to do with covid-related measures is so dogmatic and rigid, in which you are not allowed to say anything outside of what is the orthodoxy, that really has become proto-religious to be honest, specially the type of vitriol and anger you get just by saying something that is even slightly heterodox.

And it is because of that why the actual anti-vaxxer has become way bigger and stronger than ever before. People who are not anti-vaxxers, just have some doubts, have concerns or anything along those lines get called anti-vaxxers, insulted, and treated as sub-humans, they are just going to join the opposite side, of course.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Are you also allowing people to value the risks like myocarditis and pericarditis in young males with mRNA vaccines and Novavax, or are those people still anti-vaxxers if they do not want to take that risk?

People would be antivaxxers if they misrepresented that risk as anything different from what is has been proved, a tiny fraction of the risk that comes from not being vaccinated.

but it is not always the case, specially in young people who are the people most at risk of adverse reactions for these vaccines.

There is no age segment where this is true, the risk is much higher for all ages from COVID than from the vaccines, and by several orders of magnitude.

Opting between vaccines is too obviously not a reason being used to call people antivaxxers, irrationally exposing yourself and others to unjustified higher risk by rejecting all and every vaccine is.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I am an anti Covid vaxxer due to their poor efficacy, and lack of long term side effects due to completely new type ie mRNA and the mildness of Covid for most people. I am fully vaccinated for illnesses I consider actually wothwhile being vaccinated for...

The use of anti vaxxer was a stupid black and white term that the media and Govts picked up on to try and coerce more people to get vaccinated during the covid epidemic. In reality most people who were against vaccination for covid are not against vaccination per se!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I am an anti Covid vaxxer due to their poor efficacy, and lack of long term side effects due to completely new type ie mRNA and the mildness of Covid for most people.

The vaccines are very effective according to the available evidence, so this is not a valid argument, the lack of long term studies actually supports more the vaccination than the refusal, because even without them covid is already correlated with more health problems than any of the vaccines, and the list keeps growing. And as long as the vaccine reduces the risk from covid even for young healthy people it is not a rational choice to prefer to run the higher risks.

Antivaxxer is a term used to call the extremists that routinely use false information and invalid arguments to try to convince people not to get a safe and effective vaccine that will reduce the risk for their health. Being against vaccination for invalid reasons and trying to mislead other people to follow the same mistake is what is being criticized by the term.

Statistically he's in more danger riding in the car to the doctor's office to get vaccinated than he is in danger of dying from Covid.

Dying is not the only negative consequence for children, a week in the ICU is a terrible experience that can have a permanent effect on the health of any child for example, so it is perfectly valid to do something that have showed beyond any reasonable doubt to reduce the risk of these complications (and death). This reduction of risk also applies to people that have been previously infected, specially now that omicron variants have increased the ratio of reinfections, that sometimes end up being much more serious than the first.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

People would be antivaxxers if they misrepresented that risk as anything different from what is has been proved, a tiny fraction of the risk that comes from not being vaccinated.

No one has said it isn't a small fraction, and that it isn't rare. In fact, that is part of the risk valuation that people need to take into account. What I'm talking about is that people do not want to even acknowledge that there is actually an elevated Myocarditis risk, especially for young men.

Also, it has been very upsetting seeing some of these public health people trying to brush away Myocarditis as "nothing really serious", even when most of these cases end up in the hospital.

There is no age segment where this is true, the risk is much higher for all ages from COVID than from the vaccines, and by several orders of magnitude.

I don't know how you can say this for young men, which have one of the lowest risk of bad covid-19 outcomes, tbh, specially when there are safer alternatives that would completely eliminate any myocarditis and pericarditis risk these young populations have.

Opting between vaccines is too obviously not a reason being used to call people antivaxxers, irrationally exposing yourself and others to unjustified higher risk by rejecting all and every vaccine is.

Aggressive and dismissive responses to people with real concerns, calling them antivaxxers for not wanting to put themselves to the, even if very small, risk of myocarditis, is what really push people into transforming into antivaxxers.

It should be the job of public health to understand that people have different risk assessments and priorities, and try to reach a compromise that is better for their health, but with covid-19 related stuff, these people get the bottom of the stick and are treated beyond poorly.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

No one has said it isn't a small fraction

I answered your question on a clear example what would be an antivaxxer, if according to you nobody has said that (even when people actually have said so even here) that means according to you nobody is validly called an antivaxxer for misrepresenting the complications.

What I'm talking about is that people do not want to even acknowledge that there is actually an elevated Myocarditis risk, especially for young men.

Elevated compared with a world without covid (or when comparing between vaccines) yes, but not compared with not vaccinating.

Also, it has been very upsetting seeing some of these public health people trying to brush away Myocarditis as "nothing really serious", even when most of these cases end up in the hospital.

The cases are not serious when compared with those presented by unvaccinated people because of contracting covid, both in total number of people affected and the seriousness of the problem being presented. There have been plenty of experts and doctors warning about myocarditis and how it is something that should be kept in mind even if the cases are mostly quickly solved with simple treatment. These many experts and doctors are not called antivaxxers for doing it.

I don't know how you can say this for young men, which have one of the lowest risk of bad covid-19 outcomes, tbh, specially when there are safer alternatives that would completely eliminate any myocarditis and pericarditis risk these young populations have.

This should be easy, this is what the data shows, no vaccine is even close to produce as much cardiac problems as the infection, so any of the approved vaccines for this age group means a reduction of the risk compared with not vaccinating, that some vaccines are safer than others do not mean the "less safe" vaccines are more risky than the infection.

There is no data that points to the vaccines producing risk to the levels covid do.

Aggressive and dismissive responses to people with real concerns, calling them antivaxxers for not wanting to put themselves to the, even if very small, risk of myocarditis, is what really push people into transforming into antivaxxers.

So demonstrate this is common for people that choose one vaccine over another, because that is what you are quoting in your response. This is like saying people are being called antivaxxers for delaying vaccination of their children for one day because of convenience. That would be a serious problem, but it is actually happening? I have seen no evidence for this.

It should be the job of public health to understand that people have different risk assessments and priorities, and try to reach a compromise that is better for their health, but with covid-19 related stuff, these people get the bottom of the stick and are treated beyond poorly.

That is what is happening, you just don't want to recognize it and exaggerate the reaction against actual, true antivaxxers as if it included everybody that make a valid point of choosing between vaccines for example, something for which you have produced no evidence.

One thing is to say "I will wait a year before vaccinating my child to see if a better vaccine comes out" (which is an irrational position to take, since it is guaranteed to expose the child to higher risks). Another is to say "I choose vaccine A instead of B for my child at the recommendation of my doctor" (that is not being considered an example of an antivaxxer by anybody).

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Elevated compared with a world without covid (or when comparing between vaccines) yes, but not compared with not vaccinating.

That's actually incorrect. That idea that the incidence of Myocarditis is higher with covid than with vaccines is a misinterpretation of a Nature paper that wasn't stratified by age, but the idea spread as gospel in the net.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myocarditis-stratified

The risk of young men developing myocarditis from mRNA vaccines compared with getting covid 19 is way higher.

The cases are not serious when compared with those presented by unvaccinated people because of contracting covid

Once again, you are comparing apples with oranges. We are talking about people at the least risk of developing any problems because of covid. If you are at risk, then yes, it would make all of the sense in the world, so it is a case by case thing, not a one size fit all policy which have been extremely popular in the covid-19 policy groups.

So demonstrate this is common for people that choose one vaccine over another, because that is what you are quoting in your response.

Funny that the guy who never gives any sources for anything he says, always saying thing like "experts say" asks for sources of attitudes of people, which is way more difficult and abstract to quantify.

Me, my parents, and many friends have been called antivaxx at some point for something that has absolutely nothing to do with being antivaxx. In the case of my parents, their doctor told them they were antivaxx that for showing concerns over being a new vaccine, they actually got very mad about that, and then refused to take any vaccine for a long time because they couldn't trust someone who would told them they were basically make fun of them for having concerns.

It has been a pain in the ass trying to change their mind.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The risk of young men developing myocarditis from mRNA vaccines compared with getting covid 19 is way higher.

Yes, and getting the vaccine does not prevent one from then getting infection-caused myocarditis...

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

That's actually incorrect. That idea that the incidence of Myocarditis is higher with covid than with vaccines is a misinterpretation of a Nature paper that wasn't stratified by age, but the idea spread as gospel in the net.

Thinking that the determination of risk comes from one single source is something that should be obviously invalid. There have been many other reports that clearly show covid is several orders of magnitude more likely to produce myocarditis than any vaccine.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v2

*Conclusions** Myocarditis (or pericarditis or myopericarditis) from primary COVID19 infection occurred at a rate as high as 450 per million in young males. Young males infected with the virus are up 6 times more likely to develop myocarditis as those who have received the vaccine*

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

The risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection

Myocardial problems are a well characterized complication of covid, specially on children, and described as having a much higher incidence than any report on vaccines

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34573988/

So no, since the scientific and medical consensus that vaccines reduce the risk of cardiac problems is not based on any single study.

Once again, you are comparing apples with oranges

Not at all, there is risk of cardiac problems with the vaccines, and there is risk of cardiac problems without the vaccines which is much higher, unless you can prove children are not at risk of infection (something that obviously is impossible in Japan) then you have to accept this risk in the comparison. Pretending the world already controlled covid and therefore the vaccines represent a higher risk is completely invalid. Children in countries like Japan are at a very high risk of infection, so their risk of myocarditis is higher than if vaccinated.

Funny that the guy who never gives any sources for anything he says, always saying thing like "experts say" asks for sources of attitudes of people, which is way more difficult and abstract to quantify.

When you have the scientific and medical consensus about something it is because they are doing their jobs, you are not refuting what some nameless person on the internet is saying but what many well recognized and respected institutions of the world openly promote. And that is that vaccines are safer for children than not vaccinating. You apparently think you are better than them at examining the scientific evidence, but that is not the case.

If you think something is unjustified scientifically you can ask any time for a source, most people that already know they are wrong (being against the scientific consensus is a very big hint at this) don't ask for sources because they know they exist.

Me, my parents, and many friends have been called antivaxx at some point for something that has absolutely nothing to do with being antivaxx. 

Hearsay does not prove this is in any way a common problem. What if someone comes and say all their friend were called antivaxxers for eating vegetables? does that prove this is something common? a problem that needs to be addressed? I gave very clear examples of how experts and doctors have regularly said thing you think would make them be qualified as antivaxxers, but they are not. That is a much stronger argument to demonstrate this is not the case.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Yes, and getting the vaccine does not prevent one from then getting infection-caused myocarditis...

Still false, and the vaccine do reduce the risk very importantly. So it is valid to say it prevents the problem, because that is how the word is used in medicine.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I have had three jabs and was offered a fourth .

Declined on the basis of short research saying minimal advantage for otherwise healthy people.

Still waiting on the man boob vaccine .

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What's an "anti-vaxxer"? There seem to be different definitions, not all of which are accurate.

For example, people like me -- who feel that getting vaccinated should be a voluntary decision, but shouldn't be mandated or coerced in any way -- are sometimes classified as "anti-vaxxers." Which is dumb.

To sensible people, an anti-vaxxer is someone who thinks that no one should get a COVID vaccination.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but at least anti-vaxxers have no control over your life. If you want to get vaccinated and an anti-vaxxer tries to persuade you not to, you can safely ignore him or her.

Doesn't work the other way around, though. The vaccine-mandate fans want to take away your job, ban you from public transport, and basically treat you like a pariah if you don't take the jab.

To me, that's far more insidious than being an anti-vaxxer, who again has no control over you.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There is a personal benefit to vaccination, especially for older or more at-risk people. That benefit is the lessening of chances of serious illness or death.

But there is no social benefit. A social benefit of a vaccine is to prevent a particular virus' transmission and/or spread. The COVID vaccines don't do that. Not nearly well enough, anyway.

There has to be a social benefit to mandating a vaccine -- specifically, that it largely prevents the transmission or spread of a given virus. With vaccines for other diseases, that social benefit exists. But not for COVID.

Thus, there is no justification for mandating or requiring COVID vaccines -- at least not yet, not until a vaccine is developed that actually stops COVID's transmission and spread.

For the time being, there is only a personal benefit -- which means it should be optional, but not required.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@Hakman,

Your distinction between personal and social benefits is interesting, and important, I think.

You say there is no social benefit of the Covid vaccines. But going back to the start of the Covid outbreak, in many countries there was a huge number of hospitalizations which caused a backlog in regular treatment. That backlog still exists. I understand the current variants are generally not so severe as the original, but I also understand that the unvaccinated form proportionally far more of current serious cases than vaccinated people. Does that not class as a social benefit from vaccination?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Not only am I not anti-vaccination, I volunteered for the first Pfizer Covid vaccine trial and received the first of the vaccine. Today triple vaccinated at age 67 and another co-morbidity.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Thinking that the determination of risk comes from one single source is something that should be obviously invalid.

Never said that

Thinking that the determination of risk comes from one single source is something that should be obviously invalid.

There really haven't been. There have been a couple of preprints that claim this, but the data they use is usually not that robust, and many of them, like the one you presented, were done before we actually knew exactly how the health signal worked, and we had actual numbers of the rate of incidence.

The study you gave didn't actually compared the vaccination and infection with similar groups, it basically calculated the risk of myocarditis from some cohort they created, and compared it with "existing reports", and the reports they are talking about, are early reports back in July of 2021.

So no, you cannot compare a small preprint from back in 2021, before we knew what we know about myocarditis for mRNA vaccines, that doesn't even do the do diligence of having similar groups of vaccinated vs infected patients, with a very big study published in Nature magazine in 2022 that actually tries to answer this question by comparing actual groups together, and not just "reports".

Myocardial problems are a well characterized complication of covid, specially on children, and described as having a much higher incidence than any report on vaccines

It is not, since complications in children from a SARS-CoV-2 infection are actually pretty rare.

Not to mention that the report you posted was about older adults, not children or young adults.

risk of cardiac problems without the vaccines which is much higher, unless you can prove children are not at risk of infection

What are you even talking about? Are you trying to imply that if someone gets infected, even if they are asymptomatic, they are at the same risk of developing myocarditis than people who get a serious infection? Because that's just not supported by any data.

Once again, this question has already been researched, and the answer is, the very low risk of vaccination with mRNA vaccine, SPECIALLY Moderna shot 2, is higher than the also very low incidence of myocarditis in children.

I don't even understand why people like you want to fight that. I mean, lets asume that somehow, even though the data doesn't support this, that you are right, and children not vaccinated are at a higher risk of myocarditis than those vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, it is still irrelevant, because I'm not suggesting that those children shouldn't get vaccinated at all, I'm saying that they should get a vaccine that doesn't have that risk at all, so I'm actually trying to eliminate completely the risk of myocarditis, WITH vaccination.

But that's the thing here, you are fighting an strawman of an argument I'm not even doing. In the end, it is better to have interventions that have the lesser risk, I don't understand why saying that get some people so defensive.

When you have the scientific and medical consensus about something it is because they are doing their jobs, you are not refuting what some nameless person on the internet is saying but what many well recognized and respected institutions of the world openly promote

Dude, you always talk as if you are talking consensus, and you almost always fail to show that is actually the consensus of anything. I mean, you are claiming that the consensus is that the risk of myocarditis is lower for young adults who get an mRNA vaccine, than those who get infected.

It is not, and that's why some countries in Europe have actually restricted the use of mRNA vaccines, specially moderna, for young males.

The consensus right now on the matter is more on the lines of "it is a very small risk, so it doesn't matter". I mostly agree with it, but I do think that lowering an unnecessary risk makes more sense than just keeping it because "it is low".

Hearsay does not prove this is in any way a common problem.

Nope, it doesn't, and I wasn't trying to prove that it was a common problem, but that it is an actual problem, even if it is uncommon, but you are too focused in winning some absurd and heuristic argument. Once again, what exactly is the benefit of insulting and treating people as the pest because they have medical concerns?

Why are you even trying to fight that point?

My only guess, and this, once again, I have no evidence of it because it is my personal opinion, which most of your comments also are, even when you claim you represent "the consensus", is that you like people getting insulted if they say something you find ridiculous, dumb, or whatever you think gives you the right to insult others.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

It's good to realize that the anti-vaxer losers are only a small minority of people who don't like science or education and live in middle ages.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

I'm not anti-vaccines, but I haven't had any of these Covid vaccines. Being healthy, I chose to avoid these vaccines which were rushed out without sufficient testing.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I'm an anti anti-vaxxer.

I'm an anti anti anti-vaxxer. If you got the vax, stop worrying about people who choose not to get it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I can’t believe people are still giving this debate energy ….

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Anti all the way. Just chucked the 2nd notice I got in the mail begging me to take the 3rd shot. Just leave me alone already!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I'm not anti vaccine (Covid and others). I've had some myself and am glad they are available. I'm anti vaccine coercion and pro choice.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

By the way 'anti-vaxxer' has become a derogatory label.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Antivaxxer has always been a derogatory label for people that act illogically with respect to vaccines.

If the WHO CDC NHS and three bunches of other places say vaccinating kids is good and better for them while a guy believes they are all wrong because something he read on a blog then he deserve to be called with derogatory labels.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

That's the stupid thing about those who label people who don't want the Covid vaccine as anti vaxxers, these for the most part aren't people who are against all vaccines just the rushed mRNA technology that has never been used before with no long term health effect data to speak of. Yet the people who think of themselves as on the right side of this debate continually try to label them as stupid selfish science sceptics. Ludicrous herd behaviour from those who are more worried about fitting in than finding the truth!

A bit like the opioid problems in the US... are you really going to trust people who are prescribing addictive drugs because they have been incentivised by the pharmaceutical companies???

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

That's the stupid thing about those who label people who don't want the Covid vaccine as anti vaxxers, these for the most part aren't people who are against all vaccines just the rushed mRNA technology that has never been used before with no long term health effect data to speak of.

If people use false or invalid reasons to reject a vaccine that has demonstrated to be safe and effective then it is not unexpected for them to be considered antivaxxers, their decision is still irrational.

The vaccines were not rushed, their clinical trials were completely on par with other vaccines already used, and the technology of mRNA has been used in humans for decades. Which is a much longer time to have data about it than what we have about covid. The infection is the one for which more and more health risks are being identified, not the vaccines.

Ludicrous herd behaviour from those who are more worried about fitting in than finding the truth!

You could prove people wrong by using scientific arguments, the open opinion of institutions of science or medicine that support your personal belief, but you don't because there is none. That is the reality of opposing the covid vaccines.

are you really going to trust people who are prescribing addictive drugs because they have been incentivised by the pharmaceutical companies???

You mean the whole scientific and medical consensus of the world? the US opioid problem happened under heavy criticism of experts of many other countries that quickly reacted against the exaggerated use, even when according to you they are also controlled by companies, this obviously refutes your global conspiracy theory to explain why the experts do not support what you think.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites