Remix.run Logo
chris_wot 5 days ago

Amazing how badly the United States is regressing. Literally measles is making a comeback due to idiots like RFK.

_moof 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

And even before the antivax nutters here went from fringe to a significant social force, HPV vaccines were already being decried for "promoting casual sex." Our culture is so broken in so many ways.

Fomite 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

"Why haven't you cured cancer yet?"

"We have a vaccine to prevent some very serious cancers."

"But it might turn my daughter into a hussy."

tialaramex 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Also, forget "She might die of cancer" just exactly how bad is it if your daughter is a whore ? What else are we ruling out, independent business owner, politician ?

What happened to "I just want my children to be happy" ?

Fomite 4 days ago | parent [-]

I always thought "Cervical cancer is a just punishment for my daughter's mistakes" (leaving aside if it is a mistake) was horrific.

Spivak 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Of course, I for sure held off on having casual unprotected sex with multiple partners as a teenager because I was worried about contracting HPV, but thanks to Gardasil my slut era was legendary and enduring.

Fomite 4 days ago | parent [-]

Teenagers are notorious for making decisions based on consequences that are decades away from manifesting.

Spivak 4 days ago | parent [-]

I can't tell if you think what I said was serious, I tried to hard to convey the /s.

fknorangesite 4 days ago | parent [-]

Don't worry; it was very obvious.

8note 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"you never want grandchildren?"

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
inglor_cz 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is now a global problem. The guy who started it, Andrew Wakefield, is British, and we have long had antivaxxers in Europe too.

Prior to Covid, the antivaxx scene was vaguely left-and-green oriented, biomoms, vegans and other "very natural" people; you would expect them to vote for Greens or even more alternative parties. This changed abruptly and now the antivaxx scene is mostly rightwing, but the common base is still the same distrust.

I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors.

8note 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

i dont think its nearly so transparent. its easy to be recommended and read some viewpoints, but very technical and hard to be recommended others.

with radical information transparency, id expect both views to be equally easy to parse and to be recommended both, in which case the choice would be obvious to everyone, or at least they could very well describe their risk tolerance to different risks, or laziness, for why they made a certain choice.

i expect im not up to date on all the vaccines i should be, but its on laziness rather than gwtting bad information. ...also a lack of information on which ones i should have.

squigz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I wonder if this is the price we pay for radical informational transparency. Nowadays, democratic countries with reasonable freedom of press cannot really prevent their own fuckups from surfacing in the worst possible way. Some people react by complete rejection of anything that comes from "official" channels and become ripe for manipulation from other actors.

Such people have always existed, unfortunately. I don't think it's a result of anything particularly new.

inglor_cz 4 days ago | parent [-]

The people existed, but a portable always-running conveyor belt of bad news that is addictive enough to make them glued to the screen did not.

In the 1990s, you had maybe 15 minutes a day on average to consume news, either from a paper newspaper, or from an evening TV relation. Now, quite a lot of people spend 20 times as much time doomscrolling. Of course the impact will be much more massive.

juliendorra 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think it’s a myth that people consumed less information just a few decades ago. Remember that newspapers used to have at least two daily editions (morning and afternoon). And of course radio has had continuous news flashes for a century.

This is similar to the myth that people communicated less before the messaging apps: they were glued to their phone for hours, sent telegrams and even sent very short letters (delivered same day!) to just say "thanks for the lunch that was very nice" (I found some in my grand-parents’s papers)

Our (social) communication appetite has always been quite insatiable.

squigz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, but this implies the only source of "manipulation from other actors" is the news, media, or government. Churches, cults, and just other ignorant people existed to cause distrust in authority.

brewdad 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Chatty Kathy could only share her moonbat ideas with a couple people at a time. Now she has a TikTok and the ability to go viral. Even folks sharing her video to mock it are spreading her message.

mrguyorama 4 days ago | parent [-]

And now there is code that says "This video is doing really well, I'm going to put it in front of every single human being I can"

Your local crazy used to get patronizing nods. Now they get 100 million views.

macintux 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Those organizations didn't have instantaneous global reach. Now everyone does.

squigz 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not denying that there's a difference - obviously technology has enabled the scale of things to grow quite a bit, both good and bad - but it's beside my point, which is that, given that it's not a new phenomenon, blaming it on technology seems doomed to failure. Without solving for the underlying issues, people will continue to mistrust authority, whether they're being told to by news or their neighbor.

vladms 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Mistrusting authority might be good. What I see happening is in fact trusting too much into "authority" without penalizing it for inconsistencies - I would call it more like blind faith. I feel this happens because it makes it easier than questioning everything you hear and deciding for yourself, and accepting you might be wrong, or that the information is unknown. People want a savior and a simple solution!

Nevermark 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> blaming it on technology seems doomed to failure

Recognizing that technology is now so convenient, psychology manipulative, and operates in a furiously fast feedback evolutionary regime, and that it has radically increased the spread of cultural irrationality isn't about "blame" in a judgy moral way.

It is about characterizing major factors behind the problem.

The enormous amount of near instant coordinated (by intention or dynamic), interactive misinformation, made so conveniently available that large percentages of the population routinely and enthusiastically expose themselves to it, participate in reinforcing it, throughout their typical day, is very new.

> "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." -- James Baldwin

brewdad 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People have had a mistrust in authority as far back as when nomadic tribes were the norm but somebody had to decide where to hunt or gather that day or to move on. Good luck changing human nature.

bbarnett 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a little like saying nuclear bombs aren't a technology, but a human problem. And you bet, they sure are, but it's a lot harder to wipe out everyone, if the nutjobs in your community just have a pointed stick.

And 'nutjobs' may be pejorative, but I'll hold on to it as apt. At the same time I assign no blame, for it is an issue of cognition. The best way I can describe it is, intelligence is not a single factor. And it's not even a few factors. It's a massive bar graph, with 1000s upon 1000s of bars, each delineating a different aspect of intelligence.

A lucky few may score high on all those bars, yet even the most intelligent of us tend to score high on only some of those bars. And my point is, I've seen people immensely intelligent on some of those bars, yet astonishingly deficient on others.

We love to make fun of politicians, so I'll use one as an example here. Politicians tend to be incredibly personable, and very difficult to dislike in person. They exude congeniality, they read you like a book, and can often orate your wallet completely out of your pocket, and you'll thank them for it too. It's how they managed to go so far politically, yet some of these same politicians have severe and massive deficiencies in cognition.

Back to the pointed sticks, and the nutjobs who would wield them pre-tech, these people are simply as they are. Yet in the past, you'd see one nutjob in a community, and they'd be surrounded by normalcy, it would temper them, mitigate their effect, sand off their edges so to speak.

Yet as our communities grew in size and scope, these individuals could finally meet more of their ilk. A large city might have dozens of them, larger still cities hundreds, and they'd meet up. And as technology grew, and access to the printing press become possible for all, and for less and less cost, these same people could then send their madness in newsletter form to even those small communities where maybe only one nutjob existed.

But those people needed to still connect in some way. Maybe through an ad in the back of a magazine, or something akin yet far less gated by 'normals'.

Yet today? Now? Algorithms match you up with all those nutjobs. Where before you might live in isolation, and the friends you had might scoff at that weird idea you have, now you've found a community of hundreds, or thousands just like you! And they all affirm your madness, they pat you on the back, they congratulate you for seeing the light! They whisper all those sweet nothings into your ear, all those secret things you knew were true, and they listen to all you say on the subject.

For the first time in your life you have a home, a community, and before TikTok, or some weird forum, it would have never all been possible. You'd have been isolated, even in the age of magazines, and print, for you'd have never found one another.

And worse, now profit enters the system. Those who would steal, or thieve, or build bridges with sub-standard concrete for profit, or anything for money regardless of cost to us all, appear on this scene. They see those nutjobs, and they seek to profit from them. They own youtube, or tiktok channels, and often do not believe in anything but profit. They'll tell you anything you want to hear, espouse any crazy idea, and like that bridge built with substandard concrete, they'll take the money and run as society collapses around them.

This profit motive was always there, see cults. Yet the reach and scope was just not what it is today, there is so much more range given to a single person now.

SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Back then we had the National Enquirer and Weekly World News and similar for all the obscure conspiracy news you wanted.

inglor_cz 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think that the social media is much more capable of turning various fence sitters and borderline cases into full blown conspiracy believers.

Unlike the paper products, which just lie around when not actively seeked for, the algorithms determining your feed have a lot more agency.

p1dda 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That was the most ignorant comment I have seen on this matter. Nothing about vaccines, just attacks on the people questioning vaccine safety. If you truly believe all vaccines are completely safe I have a bridge to sell to you.

inglor_cz 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I don't believe that any medication is completely safe, but I am fed up with all the "Gates puts 5G chips in vacciness in order to sterilize humanity" kooks who are the flag-bearers of the entire movement, and I am also fed up with the somewhat less crazy people marching behind them, who nevertheless cling to the long discredited Wakefield paper and scream 'autism, autism!'

The fraudulent Wakefield paper may be one of the most destructive pieces of information released upon mankind.

whatevaa 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If you trully believe all vaccines are completely unsafe I have a different bridge to sell you.

Measles and polio are terrible diseases which were almost eradicated with vaccines. We are not talking about covid.

JumpCrisscross 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe we’re seeing selection pressure against those prone to addictive cycles of social-media influenced misinformation?

Like, anti-vaxers died at higher rates in Covid [1]. This will continue across disease outbreaks, particularly ones for which we have near-comprehensive vaccines like measles. And given antivax sensibility is heritable (through parenting, not genes), one would expect this to stabilize the population over several generations to one that doesn’t have this defect.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10123459/

braincat31415 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The article you are referencing is based on CDC data which is not matched by a more complete data maintained by UKHSA. I think Norman Fenton commented on that at some point. I'd be careful when taking its conclusions at a face value. I actually went through that paper and looked at the UKHSA data back in 2023. And the government was spreading a lot of BS, too. I'll let the "CDC can do no wrong" crowd pile up.

boxerab 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

very few people are against vaccines per se, they are just against *unsafe* vaccines. "anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss dissident without having to deal with their arguments i.e an ad hominem. As an analogy, if I object to high levels of mercury in fish, am I anti-fish? or anti-poisonous-fish ?

kentm 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people that are against "unsafe" vaccines do not do the proper research to determine whether a vaccine is actually safe. These people claim that safe vaccines, like the COVID shots, are actually unsafe because they googled up some claims that were not rigorously researched or reviewed.

I had seen attempts to engage with these arguments in good faith. It was wasted effort.

dotnet00 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For just being "against *unsafe* vaccines" they sure tend to have some very weird ideas of what a safe vaccine is.

8note 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"unsafe" is a loaded term

in your fish analogy, you eat mecury directly, but wont eat fish that might have mercury.

the communicable disease is itself quite dangerous

boxerab 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think you missed the point. Granted the disease is dangerous, but what if the cure is worse ? If we don't know this is true, we ought to assume the risk outweighs the benefits until PROVEN otherwise- that is the precautionary principle. As an analogy take Vioxx, a headache remedy that caused thousands of heart attacks. Merck the manufacturer started an advertising campaign for the drug AFTER the learned it was killing people - they were ultimately fined 4.5 billion.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp048286

The docket shows us that pharmaceutical companies are serial felons who have paid some of the largest fines in history for lying about their products. It is prudent to be skeptical until proven otherwise.

braincat31415 4 days ago | parent [-]

I agree. Pfizer settled more than a few cases. When talking about a low probability but catastrophic event, the burden lies on the side of the vaccine manufacturer and a mandating agency (and not on the side of the consumer) to prove beyond any doubt that the treatment is safe. I doubt Pfizer has met that bar.

Edit: To all the pro-Pfizer downvoters, feel free to take some Zantac. You have learned nothing.

antonvs 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which vaccines that are widely used today do you believe are unsafe? And why do you believe they’re unsafe?

> “anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss [dissent]

No, it’s a term used to dismiss people who keep bringing up the same arguments that have been refuted over and over.

AdrianB1 4 days ago | parent [-]

All the brand new vaccines with no sufficient testing can be considered unsafe. I like vaccines in general (I am European, we have lots of free and mandatory vaccines as kids), but I don't like to be a test subject for brand new ones. Yes, someone needs to test new vaccines to gather data about safety, but some people are more risk adverse. I am a "take it later" guy.

antonvs 3 days ago | parent [-]

I specified "widely used", which effectively excludes brand-new vaccines.

I don't have any issue with what you're describing. The J&J COVID vaccine would be an example of caution being advisable, since you never know what unusual interactions (e.g. with blood clotting) might occur in a larger population than the safety studies looked at.

But that's not the usual definition of an anti-vaxxer.

Anti-vaxxers carry on about things like thimerasol which (1) were removed from most vaccines 25 years ago and (2) give you an exposure to mercury equivalent to eating something like a single can of tuna.

chris_wot 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We've been dealing with anti-vaxxers for years. I've yet to see an argument from one that holds any water.

delichon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> "anti-vax" is a term used to dismiss dissident without having to deal with their arguments i.e an ad hominem.

A slur.

skdhhdj 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

LorenPechtel 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Immigration has nothing to do with it.

Measles is highly infectious, you need a very high percentage of the population immune in order to maintain herd immunity. So long as you have herd immunity the only source of infection is travel--but note that this works both ways. It's much more likely to be Americans catching it while traveling than immigrants bringing it. They at least used to trace the original case in such outbreaks, it was normally someone who had been abroad.

We saw the same thing with Covid--quarantine against Chinese people, while ignoring Americans returning from the very same places even when they said they had symptoms. (And irrelevant besides, the strain from Europe quickly dominated.)

tchalla 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry, can you explain how this relates to immigration?

Fomite 4 days ago | parent [-]

Especially ironic given how hard a number of South American countries are having eliminating the MMR diseases due to import cases from Europe and the U.S.