Pro-Vaccination Efforts May Be Scaring Wary Parents From Shots 482
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Thomas Kienzle reports for the Associated Press on a study which found public health campaigns touting vaccines' effectiveness and debunking the links between autism and other health risks might actually be backfiring, and convincing parents to skip the shots for their kids. 'Corrections of misperceptions about controversial issues like vaccines may be counterproductive in some populations,' says Dr. Brendan Nyhan. 'The best response to false beliefs is not necessarily providing correct information.' In the study, researchers focused on the now-debunked idea that the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (or MMR) caused autism. Surveying 1,759 parents, researchers found that while they were able to teach parents that the vaccine and autism were not linked, parents who were surveyed who had initial reservations about vaccines said they were actually less likely to vaccinate their children after hearing the researchers messages. Researchers looked at four methods designed to counter the myth (PDF) that the MMR vaccine can cause autism. They gave people either information from health authorities about the lack of evidence for a connection, information about the danger of the three diseases the MMR vaccine protects against, pictures of children who had one of those three diseases, or a story about an infant who almost died from measles.
At the study's start, the group of parents who were most opposed to vaccination said that on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child against MMR was 70 percent. After these parents had been given information that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, they said, on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child was only 45 percent — even though they also said they were now less likely to believe the vaccine could cause autism. Vaccination rates are currently high, so it's important that any strategies should focus on retaining these numbers and not raise more concerns, tipping parents who are willing to vaccinate away from doing so. 'We shouldn't put too much weight on the idea that there's some magic message out there that will change people's minds.'"
At the study's start, the group of parents who were most opposed to vaccination said that on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child against MMR was 70 percent. After these parents had been given information that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, they said, on average, the chance they would vaccinate a future child was only 45 percent — even though they also said they were now less likely to believe the vaccine could cause autism. Vaccination rates are currently high, so it's important that any strategies should focus on retaining these numbers and not raise more concerns, tipping parents who are willing to vaccinate away from doing so. 'We shouldn't put too much weight on the idea that there's some magic message out there that will change people's minds.'"
You would hope (Score:5, Interesting)
This recessive gene would be removed from the gene pool in one or two iterations of viral infections.
Education (Score:2, Interesting)
People need to be educated in a general sense to evaluate this stuff rationally. If you take a bunch of uneducated redneck hicks and have an authority figure tell them how it should be they're going to be suspicious because they don't have the tools to evaluate the claims and for most of their life authority figures have FUCKED them.
Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Interesting)
That bit of information reduces the problem to a much, much easier one to deal with than the previous hypothesis of willful ignorance - These people just need us to give them a way to save face.
Disclaimer - I write what I write next as someone who loathes government intervention. But just make vaccinations mandatory. Simple as that. No more BS opting out on religious grounds, no more opting out because Jenny said not to, no more trusting in herd immunity while actively undermining it. Get your kids vaccinated, period, end of story; don't like it, too bad.
That way, no one needs to "back down" - Parents can gleefully shrug their shoulders, swear at Uncle Sam while quietly breathing a sigh of relief, and we can all move on as though none of this ever happened.
Yeah, but they are their own problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
They claim the skeptics are just crazy, but then things like this (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/02/the-return-of-whooping-cough.html ) happen.
I am not anti-vaccine, but I am cautious around people profess to "practice" on me and think everything can be solved with a pill or needle. For example, I think there is a problem with our healthcare system when we end up as a nation (USA) consuming 80% of all painkillers prescribed worldwide.
Re:And Who Didn't See This Coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes mockery is also required. Responding to lies with truth can easily create the impression of a debate of two respectable sides, when the more accurate perception is that one has arguments and the other has cheating and manipulation. In that situation, it's not enough to just point out the errors: They must be mocked without mercy to make it clear that the position is not only wrong, but so wrong as to be laughable and not worthy of any respect.
Re:You cannot UN-VACCINATE your child or pet (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, uhm. They're pretty fucking lethal and debilitating. One of my friends has a sibling who's been hospitalized for a big chunk of the last six months from whooping cough, which exists today only because of anti-vaccine nutjobs.
Re:Wrong, study shows disfavor with science. (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. They way I see it, you have a political party populated by folks who view reality as merely an opposing (and invalid) viewpoint.
Due to the US's 2-part system and the "if you're not for us, you must be against us" line of thinking, anyone who doesn't agree with the viewpoints of such a political must be part of the opposing side.
It's not the scientists that are politicizing science, it's the science-deniers.
Re:Solution - Face-saving way out (Score:5, Interesting)
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated and people who have immune system issues or allergies which mean they can't get the vaccines. These people are relying on all of us to be vaccinated for herd immunity to kick in. If one or two people don't vaccinate because "A friend said it causes autism", then honestly it's not a big deal. Herd immunity will remain in place. But when large amounts of people stop vaccinating because "Jenny McCarthy said it has toxins in it" (just before she got a Botox injection, mind you), herd immunity breaks down and those who rely on herd immunity suffer.
If not vaccinating only meant that the non-vaccinated got sick, I'd be against mandatory vaccinations and would instead just strongly urge people to do so. However, since one person's lack of vaccination can easily affect another person (or dozen people), vaccinations should be mandatory (with only health exemptions allowed).