Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

Template:Vital article

Template:WikiEd banner shell

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 16 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcguigan.m.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment (2)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Benjy Hall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving education for expecting parents

With recent outbreaks of Measles, vaccinations has become a hot topic in society, and should be discussed. Currently 91.9% of the United States population aged 19-35 months are vaccinated according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To reach Herd Immunity “is a form of indirect protection from infection disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not immune.” (Wikipedia, N.D.) as a society we must increase the percentage of children being immunized. Meissner, (2015) states “measles is one of the most transmissible infectious diseases; therefore, a high herds immunity threshold of approximately 95%.”

The U.S. needs to implement a large-scale education program that starts when expecting parents have initial contact with their doctors and follow the parents through post-partum pediatric visits. This will give expecting parents time to learn the positive effects of vaccinations on a society and allow doctors to educate and debunk the myths of vaccinations. Currently there is no system in place and typically the first point of contact with vaccinations is at the first pediatric visit where parents may or may not receive a pamphlet on vaccinations. This leaves parents to do their own research and can allow them to find misleading information. In recent studies, it was found that providing correct and positive information, their opinions on vaccinations changed. Of 15 studies evaluating the impact of educational information on parents’ attitudes toward vaccination, eight reported a statistically significant improvement says (Sadaf, Richards, Glanz, Salmon, & Omer, 2013)

By conducting education in early prenatal doctor visits, the negative view on vaccinations will decrease, which in turn, will increase the vaccination rate. Therfore, allowing the U.S. to reach the 95% herd immunity threshold that is needed to provide safety for the population that is unable to receive vaccinations and prevent future outbreaks.

References

• Meissner, C. (2015). Why is herd immunity so important? American Academy of Pediatrics.
• Sadaf, A., Richards, J. L., Glanz, J., Salmon, D. A., & Omer, S. B. (2013). A systematic review of interventions for reducing parental vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine, 4293-4304.

Wikipedia. (N.D.). Herd Immunity. Retrieved May 2019, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlson.eric38 (talk • contribs)

More hesitancy examples

Great article - thanks for the brilliant work. And folks, shouldn't there be more hesitancy articles in WP, like?:

• Eco mode car driving hesitancy
• Veggie-meat hesitancy
• Seat belt fastening hesitancy
• Death penalty execution hesitancy
• Central bank interest rate revival hesitancy

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy is a well established syndrome and is a commonly accepted name. If any of the other 'hesitancies' become well known then a Wiki page may well be appropriate. But to create a page because a disagreement could be given a similar label to an existing page would not be useful. Of the 5 suggested topics, only Seat Belt Hesitancy makes sense. There are people who, against the evidence, declare that seat belts put the user at risk of becoming trapped in an accident. That is analogous to Vaccine Hesitancy whereas choosing to meticulously drive at all times to conserve fuel or just driving normally is more about what people think is important. And that is completely different. OrewaTel (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:N. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

From the 315 references in this article, only 14 do actually use the term "vaccine hesitancy". So ok, the article may not be the best example, but certainly an interesting variant - inside WP itself - for: original research, fueled by - may we call it vaccine activism? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The previous title was "Vaccine controversies", it was changed per this discussion: Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism/Archive_3#Time_to_move. Btw, did you actually check the full text of all those 315 refs? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead paragraph states that the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy' is a catch-all name for several issues. These vary from ignorant, absolute anti-vaccination to honest, thoughtful doubt about one particular vaccine and include not only every intermediate shade of opinion but other, some good, reasons not to take the jab. With such a vast gamut of opinions it is not surprising that only 4% of the references actually use the term 'Vaccine Hesitancy'. OrewaTel (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

So it's a good point, and personally I was vaccinated asap and applaud the attitude of the article - but it is an attitude article, and thus IMHO questionable for an encyclopedia. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia articles taking the side of science against its enemies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating an attitude. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That isn't an attitude, it's the wikipedia attitude, by policy. Mainstream scientific POV. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s mistaken. The WP *policy* is NPOV, to fairly present all significant views published in WP:RS in proportion to the prominence per WP:DUE. The WP:FRINGE is not policy, it is a *guideline* and note it in part says “simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources”. Just try to do accurate objective reporting, not “taking sides”. Intentional article bias or advocacy will be a distortion that both fails to inform readers plus produces mistrust of WP content. The WP:LUNATICS and WP:QUACK are only essays, and WP:YWAB is just a redirect to a User talk page of Guy Mason. They seem likely to run afoul of WP:BIASED, WP:OR, MOS:PEACOCK, and/or WP:HARASS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:NPOV contains the sentence While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.. The guidelines and essays in question just supply further explanations, but they say exactly the same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong argument - nobody asked here for or defended against deletion of an article that explains the Corona vaccine enemies ("minority view or extraordinary claim") positions. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You missed the "as if they were of equal validity" part.

Your whole attempt does not make sense. We have sources talking about vaccine hesitancy, but no sources talking about the stuff you made up. That is why we have this article, but not articles about the stuff you made up. How is this difficult to understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

So do you have a suggestion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename the article to "Vaccine political discussion", and change the content accordingly. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

This illustrates the 'Neutral Point of View' paradox. Many publications state that they wish to show all sides of an argument. They get a scientist who has spent many years learning the subject and who has published many peer reviewed papers. Then, on the other side, they present a professor from a worthy university but they don't declare that it is a professorship in country dancing. And they give equal prominence to both sides. Not all points of view are equal.

You cannot simply take the number of references. There are more references on most subjects than you can possibly read and it is far easier for a loony to publish something than than it is for a sensible person. A sensible person has to check facts and try to make sense. A loony simply has to talk about 5G micro-chips. I don't care how many references you can dredge up, if something is a lie then it does not deserve to be here. We need to check the validity of references rather than just going for a sort of referendum of ignorance. OrewaTel (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this is the vast bulk of medical experts do not agree there is any debate to be had. We go with what the bulk of experts say, especially when the other side often resorts to the likes of Andrew Wakefield who was struck of for fraud over anti-Vaxxer propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That is always the problem when a case is so clear cut. Sometimes there simply are not two sides to an argument. However, whilst 99% of vaccination facts point in one direction there are exceptions. The CIA setting up fake vaccination centres is one - Surely that is an evil thing to undermine World Health for short term gain. Some types of vaccines can cause the illness they are intended to prevent but these risks are known and drugs companies work so hard to prevent this. So we must report both the problem and solution. Of course mRNA Covid vaccines cannot cause a Covid infection (it is actually impossible) but we should report that some people mistakenly (or is it simple lying?) claim this to be the case. We should also report that some people believe that it is possible to fit a working microprocessor with power supply through a fine bore hypodermic syringe. But despite the vast amount of mis-information on the net, we should not assert statements that are known to be completely false. OrewaTel (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Covid Vaccine can't cause AIDS

I know this is obvious, but conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation claiming that the Covid Jab skips HIV directly into AIDS, which is impossible because you can't develop AIDS without an HIV infection. I suggest adding this basic medical fact.

A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV PeterMcCormac (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your source does not seem to mention Covid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, we need evidence that there is a noteworthy rumour that Covid vaccine causes AIDS. I sure that such a rumour exists because the tin-hat brigade will believe anything but it needs to be sufficiently widespread to be noteworthy before being added here.OrewaTel (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Overwhelming consensus

The claim "There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe and effective.[7][8][9][10] " is not supported by the given sources, and should either have its sources changed, and/or the claim should be changed, for instance to "according to various sources, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of nationally recommended vaccines".

For each source:

1. For the source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689193/ : The original text writes "overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of nationally recommended vaccines", which is very much different from the claim that vaccines in general (including vaccines that are not "nationally recommended") are favoured. This is especially relevant in cases such as when different countries' authorities drop certain vaccines (see for instance https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/14/denmark-to-drop-astrazeneca-jab-from-covid-programme , https://archive.li/RVEKY , https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59418123 ), as well as when specific candidates for new vaccines do not pass the tests and trials of authorities (which at least before Covid-19 were typically very thorough and taking multiple years). The source furthermore comes with the claim of "consensus", but the only source for this is a quotation from "Dr Giovanni Rezza, Director of the Department of Infectious Diseases at Italy’s National Institute of Health.", no statistics or opinion polls in the relevant scientific communities.
2. For the source https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17588104/vaccine-opposition-anti-vaxxer there is only a repeated claim, no arguments, sources, references or other for the claim (and this source itself seems considerably pauper).
3. For the source https://theconversation.com/defending-science-how-the-art-of-rhetoric-can-help-68210 the word "consensus" is not even used about this claim. This source should be removed. (it also begins writing about "rhetoric"). Some of the links in that source also might be dead (see for instance "manufactroversy").
4. For the source https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety/index.html the description is similar to the first source, namely that the authorities in the USA as such (at least pre-Covid-19) are very thorough and careful and test vaccines thoroughly (for instance "These tests can take several years and answer important questions like:" ). And the word "consensus" does not even occur in this source. The source is fine and good, but it doesn't support the claim, at least as the claim is written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA7:4009:AA66:19E7:3750:50:C830 (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah, we dont do handwaving, and those sources support what we say very well indeed. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A Sense of Bias

After reading the entire article, I feel as if there exists a very moderate amount of bias. For example, the phrase "lack of properly scientifically based knowledge" can be considered to be a form of bullying to some and could imply that those who are anti-vaxxers are judged as being "dumb" as opposed to those who are for vaccines. I think it would be wise to rework that statement so that it does not come off as misleading and/or bullying. Thanks. -HumbleConservative (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And what would you have us do, imply that they do not ignore the science? It is not misleading, and we do not spare people's feelings, we are not censored.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I just think it should be worded a different way to not cause friction between anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

We are not here to do that, we are here to reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll fix it when I have access. Thanks. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As we do not say it is the sole factor, just one of them, I would not. Are you really saying that some do not lack this knowledge?Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. Thanks. I think some may not be that educated, but I would not upright call them "uneducated" when it comes to vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

MAybe you would not RS have, so we do.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Sorry if I got off as being rude or conceded. Also, what does RS mean? Thanks again. -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:rs reliable sources, (also please read wp:rsp).Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! -HumbleConservative (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

and could imply that those who are anti-vaxxers are judged as being "dumb" as opposed to those who are for vaccines - I fail to see the problem.

it should be worded a different way to not cause friction between anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers - that is exclusively on the antivaxxers and nobody else. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is neither a skeptics' bible nor a place to "fail to see the problem" when one party may be insulted.

At its' core, it's a dictionary entry expanded from a sentence to a large article.

I despise this kind of attitude (I'm sure you don't care), and it only took me one reverted edit to realise that such action was useless given the culture here.

So I'll just say it again: we're not here to 'bully', or disdain "anti-vaxxers" or even something as absurd as Holocaust denial.

Because this is an encyclopaedic article.. Not an opinion piece, or a polemic. If you can't grasp what I mean by that, there's nothing to be done. Seneillion (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No we are here to reflect what RS say. 11:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To put it another way: we will not write that 2+2 may be 4 or may be 5 just because some people cannot add. If you want to read your own opinion, go to another website. On this website, you can read what competent people have found out and written down. That is its intended function: to list the knowledge of mankind, not the ignorance of mankind. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfair Analysis

I think this is an unfair analysis. 2600:1005:B113:B815:9007:44F7:A504:4FE6 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to explain why, with reference to reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaccines cause autism. -2600:1005:B113:B815:2CF8:9781:EDFD:F5A1 (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What all of them? got a source for that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Autism claim is discussed in the article where reliable sources refute the assertion.OrewaTel (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fringe claim in the lede

Hesitancy primarily results from public debates around the medical, ethical, and legal issues related to vaccines. This is a straight up false claim. Vaccine "hesitancy" does not result from any sort of "public debate", or otherwise if this is what public debates are about these days, then we should all be concerned about the future of society. Vaccine "hesitancy" results from conspiracy theories, lack of education and right wing anti-intellctualism, not any sort of "public debate" on any real "medical, ethical and legal issues". 46.97.170.225 (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is still debate in public, it's just that one side does not have a case.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely I cannot be the only one here who believes that framing antivaxxers as "one side of a public debate" is deceptive. When I hear about a public debate where one side doesn't have a case, I think of the christianity vs atheism debates of the 00's, or the debate around late stage capitalism and the failure of trickle-down economics. Framing a fringe position as "a side in a public debate", even one with no leg to stand on, is in itself enough to legitimize them. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Safety Concerns - Antibody-dependent enhancement

Antibody-dependent enhancement is left out of this article despite being one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant about getting the COVID-19 Vaccine.

Can we just add this link to the safety section? It's got all the citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement

Mishka909 (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't got the citations found in COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy#Antibody-dependent enhancement. As for it being "one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant", what is your source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

ADE is an excellent reason to be hesitant about taking an untested vaccine but as the Antibody-dependent enhancement article clearly states this a subject of vaccine tests. So rather than being a reason to be hesitant about fully tested vaccines, this is another reason to praise the volunteers who act as test subjects. OrewaTel (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So rather than being a reason to be hesitant about fully tested vaccines, this is another reason to praise the volunteers who act as test subjects. Framing people who get vaccinated against Covid-19 as "voluntary test subjects" is both counterfactual, and plays into antivax conspiracy theories. This makes vaccine mandates sound like the government is forcing people into becoming test subjects which is conspiratorial hogwash. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood @OrewaTel, but that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my fault. The wording sounded like they were implying that people who get their jabs are volunteering as test subjects, which is nonsense because 1) it sounds a lot like what antivaxxers are saying and 2) vaccines aren't voluntary anyway, or at least shouldn't be. If I'm misunderstood, I'm open to being corrected. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I read it as reason to praise the volunteers in clinical trials. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång is exactly right. Once initial test are complete, it is necessary to test any medicine on humans. Some people volunteer to be test subject. My father had a relationship with St. Batholomews Hospital in London and tried out many new drugs. Only when these clinical trials are complete can the medicine be offered as to the general public. OrewaTel (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, let's see some RS that its "one of the most scientifically grounded arguments to be hesitant", We are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're even having this argument. If there were any scientifically grounded arguments to be "hesitant", we'd hear them from medical scientists, not anonymous people on the internet. I get the impression that wikipedians overseeing this article and talk page aren't very confident in combating misinformation on this topic. See my earlier remarks on fringe claims in the lede. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what is my point. We are having this argument to inform people what our policies are. IN this case without RS is a no go.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, one has to wonder what is the threshold where the people who need to be "informed about policies" cross into WP:SEALION territory, and if that didn't already happen. 46.97.170.225 (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

More vaccine examples

Lyme vaccine

"In 1998, the FDA approved a new recombinant Lyme vaccine, LYMErix™, which reduced new infections in vaccinated adults by nearly 80%. Just 3 years later, the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew its product from the market amidst media coverage, fears of vaccine side-effects, and declining sales." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ Simplulo (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Natural Immunity not a "Myth"

This sentence is misleading and misrepresents the referenced paper:

• Another common anti-vaccine myth is that the immune system produces a better immune protection in response to natural infection when compared to vaccination.

The reference is only refuting the notion that "natural infection is better than immunization." This takes into account the risks of natural infection. The sentence in the wiki article quoted above contorts this into the assertion that the produced immune protection from natural infection is not better than that of vaccination. This is not supported by the reference, which takes into account the negative effects of the disease in the natural immunity case. This is further confirmed by the rest of the section. Why must everything be spun!?