Talk:Vaccine hesitancy

Split Anti-vaccine activism from Vaccine hesitancy

These should be two different articles, as there is a distinct culture of anti-vaccine activism that goes above and beyond mere hesitancy. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have started Draft:Anti-vaccine activism to this end. BD2412 T 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support proposal to split. -Location (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Anti-vaccine activism has now been moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 17:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Remove racist language from the article

very strange request, irrelevant to general topic Dronebogus (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The racist term Latinx should be remove from the article. 84.203.60.124 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC) The way that term is used in the article is as almost a direct quote from the source behind it, the Journal of Behavioral Medicine. It's part of the title of the article. We also have an article about Latinx, which says nothing about it being a racist term. Can you provide evidence that some people (apart from you) see it as a racist term? HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Vaccinationists" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Vaccinationists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

The leading photograph shows an anti-vaccination activist wearing a poster that says, "Kids have a 99.99% Survival rate with natural immunity." The label says, "An anti-vaccination person wearing a false claim that children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity"

I have two problems with this. The first is that the poster does not use the word solely. That was made up by a Wiki-editor. The second is the word false. Whether the poster is stupid or whether the wearer was trying to put across a false message is beside the point. If you are going to say a message is false you need to have reliable citation that the actual message is false. No such citation exists because the poster is not false. The mortality rate of the common cold, for example, when left to a child's natural immunity, is less than 0.01%. The same applies to most childhood medical problems. (These are actually cuts and other wounds that could be treated with an anti-tetanus jab.) The entire article states very clearly (and has reliable references) that an anti-vaccination stance is wrong on many levels. There is no need to add propaganda. OrewaTel (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• It's false. The data from just one disease proves it wrong CDC measles data without even considering everything else that vaccines have been produced for. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe we should get rid of that picture. If you make any claim VAGUE enough, it can be true, like that one...who knows what disease that guy is referring to...rickets? ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The photograph was taken at a protest in Leicester, England in October 2021 for the movement "Against Vaccine Passports UK". The man in the photo is wearing a T-shirt with the letters "AGAINST VACCINE PASSPORTS .COM". Though the domain name has been taken over, here is an archived version of the website.

The poster relates directly to Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic which has a section for "Arguments and controversy § Natural immunity".

What I'm saying is that the poster most definitely was about vaccine hesitancy (during Covid, in particular), and not simply about natural immunity of ALL childhood diseases (such as colds). I'm pretty sure the anti-vaxxers were using the 99.99% figure (compiled pre-Covid) to forward their message of "I don't want to get a Covid vaccine and damn sure don't want a vaccine passport to hinder my travelling". Grorp (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to take a single disease then make it smallpox that has a very high mortality rate. (Measles tends to be survivable.) But the point is that the vast majority of childhood illnesses are not fatal. I would like to replace the caption by, "An imbecile wearing a particularly stupid notice" but that would not be encyclopaedic language. I've replaced the word false by misleading as being more accurate. OrewaTel (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this subject. Structuralists (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion

I cannot edit the article at this time. I wanted to add a section to safety concerns about adverse effects in vaccines. I have several examples which are specifically linked to vaccine hesitancy. The Dengue Fever vaccine case in the Philipines which resulted in increased complications from infection: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions

As well as Polio vaccine rollouts in Africa which caused Polio cases: https://www.science.org/content/article/first-polio-cases-linked-new-oral-vaccine-detected-africa Puerto de Nile (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

These are interesting articles but they do not show that these vaccines are the cause of vaccine hesitancy. Whilst this information may be useful in the Vaccination article, it does not belong here. OrewaTel (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Though in the latter Polio article, the reason why an improved vaccine caused an issue was ironically because not many of the population had taken up the vaccine. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add a section that points out that vaccine hesitancy leaves the unvaccinated vulnerable to disease through vaccine shedding. This, however, is an unusual situation. The normal Covid vaccine, for example, cannot shed viruses that have the ability to infect. Nevertheless if there are enough documented cases where vaccine hesitancy put people at risk because of an immunisation programme then we should note the fact.

OrewaTel (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the quote in the NPR article relating to vaccine hesitancy:

Since the Dengvaxia controversy, the confidence in vaccines among Philippine parents has plummeted from 82% in 2015 to only 21% in 2018, a recent study found. Over that same time span, the proportion of parents who strongly believe vaccines are important has fallen from 93% to 32%.

As result, vaccine coverage for childhood diseases in the Philippines, such as the measles, has dropped, WHO says. And the Philippines is now facing a large measles outbreak, with more than 26,000 cases and more than 355 deaths during 2019.

More generally, for this article I don't understand why vaccine complications are not addressed more substantially as a source of vaccine hesitancy Puerto de Nile (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)