[plqbfbv]

I would guess people that don't know how stuff works or what they're talking about, but still feel entitled to disregard medical science progress because they don't see the effects directly.

Seeing my father in law daily is a very good reminder to me as to why we thought eradicating polio (and creating vaccines) was a good idea: his left leg is 30% the size of his right leg, and he's had trouble walking since he was 7yo (he's now 65), with no way of fixing it.

People don't understand what life used to be like before 60y ago because they didn't live through it, and even then they're tempted to dismiss the death or permanent complication rates because "nobody died"... that they knew/recall of.

It's true that in general better sanitation, clean water, better food availability have helped in reducing the death rates in general and also complications (because better prepared immune system, better symptoms management, ...), but vaccines allowed to eradicate stuff that killed or altered lives permanently on a regular basis.

[ifyoubuildit]

I wouldn't call myself a vaccine skeptic, and I don't have a problem with anything else you said, but "feel entitled to disregard medical science progress" puts my back up. We are in fact all entitled to that.

I think a not insignificant part of the skepticism problem stems from well meaning authoritarians who believe they have the right to shoot everything that has a pop sci press release behind it into everyone else's bodies.

It's like the opposite of the naturalist fallacy: if it's man made and has a sciency name, let's assume it has no glaring flaws until we get the class action lawsuit recruitment commercials a decade later telling us we might be entitled to 5 dollars compensation if we're on our deathbeds because of some horrible complication.

Even better if your political tribe has tied its identity to the thing.