[bsder]

> If these mRNA vaccines had not been pushed or mandated, more people would probably think they are safe: there will be no need for any of these reviews.

Hogwash. Wakefield predated anything Covid. And measles vaccines aren't mRNA and people would rather let their children die.

Had Trump and Co called the vaccine part of the second coming, people would be lining up at their churches to get them.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

[qsera]

> people would rather let their children die.

I see that your are yourself in a position you didn't reason you into.

[watwut]

There wad that kid that died of measles in America and later there was interview with parents. They said basically that. They would change nothing and rather have kid die then get vaccines.

At some point, you have to start believing what people say about themselves and their believes.

And second, yes that is attitude of political actors who spread fear of vaccines to get votes. Overall impact is exactly that and they know.

[qsera]

>They would change nothing..

But by this logic, this is exactly what pro-vax people advocate as well. If a child die right after vaccination, they will still advice people to vaccinate their other kids, because this was just an anomaly?

So are all the pro-vax people maintaining the attitude that they would rather have their kid die or suffer life long than NOT getting the vaccine?

The fallacy in your logic is that you think people reject vaccines because they think the diseases does not have the potential to be dangerous. They do not think that. It is the same reason why you can continue driving despite knowing that accidents can be fatal.

People take a chance, and sometimes they get unlucky. Does not mean that taking the chance was wrong. In the same way you are not wrong if you go out for a pleasure trip in a car and get in a fatal accident.

[watwut]

They did not said they were unlucky. They said that if they knew their kid will die without vaccine, they would still skip vaccine to protect the kid from bigger harm. They said that, not me. That is the problem here, you ignore what they are actually saying while twisting their position into much different and more palatable. It is consistent problem with right wing - insistence on ignoring what they say, push for and advocate, just so that we can pretend they are harmless.

> The fallacy in your logic is that you think people reject vaccines because they think the diseases does not have the potential to be dangerous. They do not think that.

They literally openly say that. Again and again and again. The above couple was saying something else in the interview, because the kid actually died. But if you actually listen to what anti-vaccine politicians and advocates say, they literally say that diseases don't have potential to be dangerous.

> But by this logic, this is exactly what pro-vax people advocate as well. If a child die right after vaccination, they will still advice people to vaccinate their other kids, because this was just an anomaly?

You can do that only if you are intent on twisting conversations and meanings into unrecognizable.

> Does not mean that taking the chance was wrong. In the same way you are not wrong if you go out for a pleasure trip in a car and get in a fatal accident.

You know what, sometimes it IS wrong to take the chance. Just like, if you race in a car in a place where you can kill bystanders and then die off it. Funny, people are quick to blame parents when 12 years old walk to school for not doing full surveillance, people blame parents for not having perfect control of kids socials, but somehow, blaming parents for refusing vaccination is a bridge too far.

[qsera]

> They said that if they knew their kid will die without vaccine, they would still skip vaccine to protect the kid from bigger harm..

They probably didn't. Because what is "bigger harm" than death?

>You can do that only if you are intent on twisting conversations and meanings into unrecognizable.

Eh..what?

[watwut]

> They probably didn't. Because what is "bigger harm" than death?

They literally explicitely did. Ask them what is the bigger harm. Anti-vaccine circles have multiple flavors and interview did not went that deep.

But this "they could not possibly say X, because I disagree with X" is repeated pattern with conservative and right wing movements.

[what]

Trump did tell people to get them? It was his opposition saying they wouldn’t trust a vaccine pushed out by Trump. You’ve basically rewritten history.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont think people's motivations are to kill their children, but the opposite. I think this is the starting point for developing cognitive empathy and an accurate model.

Again, trust is a huge factor here.