let me know when you're here.

Hi!

Thanks for having this discussion.

The last figure that you included: "The most frequently cited reasons for vaccine hesitancy globally related to (1) the risk-benefit of vaccines, (2) knowledge and awareness issues, (3) religious, cultural, gender or socio-economic factors."

Does it directly relate to anti-vaxxers?

I'm sort of conflicted about your conclusions with this figure.

what do you mean by directly?

anti-vaxxers mostly discredit the risk-benefit of vaccinges by claiming that they cause harm .

LLet me rephrase: How did you draw the conclusion that you did?

let me also clarify: Not an anti-vaxxer

You wrote "So the one of the main criticisms of the anti-vaxxer movement (risk of vaccines) is the biggest driver of vaccine hesitancy globally." I don't understand how vaccine hesitancy is directly related with the an anti-vaccine sentiment.

Well. Anti-vativaxxers dispute that vaccines are safe. This encourages uncertainty. The more attention anti-vaxxers get the more people will get a sense of uncerainty about the risks of vaccines. This affects the risk-benefit of vaccines as a reason for vaccine hesitance.

Yes, I agree with that.

I'm just asking: How does the last figure show that?

The last figure just shows that the number one-reason why people are vaccine-hesitant is that they are uncertain about the risk-benefit of vaccines.

Anti-vaxxers encourage this uncertainty with they claims about vaccine safety.

My statement did not say that there is a directly prooven link between anti-vaxxers and vaccine hesitancy.

it merely pointed out, that the no. 1 reasons for vaccine hesitancy relates to the no. 1 message of the anti-vaxxer movement.

Thereby making it plausible that the anti-vaxxer movement is probably a factor in driving this uncertainty about risk-benefit.

Does that answer your question?

OK, fine.

It's just not that convincing.

I would say that the figure does better measure the effect of the anti-vax movement through other factors.

I would say the anti-vaxx movement is represented in the last two bars of the figure, which aren't as high as some other bars.

The last two bars add up to ~15%. I would say that the anti-vaxx movement is responsible for a ~15% hesitancy in getting vaccinated and nowhere near a majority.

That is a fair point. That study is also not perfect, because what category people where put in depended on the person making the decision. As I understand it this was not totally uniform across all countries.

OK, so what are your personal thoughts?

Do you truly believe that the comeback of the measles virus is largely due to anti-vaxers?

Furthermore, it is from 2014, so the numbers may have changed by now. On the other hand the effect has probably some lag time, because the people getting not vaccinated today may not get infected tomorrow, but next year or in 10 years time.

Yes, that's true

I also think that there are a few reasons in that graph, that relate to anti-vaxxers and also affect each other.

OK, which reasons?

The ones you named, but also the perceived risk-benefit.

communication, lobbies, risk/benefit perceiption and scientific evidence are not independent, but affect each other.

I'm more hesitant about the perceived risk-benefit. Go to a physician and they will tell you risk-benefit.

It's not limited to anti-vaxxers.

no.

That is the main issue in the discussion. Nothing is limited to anti-vaxxers.

Regardless, I'll just accept your answer. This obviously hasn't been extensively studied enough.

Personally, do you truly believe that the comeback of the measles virus is largely due to anti-vaxers?

No, I think the issue is not extensive study, but time.

Yes, I think that.

I think it's both.

Time leads to extensive study.

Enjoy the green arrow.

But I also think that at this point in time a definitive answer cannot be given.

Thanks :-)

That's disappointing to hear.

In Germany, what is the anti-vaxx sentiment? Prevalent? Pervasive?

We're about to pass a law requiring people to vaccinate their children.

otherwise they cannot go to kindergarden or school.

So it's being discussed and people think it's a problem.

OK.

An additional point except time and extensivity or study is, I think, that science does not really deal with movements.

People think anti-vaxxers are the problem? Or the law is the problem?

True, but there's something called sociology.

And sociologists should be interested in this.

Studies will mostly talk about vaccine hesitancy, because anti-vaxxer movement is a very losse term that does not suite scientific study very well.

That is true, but sociology is a very vague field of research.

It is nowhere near a clear as medical research, and medical is already pretty vague most of the time.

People think anti-vaxxers are the problem.

Although they don't really talk much about anti-vaxxers as a movement. They talk about people not getting vaccinated, because of fear.

Alright.

Anyway. I'll let you move on.

MMaybe we have slightly different definitions of anti-vaxxers.

I'm sorry I couldn't convince you, but maybe because I'm not fully convinced myself.

I wouldn't consider who don't get their children vaccinated anti-vaxxers.

consider ^people^ who

Yeah, but that is the whole issue with the question.

Yes, I clarified the definition in the question now.

Per your suggestion.

I will keep looking into this.

Do! it's an interesting question.

One that Skeptics.SE can't answer...

But it's pobably more a question of, how much influence can lobbying have.

So you think anti-vaxxers exert influence primarily through lobbying?

Also think about that even if just 15% are because of anti-vaxxers as you said.

I was thinking it would be word of mouth.

To cause a measles outbreak you only need a couple of percent less people vaccinated.

I think it's mostly the internet.

Hmm...

If you look on google for vaccines and safe, you will probably get a lot of links that will tell you vaccines are of the devil.

And if you are uncertain you may believe it.

Well, who goes out of their way to look at that stuff?

what do you mean?

Who would go online and search for stuff that "will tell you vaccines are of the devil." in their own free time?

No. I meant that. For example parents who have got small children will search on google the safety of vaccines, because their children soon need to get shots.

Then half the links the find will tell them, that vaccines cause autism (or whatever other desease).

OK. So anti-vaxxers put up webpages, wait, and outbreaks happen because of the webpages.

That's what you are saying?

It's pretty easy to cause an outbreak then.

No, that is only one part. That are a lot of factors.

What other factors?

Whether the parents trust their doctor. How much they trust the medical system. What their friends say. Whether the stories also show up on TV.

I gotta go. If you want we can discuss this further.

But I gotta go. Up to you. :-)

OK, bye.

Have a great rest of your day.