Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-25-2019, 05:31 AM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,968

Which party supports anti-vaxxing?


I've frequently heard (as far as I can tell, virtually always from conservative people), that anti-vaxxers are mostly from the far left. So I was puzzled by two recent results from legislative committees about this issue.

First, in the Washington state legislature, a proposed law to reduce opt-outs for vaccinations was approved by a House committtee by a 10-5 vote. That law was sponsored by a Republican, yet he couldn't get any other R's to vote with him. The other 9 legislators in favor were all D's.

Second, in Arizona, a law sponsored by a Republican to increase opt-outs for vaccinations was approved by committee on a 5-4 party-line vote, R's being in favor.

So are these anomalous results, or are the people who cast it as a left-wing issue wrong, or perhaps just disingenuous? I suppose we'll find out for sure when these bills get to the floors of their respective Houses, but it sure looks like the R's are in favor of more measles.
  #2  
Old 02-25-2019, 06:12 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,255
This is one of those cases where the left-right spectrum loops around and connects the nutjobs on either side.

Yeah, you got the whacko left-wingers who think nature is always kind and good. And then you got the anti-science, anti-government right-wingers who just happen to land in the same spot.

This is not a partisan issue, it’s a scientific one.
  #3  
Old 02-25-2019, 06:15 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,092
I don't think it's necessarily disingenuous, because anti-vaxxing cuts across party lines in a way that most anti-science issues do not. Some people might not see the anti-vaxxers on their own end of the political spectrum, or might No True Scotsman them out of their side by dismissing them as fringe.

But yes, some who paint this as a far left phenomenon probably are being disingenuous, almost but not quite as badly as saying "the liberal Dems are the real racists since lots of conservative dems were racist 50 years or so ago!"
  #4  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:02 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is one of those cases where the left-right spectrum loops around and connects the nutjobs on either side.

Yeah, you got the whacko left-wingers who think nature is always kind and good. And then you got the anti-science, anti-government right-wingers who just happen to land in the same spot.

This is not a partisan issue, it’s a scientific one.

Distrust and fear can motivate people to join one of the extremes, depending on what they see as more in their interest.

In the case of anti-vaxx, a significant factor may be that women are more likely to be Democrat than Republican, to make most childcare decisions, to have anxiety issues and to be overprotective of their children*. Pregnancy can also mess with people's hormones and minds even after childbirth. I've failed to find surveys that break down the anti-vaxx movement by gender aside from a study of Facebook**. I don't know if that fully accounts for the difference but it seems significant.

Imagine someone who's kinda dim and scaredy to start with, someone with a hyperactive amygdala and hypoactive prefrontal cortex, gets pregnant and can't really keep what little head she has with all the hormonal changes, gets undiagnosed postpartum depression, becomes hyperalert and hyperresponsive towards any shadow that might possibly hurt little Timmy and then spends too much time getting whipped up by online scaremongering, especially mommy sites. That person was likely a Democrat to start with but it's not being a Democrat that influenced her into being anti-vaxx, it's being a woman that influenced her into being both a Democrat and anti-vaxx.


*That's not to say that women are worse than men but that particular flaws like anxiety and overprotective tendencies are influenced by biology and socialisation and not likely to be randomly distributed across genders. For example, men are more likely to have the opposite flaws in taking dumb risks and not being sufficiently protective of children.

**https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the...s-on-facebook/

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 02-25-2019 at 07:05 AM.
  #5  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:16 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,311
Pediatrician checking in. Whakadoodle cuts across party lines. Maybe more on the Right but not by much.

Internationally it seems to be more the Far Right parties like Five Star in Europe.
  #6  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:31 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
Legislatively, though, do we see much from Democrats today in favor of opt-out laws?

When you have a party-line vote to increase opt-outs, that seems significant.

AFAICT, Republicans really, really like letting religious folks ignore laws, and really, really dislike having the government tell you that you can't abuse your children.

Democrats really, really dislike corporations, and really, really like nature.

But the Republicans who have reasons to be antivax seem to hold more political power and to pass more laws that are antivax.

I could be wrong, and would welcome examples to the contrary.
  #7  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:32 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
Dseid, somehow I got confused and thought you'd written the post immediately above yours, and was like, Christ, dude, what a shitty way for a pediatrician to see parents!

Glad that wasn't yours.
  #8  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:35 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,418
It strikes me that on the right it's a libertarian anti big government thing, and on the left it's an anti corporation (specifically "big pharma") thing.

ETA: It looks like I was ninjaed by Left Hand of Dorkness who said more or less the same thing.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885

Last edited by davidm; 02-25-2019 at 07:40 AM.
  #9  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:44 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Dseid, somehow I got confused and thought you'd written the post immediately above yours, and was like, Christ, dude, what a shitty way for a pediatrician to see parents!

Glad that wasn't yours.
I don't see parents in general that way. I see anti-vaxx parents that way; They're child abusers. If I were a pediatrician, I would be more diplomatic while dealing with their non-sense but fortunately for everyone, I'm not one.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 02-25-2019 at 07:45 AM.
  #10  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:20 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is not a partisan issue, it’s a scientific one.


I think the "Leftists are Anti-Vaxxers" claim is a partisan issue, but it's a second-level partisan issue. The right wingers who push this narrative don't actually care about anti-vaxxers, they're just trying to create a "whataboutism" argument that lets them claim that both parties have their anti-scientific wings.

This way, whenever someone mentions the GOP denying evolution, or climate change, they can turn around and say, "What about vaccines? You guys are just as bad!" They don't care that lots of anti-vaxxers are right wing conservatives, they just want a cheap ploy to avoid having to discuss the overwhelming support for anti-scientific causes on their side.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #11  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:28 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,092
They don't always do that. Sometimes they use nuclear energy Which in that case does have more opposition from liberals, although the proportion grows much closer the nearer the proposed nuclear facility is to the opposers.
  #12  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,244
Darla Shine, the wife of Bill Shine, Trump's communications director, is an anti-vaxxer. (Just tossing in one more data point.)
  #13  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:37 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Pediatrician checking in. Whakadoodle cuts across party lines. Maybe more on the Right but not by much.

Internationally it seems to be more the Far Right parties like Five Star in Europe.
Not a paediatrician but yeah, in my limited experience this one seems to run the gamut.

If it's more likely to crop up at government level on the far-right, I'd put that down to the far-right having a stronger tendency to elect its whackadoodle fringe than the rest of the political spectrum, which has the same percentage of loons but is less likely to put them in office.
  #14  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:42 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,384
Both anti-vax and anti-nuclear are genuine "both sides do it" issues, though for different reasons. Others have already covered the reasons for anti-vaxers on both sides, and for nuclear, it tends to be motivated by (misguided) environmental concerns on the left, and by fears of proliferation and terrorism on the right.

MichaelEMouse, remember that being hyperprotective of children can (and should) also lead a person to be strongly pro-vaccination. It depends on what information one is exposed to.
  #15  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:47 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,058
It's in the Texas GOP platform more or less, among a lot of other politically motivated stupidity ("Abortion is not healthcare"?), while the Democrats explicitly support it.

From the official Texas GOP 2018 platform, section 243:
Quote:
Healthcare Decisions: Healthcare decisions, including routine preventative care such as immunizations, should be between a patient and healthcare professional and should be protected from government intrusion. Texas public schools have a duty to inform parents they can opt out of CDC recommended vaccinations for their children. Abortion is not healthcare. Government has no right to mandate specific medical procedures or methods of healthcare.
Meanwhile, this is what the Texas Democratic party platform says in the section labeled "Prevention":

Quote:
The underlying philosophy of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is to move our country forward to a preventive based system where a priority is placed on the health and wellness of all Americans. Democrats support the legislation’s elimination of copayments for preventive services, as well as plans to expand community health centers and the number of primary care physicians and healthcare practitioners. Texas Democrats support promoting vaccinations and immunizations, increasing K-12 education about nutrition and healthy living, and expanding opportunities for physical activity in schools.

Last edited by bump; 02-25-2019 at 08:49 AM.
  #16  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:16 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
MichaelEMouse, remember that being hyperprotective of children can (and should) also lead a person to be strongly pro-vaccination. It depends on what information one is exposed to.
Can and should =/= does. You've never met people who were so concerned with something that they ended up responding to that concern in counter-productive ways? Hypervigilance can cause people to have an exaggerated or skewed assessment of how much of a threat something is so that even the smallest risk is myopically focused on. Hypervigilance isn't just about motivation, it's also about distorting perception.

It partly depends on what information one is exposed to but there has to be more otherwise, the solution would be straightforward; Expose people to good info. That hasn't been done? There hasn't been, for several years now, a public debate about vaccination where one side presents good info?


Although I suspect that in many cases, the way the info is presented may matter very much. Some doctors have a God complex or just want the patient to shut up, not ask questions and follow orders and that could result in some unnecessary resistance from the patient.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 02-25-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #17  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:22 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Dseid, somehow I got confused and thought you'd written the post immediately above yours, and was like, Christ, dude, what a shitty way for a pediatrician to see parents!

Glad that wasn't yours.
As a practice we engage with anti-vax parents respectfully, listening to their concerns, addressing them, and explaining about how their choice has impacts on others as well. I explain the real conspiracy between Wakefield and some lawyers to make money based on his faked data and how kids died as a result. We have some track record of bringing some around, at least to the most important ones (and yes some vaccines are more important than others). When it happens it usually takes a few visits. Many practices have moved to dismissal instead (which brings none into the immunized fold and concentrates refusers/delayers together, exactly what we do not want to happen as that increases the risks for all).

Still I think Right or Left the decision to not vaccinate is whackadoodle. It is very frustrating to spend so much time combatting whackadoodle. But again it is not exclusively a Right or Left domain.
  #18  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:27 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,265
Like most decent human beings, all sides are against strap-em-to-a-chair forcible vaccinations as far as I can tell. Some hysterics interpret this as anti-vax.
  #19  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:28 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It's in the Texas GOP platform more or less, among a lot of other politically motivated stupidity ("Abortion is not healthcare"?), while the Democrats explicitly support it.

From the official Texas GOP 2018 platform, section 243:


Meanwhile, this is what the Texas Democratic party platform says in the section labeled "Prevention":
This seems to be one of the first posts that actually addresses the title of the OP. The OP title doesn't ask whether it's a left or right thing, but rather which party supports anti-vaxxing. While it wouldn't be accurate to say that the national GOP is anti-vax, it seems like some of their local chapters are, including the large and powerful Texas GOP. Is there anything similar on the Democratic side?

It's true that it's a pretty fringe belief -- far right and far left, but only the GOP seems to put these far fringe nutters into power.
  #20  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:40 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Like most decent human beings, all sides are against strap-em-to-a-chair forcible vaccinations as far as I can tell. Some hysterics interpret this as anti-vax.
Well, let's make it a choice: vaccinate, or have a wall built around you to protect society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
It's true that it's a pretty fringe belief -- far right and far left, but only the GOP seems to put these far fringe nutters into power.
Beat me to it -- that pretty well sums up both the extent to which it exists on both sides and the actual policy implications.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #21  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:44 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
As a practice we engage with anti-vax parents respectfully, listening to their concerns, addressing them, and explaining about how their choice has impacts on others as well. I explain the real conspiracy between Wakefield and some lawyers to make money based on his faked data and how kids died as a result. We have some track record of bringing some around, at least to the most important ones (and yes some vaccines are more important than others). When it happens it usually takes a few visits. Many practices have moved to dismissal instead (which brings none into the immunized fold and concentrates refusers/delayers together, exactly what we do not want to happen as that increases the risks for all).

Still I think Right or Left the decision to not vaccinate is whackadoodle. It is very frustrating to spend so much time combatting whackadoodle. But again it is not exclusively a Right or Left domain.

Since you're professional dealings with many of them, did you pick up any patterns among them? Is it random or are there good (if imperfect) predictors of whether or not someone is anti-vaxx?
  #22  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:49 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,666
It's not a straight right-left issue. On the one side you've got "nobody's gonna tell me what to do" righties. And on the other side you've got nature-harmony lefties.
  #23  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:50 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,311
And Trump did in fact throw support to the anti-vax side.
Quote:
Before and during his campaign, President Donald Trump repeatedly linked vaccines to autism, despite the fact that the claim has been debunked.

At a 2015 Republican presidential candidate debate, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Trump how, if elected, he would handle overseeing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Health, which both disagree with his stance on vaccinations.

Trump responded: "Autism has become an epidemic… I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time."
After all some people have told him ...
Quote:
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said President Donald Trump told him he was considering a commission to look into the “bad effects” of vaccines. "Don't do that," Gates said he told the president, and Trump has never publicly proposed such a commission. Yet the incident recalls Trump's longtime skeptical comments about vaccines.

Gates said that in two separate meetings since he was elected, Trump asked the billionaire philanthropist if “vaccines weren’t a bad thing.”

“He was considering a commission to look into the bad effects of vaccines and somebody, I think his name was Robert Kennedy Jr., was advising him that vaccines were causing bad things,” Gates recalled. “And I said ‘No, that's a dead end, that would be a bad thing, don’t do that.”
Yeah the "some people" was of the D side, but not of real power while Trump to no small degree is the GOP now.

MichaelEMouse really no. At least not that I can determine. They've "heard things" or "researched" on the internet or "know someone who" had some bad thing happen soon after they were immunized. Fewer out and out refusers in recent years and more doing stupid alternative schedules that delay protection based on an idiotic recommendation out there by someone who actually even has an MD.
  #24  
Old 02-25-2019, 10:58 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,847
From what I've observed, anti-vaxxers are slightly more likely to be conservative, however, there are also a considerable number of anti-vaxxers who are the anti-GMO, green, hippie type as well. And then there are anti-vaxxers who simply are Moon landing and Nevada-aliens-in-hangars or Flat-Earther types - people who aren't so much liberal or conservative as they are simply deniers of reality.
  #25  
Old 02-25-2019, 11:11 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,847
I do think MichaelEMouse is on to something about the gender divide. Overwhelmingly, it seems that anti-vaxxers are women and not men.
  #26  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:34 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
This seems to be one of the first posts that actually addresses the title of the OP. The OP title doesn't ask whether it's a left or right thing, but rather which party supports anti-vaxxing. While it wouldn't be accurate to say that the national GOP is anti-vax, it seems like some of their local chapters are, including the large and powerful Texas GOP. Is there anything similar on the Democratic side?

It's true that it's a pretty fringe belief -- far right and far left, but only the GOP seems to put these far fringe nutters into power.
Though, to be fair, what goes into actual party platform is notoriously more extreme than anything the rank and file believe. There's a long and storied tradition (on both sides) of letting the loonies put crazy stuff in the platform and then ignoring it.
  #27  
Old 02-25-2019, 02:47 PM
don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,311
Political parties play to their bases. While anti-vaxxers tend to be liberal, as demonstrated in this PBS Frontline episode, the pro-science majority of Democrats would oppose anti-vaxx candidates. The Republicans opposed to vaccination for reasons of woo, government distrust, or religion may be few, but throwing them a bone wrapped in extreme rhetoric, and they'll turn out in droves. Most Republicans are more committed to the right's agenda as a whole than to the greater good.
  #28  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:39 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Well, let's make it a choice: vaccinate, or have a wall built around you to protect society.
That is an extreme position. Not likely to gain a foothold in any party.
  #29  
Old 02-25-2019, 03:40 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
That is an extreme position. Not likely to gain a foothold in any party.
Now you're just fuckin with us.
  #30  
Old 02-25-2019, 04:42 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Though, to be fair, what goes into actual party platform is notoriously more extreme than anything the rank and file believe. There's a long and storied tradition (on both sides) of letting the loonies put crazy stuff in the platform and then ignoring it.
To be even more fair, though, the head of the Republican Party, the President of the United States, has made some anti-vax statements. While he hasn't gone full anti-vax lately, stretching out the vaccine schedule is anti-science bullshit and plays into the hands of anti-vaxxers.

Also, this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8331836.html

And, this: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...815552?lang=en

So, actually, he is pretty anti-vax.

I'm pro-nuclear power myself, but resistance to that is nowhere near as anti-science as global warming denial, anti-vax, or anti-evolution positions. There really are health and safety concerns with nuclear power (which, of course, can be addressed and contained).

There really is no comparison between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to anti-science positions. And, I don't think the Dems have put anti-nuke into their actual position statements (although I haven't researched it much).

The left has its share of kooks and crazies. So does the right. But, I just don't see the parties as being as equally kooky and crazy, especially when it comes to science issues.
  #31  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:25 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,365
MichaelEMouse, the 19th century called; it wants its misogyny back. But what would I know, I'm just an emotional woman with a pretty little head.
  #32  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:39 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
MichaelEMouse, the 19th century called; it wants its misogyny back.
I never said that all or even most women are like that.

Note the part where I specifically say that some flaws are more likely to be found in men. Do you agree that there are flaws or cognitive biases more commonly found in men? If so, could there not be some flaws more commonly found in women, for example those related to anxiety and overprotectiveness? It doesn't need to be most women who are like that to end up with a disproportionate number of women in the anti-vaxx movement.

If you have alternative explanations for why the anti-vaxx movement is mainly female than the ones I named, I'd like to hear. I thought it was pertinent in a discussion of party position on vaccinations because women tend to vote Democrat and men Republican and that may explain part of the association between Dems and the anti-vaxx movement.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
But what would I know, I'm just an emotional woman with a pretty little head.
At least there's something on which we can agree on an individual basis.
  #33  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:09 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
... If you have alternative explanations for why the anti-vaxx movement is mainly female than the ones I named, I'd like to hear. ...
One, not so sure it is. Leadership isn't anyway.

Two, it's mostly parents out there advocating for and against immunizations and more who say yes than no, but more of both who are women than men. Pro-vaxx is mostly women too. This is our society and the role expectations. Women take on the main decision making role for the family (and not just for the kids, but for their partners as well) and men fairly commonly defer. So women will be over-represented among those saying no ... and among those saying yes.

The role bit can be silly. Years back a couple came in with their baby for maybe a six month check. Dad was the stay at home and mom was high powered working long hours. She still insisted on being the one to ask and answer the questions even if she had to ask Dad for the information. He, the one who was most familiar with how the kid ate, napped, pooped, and played, sat quietly feeding her information as she requested it from him so she could be "the mother" running the child's show. Still today Dads fairly commonly defer.
  #34  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:09 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
...

If you have alternative explanations for why the anti-vaxx movement is mainly female than the ones I named, I'd like to hear. I thought it was pertinent in a discussion of party position on vaccinations because women tend to vote Democrat and men Republican and that may explain part of the association between Dems and the anti-vaxx movement. ...
Sorry to interrupt your incorrect gender assumptions, but this says that 56% of men and 44% of women are anti-vax:

https://qz.com/355398/the-average-an...-think-she-is/

Also, just to shut my own mouth, 60% self-describe as liberal (although in my defense, the article also says that "Republicans have been more open to legitimizing the positions of people who distrust vaccines....").

So, it's probably fair to say that anti-vaxxers tend (>50%) to be liberals supported by Republicans, as weird as that seems.
  #35  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:24 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Sorry to interrupt your incorrect gender assumptions, but this says that 56% of men and 44% of women are anti-vax:

https://qz.com/355398/the-average-an...-think-she-is/

Also, just to shut my own mouth, 60% self-describe as liberal (although in my defense, the article also says that "Republicans have been more open to legitimizing the positions of people who distrust vaccines....").

So, it's probably fair to say that anti-vaxxers tend (>50%) to be liberals supported by Republicans, as weird as that seems.

Thanks you for the correction. I presumed the anti-vaxx movement was mainly composed of mothers of young children, which would put most in-between 25 and 40, who tend to heavily skew Democrat. I see that's not the case, thanks for the data.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 02-25-2019 at 08:25 PM.
  #36  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:26 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Thank you for the correction. I presumed the anti-vaxx movement was mainly composed of mothers of young children, which would put most in-between 25 and 40, who tend to heavily skew Democrat. I see that's not the case, thanks for the data.
You're welcome!

As Felix Unger said, when you assume... uh, something about peppy and bursting with love. I may be confused on that point.
  #37  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:49 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I am quite surprised that a group whose average member is (quoting the link): "A middle age, Midwestern man with high-school diploma, low income and a tendency not to think his vote matters much" would self-describe as liberal at a rate of 60%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
One, not so sure it is. Leadership isn't anyway.

Two, it's mostly parents out there advocating for and against immunizations and more who say yes than no, but more of both who are women than men. Pro-vaxx is mostly women too. This is our society and the role expectations. Women take on the main decision making role for the family (and not just for the kids, but for their partners as well) and men fairly commonly defer. So women will be over-represented among those saying no ... and among those saying yes.

The role bit can be silly. Years back a couple came in with their baby for maybe a six month check. Dad was the stay at home and mom was high powered working long hours. She still insisted on being the one to ask and answer the questions even if she had to ask Dad for the information. He, the one who was most familiar with how the kid ate, napped, pooped, and played, sat quietly feeding her information as she requested it from him so she could be "the mother" running the child's show. Still today Dads fairly commonly defer.

Maybe we can make a distinction between people who are specifically anti-vaxx vs people who are suspicious of nearly everything, vaccines only being a small part of it. The former are likely to be identified as part of the anti-vaxx movement and actively support it whereas the latter may just be seen as a grouchy curmudgeon who just doesn't get vaccinated and is largely not heard from on that topic unless you specifically ask him.

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 02-25-2019 at 08:52 PM.
  #38  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:57 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2 thousand adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe.

Since then, other studies have produced similar results, such as:

University of Idaho
Yale University
Fordham University
Even the latest vaccine exemption data from the CDC reports neither political party is worse or better than the other.
https://www.precisionvaccinations.co...political-bias
  #39  
Old 02-25-2019, 09:51 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Sorry to interrupt your incorrect gender assumptions, but this says that 56% of men and 44% of women are anti-vax:

https://qz.com/355398/the-average-an...-think-she-is/
While I appreciate your fighting back against that nonsense, a quick flip for the stats: it's not that 56% of men are anti-vax, it's that 56% of anti-vaxxers are men. (I did a double-take when I saw what you'd written and went to the article to check). Important difference!

Michael, if you can't see the sexism in this passage you wrote, I dunno what to tell you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEMouse
Imagine someone who's kinda dim and scaredy to start with, someone with a hyperactive amygdala and hypoactive prefrontal cortex, gets pregnant and can't really keep what little head she has with all the hormonal changes
  #40  
Old 02-25-2019, 10:01 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Huh. Following your link, it contains links to those other studies. The Fordham University study says:
Quote:
Results revealed that liberals were significantly more likely to endorse pro-vaccination statements and to regard them as “facts” (rather than “beliefs”), in comparison with moderates and conservatives. Whereas conservatives overestimated the proportion of like-minded others who agreed with them, liberals underestimated the proportion of others who agreed with them. That is, conservatives exhibited the “truly false consensus effect,” whereas liberals exhibited an “illusion of uniqueness” with respect to beliefs about vaccination. Conservative and moderate parents in this sample were less likely than liberals to report having fully vaccinated their children prior to the age of two.
The Yale study abstract doesn't contain a statement.

The University of Idaho study abstract says this:
Quote:
Our findings demonstrate that ideology has a direct effect on vaccine attitudes. In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals.
The CDC data is really long, so I searched for "political," "ideology," "liberal," "conservative," "Republican," and "Democrat". None of those terms appeared in that data.
  #41  
Old 02-25-2019, 10:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,118
In fact, that article bases its "bothsiderism" claims on a Pew Research study that's really really long. The chapter on biomedical issues, though, contains the money quote:
Quote:
There are modest differences in views about vaccines along political lines, a difference that emerged since 2009 when Pew Research last polled on this issue. In the 2014 survey, fully 74% of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party said vaccines should be required, compared with 64% of Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP. By comparison, there was no difference in views on vaccinations along party lines in 2009. The Pew Research analysis using a three-way classification of independents, Republicans and Democrats shows the same pattern.

There are modest differences by ideology with conservatives more inclined than liberals to say that parents should be able to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children (33% compared with 25%).
...
Democrats and leaning Democrats are more likely than their Republican counterparts to say that childhood vaccines should be required, controlling for other factors (a difference in the predicted probability between the two groups of 9 percentage points). Political ideology, gender and education are not significant predictors of views on this issue. Race and ethnicity are not significant predictors of opinion, although there is a trend for Hispanics to say vaccines should be required, relative to non-Hispanic whites.
However, this is for "should they be required." Later, they talk about "are they safe," and in this area, there's less of a disparity.
  #42  
Old 02-26-2019, 12:05 AM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,796
"Race and ethnicity are not significant predictors of opinion, although there is a trend for Hispanics to say vaccines should be required, relative to non-Hispanic whites."

Probably because a larger percentage of Hispanics are immigrants from or have relatives in countries where people still die from vaccine-preventable diseases.
  #43  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:31 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
While I appreciate your fighting back against that nonsense, a quick flip for the stats: it's not that 56% of men are anti-vax, it's that 56% of anti-vaxxers are men. (I did a double-take when I saw what you'd written and went to the article to check). Important difference!
....
You're right, of course. Sorry for adding additional nonsense! The point is still right, though -- they "typical" anti-vaxxer is male, not female, contrary to the Mouse's guess.
  #44  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:38 AM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
While I appreciate your fighting back against that nonsense, a quick flip for the stats: it's not that 56% of men are anti-vax, it's that 56% of anti-vaxxers are men. (I did a double-take when I saw what you'd written and went to the article to check). Important difference!

Michael, if you can't see the sexism in this passage you wrote, I dunno what to tell you:
If I said most women are like that, you'd be right. I didn't think most women are like that but most anti-vaxx people are like that which I may be wrong about.

Is it "dim and scaredy"? Plenty of men are dim and scaredy but it often will manifest itself through things other than active opposition to vaccines (like guns and homophobia).

"Hyperactive amygdala and hypoactive prefrontal cortex": That's a more detailed version of the above statement.

"gets pregnant and can't really keep what little head she has with all the hormonal changes" = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpartum_depression includes symptoms like: Persistent anxiousness, inability to be comforted, diminished ability to make decisions and think clearly.

Do you see how those symptoms could push someone to espouse anti-vaxx views? If I said that part of the reason young men commit more violence than others, especially women, is because of testosterone and their brain not being fully formed, would it be misandry?

It is quite possible that none of those factors are significant and that it all comes down to women being generally more involved when it comes to children as Dseid said.
  #45  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:41 AM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,176
Adding to what others have already said, I haven't found liberals or conservatives to be more anti-vax than the other. They do crop up in clusters, though, little hotspots here and there, so while these anti-vaxers might be mostly liberal, those anti-vaxers are mostly conservative.
  #46  
Old 02-26-2019, 02:41 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
Could we draw another distinction to resolve an ambiguity in OP's question: "Party" could refer to the people who voter for that party, the rank-and-file members, the leadership, the party platform, what the decision makers within/behind the party actually intend to do. I'm pretty sure the Koch brothers don't believe in anti-vaxx non-sense but they'd gladly use it as a wedge issue to prevent lower income voters from voting for a party that will raise taxes. The GOP has been cooping kooks since the 50s when they started welcoming segregationists like SturmThurmond.

Bitching about Dems and anti-vaxx is indeed just a form of what-about-ism. If you were a Republican right now and not a complete piece of shit, wouldn't there be at least a small part of you that would feel uneasy about your political allies? Now the GOPers think they've found a way to say: "No U!"
  #47  
Old 02-26-2019, 02:47 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,549
Which national Democratic leader is anti-vax?


Both sides have their kooks - Republicans just chose to elect one of theirs to the Presidency.
  #48  
Old 02-26-2019, 05:28 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Legislatively, though, do we see much from Democrats today in favor of opt-out laws?
The recent measles outbreak in Oregon and Washington is the result of robust opt-out provisions in Democratic controlled states. The law currently allows opt-out without any justification other than not wanting the vaccine. We'll see if they manage to pass stricter laws in response to the outbreak.
  #49  
Old 02-27-2019, 06:15 PM
MichaelEmouse's Avatar
MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,286
I admit I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion. Sorry.
  #50  
Old 02-27-2019, 06:59 PM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Both sides have their kooks - Republicans just chose to elect one of theirs to the Presidency.
Republicans seem to elect more kooks than Dems. There's one in the Texas legislature who wants to make it easier for parents to opt-out of vaccinations. He claims that measles is not a problem because we have antibiotics.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017