Can anyone explain to me how someone can be anti-vaccine but be ok with taking monoclonal antibodies should they get infected?
Note: I don’t know if monoclonal antibodies are still a valid treatment given the current variants but ignore that for the purposes of this question.
Because only a very small fraction of the population knows what monoclonal antibodies are.
Because they actually caught the disease that they previously believed was a hoax?
The simple answer is, because they’re idiots.
Oh, you can expand it beyond that: Their echo chambers talk about vaccines being evil but don’t mention monoclonal antibodies; vaccines are administered before but MCAs afterwords; they think that RNA in the vaccines changes their DNA. But it all comes down to “they’re idiots”.
I guess the smarter ones may be weighing risk-benefit in two different situations.
For example, the thinking might go:
All medicines have risks associated with them.
Regarding prophylaxis via vaccination - I don’t have the disease, I may never get it. Can I avoid the risk of vaccination by opting for treatment of the disease (if I get it) rather than opting for vaccination for a disease I haven’t got? PLUS in the case of a vaccination program against an infectious disease, a major objective is herd immunity: can I be protected by other people accepting the risk associated with vaccination whilst I avoid that risk? Conclusion - the risks of (my) vaccination outweigh the benefits (which is likely wrong - I’m just suggesting a line of thought here.)
Oops, now I have the disease and therefore need to be treated - I cannot avoid the risks associated with treatment. Obvious conclusion, the benefits of treatment now outweigh the risks.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that, but at this level we’re likely not dealing with the sharpest tools in the box. I believe the risks associated with vaccination were still very small compared to the risk of catching the disease and having to be treated.
I suspect that for people who were thinking along these lines it was more part of a rationalization than a fully worked out plan. But there is a whiff of logic about it (or at least there might seem to be). This line of argument would apply whether or not the treatment for the disease was a monoclonal antibody.
j
I don’t think it’s crazy to be more suspicious of medical treatments offered when you are healthy as compared to medical treatments offered when you are already sick.
When it comes to treatments, monoclonal antibodies are basically the antitoxins of the 2020s.
It may not be “crazy”, but it is wrong. Vaccination has saved more lives than antibiotics, and I don’t think any other medical intervention comes close.
What is this supposed to mean? Antitoxins are antibodies that were historically all polyclonal and can now be monoclonal; but neutralizing toxins is not the only therapeutic use of antibodies.
Because right-wing echo chambers marketed monoclonal antibodies as [not vaccines]. That’s literally the beginning and end of it.
Oh sure. Vaccines are a terrific deal. I literally volunteered for a vaccine study to get earlier access to a booster.
But there are risks to any treatment, including a vaccine. Many people felt sick for a day or two after the covid vaccine. A few had more serious troubles. And if you deeply mistrust “the establishment” that recommends the vaccine, you might question whether the risk/benefit is worth it. Whereas if you are actually sick already, the potential benefit is a lot more obvious.
I always find this hilarious with all the “pureblood” stuff even to the extent of claims that unprotected sex with an immunized partner can give you dangerous side effects just like the immunizations.
Yet the idea that one of the ways monoclonal antibodies are made is by immunizing mice and harvesting the appropriate cells that express the covid antibodies. Then injecting people with that.
Just an FYI from someone in the industry. We usually refer to monoclonal antibodies as MABs. If you watch enough television to see a ton of drug commercials, the drug name is typically given in parentheses. If the drug name ends in “mab,” it is a monoclonal antibody.
Monoclonal antibodies are now available for healthy people, i.e. for preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis against Covid-19.
A prevailing theme among antivaxers is that vaccines tamper with and threaten your innate, pure, God-given immune system. Why monoclonal antibody treatments are not viewed with similar suspicion is one of life’s mysteries.
Thankfully there’s a dating service for purebloods. It also serves as a marketplace for non-mRNA contaminated blood, sperm and eggs.
Because people’s standards change when they can’t breathe.
As noted by other posters earlier, not always.
Plenty of people who couldn’t breathe took their last breath claiming COVID was a hoax. They upheld their standards to the end. Utterly stupid standards, but standards nevertheless. I suppose that deserves an especially respectful form of contempt from the rest of us.
That’s a polite way to say it.
But most of those people did not hesitate to go to the hospital & accept any and every treatment recommended by the same doctors they previously called quacks for promoting vaccines. They claimed they didn’t trust the vaccine because it was new, not well tested, etc, but they didn’t apply these criteria to the drugs used at the hospital, starting with monoclonal antibodies. A few did stay home & take Ivermectin cocktails – that’s sticking to your standards. But I don’t think there were many of those.
I think my issue with it is that it’s the same doctors that they initially claim are trying to literally poison the entire country, whom they now trust to save them when they’re sick.
In that way, the whole ivermectin thing is actually more logically consistent.
Motochromalantibuddy? Well, anybody in his right mind should oppose a polysyllabic word they can’t pronounce*. I would.
* Or write…