The Belief-Behavior Gap - Mothering Forums

 155Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 59 Old 02-19-2017, 03:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
The Belief-Behavior Gap

Riddle me this. Why do 68% of American adults favor mandatory vaccinations for school, (a questionable figure, as the poll question was a wee bit misleading), but a large majority of them don't even follow the schedule for themselves?

Why did nurses happily line up to support California's forced vaccination law, but I've yet to see a nurses union or organization get behind mandatory flu shots for health care workers?

How did Australian PM Tony Abbott sleep at night after he signed away vaccine choice rights for millions of Australians . . . all the while refusing vaccine compliance for his own daughter?

The gap between belief and behavior can be a wide one. I'm just curious: In the context of the vaccine debate, why does it exist?

Could it be that while people "believe in" vaccination, they just want someone else, (usually children), to assume the burden of it?

What else would underlie or motivate the hypocrisy?

Can you think of other examples of this belief-behavior gap?

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 59 Old 02-19-2017, 06:06 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Perhaps taxes?

A lot of people favor the services taxes provide (roads, schools, etc.) but do their absolute best to pay the absolute minimum of taxes themselves.

I remember Mother Jones had an article about an extreme Republican from Georgia many years back whose district got a lot of money from the Federal government while their congressman got elected over and over for bashing that Federal government for wasting money.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 59 Old 02-19-2017, 07:44 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Could it be that while people "believe in" vaccination, they just want someone else, (usually children), to assume the burden of it?
This.
applejuice and Deborah like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
 
#4 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 07:24 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Could it be that while people "believe in" vaccination, they just want someone else, (usually children), to assume the burden of it?
I am just going to expand on this a bit.

Vaccine critics face accusations from pro-vaxxers that we are free-riding all the time. What is good for the goose is good for the gander: if you can accuse someone of free-riding, then if you yourself are not utd you are free-riding, by your definition.

I also suspect that duty comes into this. Many people want to their duty, as they see it. Their duty is to bring their kids for the vaccines decreed by the powers that be. This is especially true as the kids are young, and decreases as they age. Culturally, we do not (yet) have a duty to vaccinate ourselves. It is all about cultural norms, duty and habits. I do expect his will change over time - although it is often harder to convince adults to do something to themselves than to do it for their children.

This is out there - but I wonder if some of the reason there has not been a successful push for adult vaccines, is because the pushers can not push them convincingly or without feeling like a hypocrite, as many of them are likely not completely compliant with vaccine protocol?
applejuice, Deborah and Devaskyla like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#5 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 07:31 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

The gap between belief and behavior can be a wide one. I'm just curious: In the context of the vaccine debate, why does it exist?
Another example:

We know the mumps portion of the vaccine is not doing the job it was set out to do. Thousands (?) of young adults are getting mumps yearly in the USA. Despite this, there is no clamour for a better vaccine, and no insistence on even titre-testing in late adolescence. So on one hand , people think mumps is worth vaccinating against - but on the other, there is no move to fix the vaccine, give another dose in late adolescence or even titre test.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#6 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 08:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Culturally, we do not (yet) have a duty to vaccinate ourselves. It is all about cultural norms, duty and habits. I do expect his will change over time - although it is often harder to convince adults to do something to themselves than to do it for their children.

This is out there - but I wonder if some of the reason there has not been a successful push for adult vaccines, is because the pushers can not push them convincingly or without feeling like a hypocrite, as many of them are likely not completely compliant with vaccine protocol?
Well, after well over 100 years of routinely vaccinating only children, (vaccination for widespread smallpox outbreaks being the exception), "we" have finally decided that it's time to invite adults to the party. The push for this has not stemmed from any grassroots effort from doctors and nurses. On the contrary, it has come from above, requiring aggressive marketing.

Quote:
In rich countries, growth relies on either finding more diseases to immunise against — meningitis B, for example, is the target of new vaccines from GSK and Pfizer — or widening the reach of existing products, as Pfizer has done with Prevnar.

With children already extensively vaccinated in the developed world, much of the industry’s focus has turned to older age groups.
This may also explain why it's harder to sway adults.
applejuice, Deborah and Devaskyla like this.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#7 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 08:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
Another example of the belief-behavior gap?

The American Medical Association supports coercive vaccination policies. After all, refusing vaccine compliance for non-medical reasons is evil and wrong and stupid and irresponsible and only for tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts. Unless you're a doctor.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#8 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Just thought of another one I've mentioned a few times.

Hospitals and doctor's offices regularly spread illness, sometimes very dangerous and life-threatening illnesses.

Medical authorities are constantly beating on people who are behind on their vaccines or who have children who aren't "up to date" for potentially spreading disease, but these same authorities don't spend nearly as much bandwidth hitting on hospitals or clinics or medical offices. Even though the number of cases they spread and the number of deaths that occur is far beyond anything that can be blamed on the vaccine refusers, even with the blame inflation that is practiced by said authorities.
applejuice and Devaskyla like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#9 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 01:54 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
I'm not sure I really buy that there's any real hypocrisy there. Deborah's taxes example was a good one.

Suppose I am in favor of increasing taxes on people of my income level and higher, because I believe that society would be better off if people of my income level and higher paid more in taxes that could be used for government services. Suppose I vote for every tax increase and every candidate promising to raise taxes. Yet in the absence of a law raising taxes, I do not voluntarily write extra checks to the IRS. So I am in favor of mandating something for everyone that I do not personally do voluntarily.

Is that hypocritical? I don't think so. I think you can think that the collective positive impact of everyone being mandated to do something (here, paying taxes) is a good, even if you think the marginal impact of one or a few people choosing to do that thing is unimportant or would have minimal impact.
Jessica765 is offline  
#10 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 02:47 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I'm not sure I really buy that there's any real hypocrisy there. Deborah's taxes example was a good one.

Suppose I am in favor of increasing taxes on people of my income level and higher, because I believe that society would be better off if people of my income level and higher paid more in taxes that could be used for government services. Suppose I vote for every tax increase and every candidate promising to raise taxes. Yet in the absence of a law raising taxes, I do not voluntarily write extra checks to the IRS. So I am in favor of mandating something for everyone that I do not personally do voluntarily.

Is that hypocritical? I don't think so. I think you can think that the collective positive impact of everyone being mandated to do something (here, paying taxes) is a good, even if you think the marginal impact of one or a few people choosing to do that thing is unimportant or would have minimal impact.
You didn't quote what I actually said or respond to it. I was pointing specifically to people who simultaneously demand and use government services while fighting energetically against increased taxes.

I'll give a local example. If one of my library patrons was an enthusiastic user of the library and loved audiobooks (which are about 3 times as expensive as a regular hardcover book) and demanded that the library purchase an additional 4 audiobooks a month...while simultaneously speaking out at every town meeting against the library budget...we'd have a clear case of hypocrisy. People are not, of course, usually that conspicuous in their irrational behavior.

But you do see people complaining about how awful the roads are AND complaining about how much money it costs to pay the road crew and buy and maintain the equipment used to keep the roads open and somewhat functional.

There definitely are people who expect short lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles, well-maintained roads, properly educated children, police and firemen who know their jobs and do them well, etc. AND want their taxes to either stay level or go down every year.

I'm making no claims whatsoever that this is a good parallel with people who demand that babies and children stick like glue to the recommended schedule while the same people treat the recommended adult schedule as purely optional. In fact I don't think it is a very good parallel.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 03:26 PM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
You didn't quote what I actually said or respond to it. I was pointing specifically to people who simultaneously demand and use government services while fighting energetically against increased taxes.
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to respond to you, but rather to the OP; I was just trying to to acknowledge that you brought up taxes and made me think about taxes as an example of a situation where it is not hypocritical to want something mandated for everyone (paying more $ to the government) even though you don't voluntarily do it yourself in the absence of a mandate.
Deborah likes this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#12 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 03:42 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,476
Mentioned: 333 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2775 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to respond to you, but rather to the OP; I was just trying to to acknowledge that you brought up taxes and made me think about taxes as an example of a situation where it is not hypocritical to want something mandated for everyone (paying more $ to the government) even though you don't voluntarily do it yourself in the absence of a mandate.
Okay, I get it.

On the other hand, mandates generally don't work well in situations where there isn't buy in or some sort of club to hit the uncooperative with. You can get buy in by convincing people that they need to go along for their own benefit or for the benefit of the group. Or you can get people to comply by threatening them with something fairly painful. A fine, joblessness, lack of access to public goods.

The weird part turns up when one group is yelling loudly for a particular part of the population (babies and children and teens) to carry the load, but going all quiet and out of sight when the spotlight turns their way.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#13 of 59 Old 02-20-2017, 07:31 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to respond to you, but rather to the OP; I was just trying to to acknowledge that you brought up taxes and made me think about taxes as an example of a situation where it is not hypocritical to want something mandated for everyone (paying more $ to the government) even though you don't voluntarily do it yourself in the absence of a mandate.
If you want everyone else to have higher taxes, but will jump through hoops (and loopholes!) to keep yours low, that is hypocritical.

If you want mandates, but yourself are not UTD, that is hypocritical.

I am sorry - but I am calling bull: if you yourself are unwilling to do xyz then you cannot expect others to do it, either.
applejuice, mama24-7 and Xerxella like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-20-2017 at 07:36 PM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#14 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 05:05 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
If you want everyone else to have higher taxes, but will jump through hoops (and loopholes!) to keep yours low, that is hypocritical.

If you want mandates, but yourself are not UTD, that is hypocritical.

I am sorry - but I am calling bull: if you yourself are unwilling to do xyz then you cannot expect others to do it, either.
I think I disagree with your first two statements and agree with your third.

If you expect other people similarly situated to yourself to behave a certain way, but you do not behave that way, that's hypocritical. E.g.:

- You expect other people in your situation to voluntarily pay more taxes (perhaps by ignoring certain legally permissible deductions and credits), yet you do not voluntarily pay extra taxes and take all of the legally permissible deductions and credits you can.
-You expect other people in your situation to voluntarily get a flu shot, yet you do not do it.
-You expect other people in your situation to follow a legal mandate to pay a certain tax, yet you violate the law and fail to pay it.

On the other hand, wanting the government to impose a legal mandate, but not complying with that legal mandate unless/until it is imposed, is not hypocritical. E.g.:

-You think the mortgage interest tax deduction is bad policy and advocate for it to be abolished, yet until/unless that legal change has happened, you take the deduction when you file your taxes.
-You think the flu shot should be legally mandatory for people in your situation, yet unless/until that legal change has happened, you don't get one. [Note that I think this is unwise, but not hypocritical.]

Things get more complicated when you are talking about people not similarly situated to yourself--e.g., you think people who make more money than you should pay more taxes but you should not, or you think schoolchildren should be mandated to get vaccines but adults should not. But then I think it's less about hypocrisy and more about whether your positions have a rational basis behind them or are just about selfishness.

Last edited by Jessica765; 02-21-2017 at 07:50 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#15 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 08:09 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I think I disagree with your first two statements and agree with your third.

If you expect other people similarly situated to yourself to behave a certain way, but you do not behave that way, that's hypocritical. E.g.:

- You expect other people in your situation to voluntarily pay more taxes (perhaps by ignoring certain legally permissible deductions and credits), yet you do not voluntarily pay extra taxes and take all of the legally permissible deductions and credits you can.
-You expect other people in your situation to voluntarily get a flu shot, yet you do not do it.
-You expect other people in your situation to follow a legal mandate to pay a certain tax, yet you violate the law and fail to pay it.

On the other hand, wanting the government to impose a legal mandate, but not complying with that legal mandate unless/until it is imposed, is not hypocritical. E.g.:

-You think the mortgage interest tax deduction is bad policy and advocate for it to be abolished, yet until/unless that legal change has happened, you take the deduction when you file your taxes.
-You think the flu shot should be legally mandatory for people in your situation, yet unless/until that legal change has happened, you don't get one. [Note that I think this is unwise, but not hypocritical.]

Things get more complicated when you are talking about people not similarly situated to yourself--e.g., you think people who make more money than you should pay more taxes but you should not, or you think schoolchildren should be mandated to get vaccines but adults should not. But then I think it's less about hypocrisy and more about whether your positions have a rational basis behind them or are just about selfishness.
I took a look at the definition of hypocrisy - here it is:

"a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

So, to clarify:

I do not think one is a hypocrit if one thinks high taxes are a good idea, vote for a party that believes as such, but does not voluntarily pay more taxes until a tax hike becomes law. I think there are almost always competing interests here: the knowledge that taxes pay for hospitals, roads, schools, etc, and the real desire to keep ones money, typically to live off of.

There is no significant competing interest in vaccines, though, is there - if you are pro-vax?

If you are pro-vax and want mandates, what do you gain by not vaccinating oneself ahead of said mandates?

Another consideration in whether something is hypocricy or not may come down to how vocal you are on an issue. If you generally think mandates are a good idea for all ages, but it is not your hill to die on, and you spend no time advocating for it, then yeah, I still think you are a hypocrit if you vote for mandates when you yourself were not in compliance with recommendations for years and have no intention to be compliant until you are made to, but it is a small case "h".

OTOH, if you spend time debating vaccines, trying to convince others to vaccinate, but you yourself are not utd (and not just late on the flu shot one year) but consistently not utd, then yes, it is hypocrisy to advocate something that your actions do not support.

Let's say I advocated for less car pollution, publicly supported car-use reduction initiatives, spoke at town hall meetings, blogged about it and even went so far as to call those who rely heavily on cars selfish, stupid, etc, etc... wouldn't it be hypocritical if I regularly drove to the corner store alone in my SUV? (assuming I have no health issues - and even then I could get a hybrid)
applejuice and Deborah like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 08:11 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#16 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 08:24 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
There is no significant competing interest in vaccines, though, is there - if you are pro-vax?

If you are pro-vax and want mandates, what do you gain by not vaccinating oneself ahead of said mandates?
Honestly, I think the reason that a pro-vax adult might not be fully up to date on vaccines is most likely to be laziness/lack of awareness/lack of knowledge/lack of urgency, rather than an express decision about competing interests or what is to be gained. Unlike many or most children, many adults likely don't have easy access to their vaccine records, don't know whether they are fully up to date on everything, don't know how to find out, don't see a doctor regularly anyway, etc. And if there is no deadline by which they need to figure those things out, there's not much urgency to doing so, and they will fall by the wayside. It's just a matter of human nature, more than hypocrisy or something nefarious. People are more likely to do things when they are required and/or when they are easy.

Last edited by Jessica765; 02-21-2017 at 08:29 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#17 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 08:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Honestly, I think the reason that a pro-vax adult might not be fully up to date on vaccines is most likely to be laziness/lack of awareness/lack of knowledge/lack of urgency, rather than an express decision about competing interests or what is to be gained. Unlike many or most children, many adults likely don't have easy access to their vaccine records, don't know whether they are fully up to date on everything, don't know how to find out, don't see a doctor regularly anyway, etc. And if there is no deadline by which they need to figure those things out, there's not much urgency to doing so, and they will fall by the wayside. It's just a matter of human nature, more than hypocrisy or selfishness. People are more likely to do things when they are required and/or when they are easy.
I agree that it is likely human nature, but the bottom line is they are not up to date, then they should not be advocating heavily that others are up to date. one beliefs should be in line with ones actions, particularly if they are trying to tell others what to do.
applejuice and Deborah like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 09:02 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#18 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 09:01 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 526 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
I agree with everything that Jessica has said and wanted to expand on another point.

To be clear, the link in the OP about adult vaccinations uptake talks about pneumococcal, HPV, tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, Flu, and the shingles vaccines.

The shingles, HPV, Hep A, flu, Pneumococcal, and HPV vaccine are not on the required list to attend school for any of the three states that have mandatory vaccination laws.

See here: http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite...4,8569,71.html, http://www.dhhr.wv.gov/oeps/immuniza...olEnterers.pdf, http://www.shotsforschool.org/k-12/

So it can't really be argued that adults not getting those are hypocrites without more information.

So we are left with tetanus and hep B from the OPs link. The link says about tetanus "...the proportion of adults receiving any tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine during the past 10 years was 64.2% for adults aged 19–49 years, 63.5% for adults aged 50–64 years, and 55.1% for adults aged ≥65 years..." that is not far from the 68% mark of adults and tetanus is not a vaccine that is required yearly for general adults. I'd also need more information about why adults aren't up to date since, as Jessica mentioned, it could be they don't know they need a new dose because of trouble finding their medical records, don't have easy access to a doctor, can't afford one, etc. Hep B is a newer vaccine so I doubt most adults are even aware they can receive it let alone that they should. I would need a lot more information on that one to conclude that is due to hypocrisy and not just ignorance.

Further, the link in the OP only mentioned that adults were in favor of the MMR and polio vaccine being required for school. Since the majority of adults in this country have either had those diseases naturally or been vaccinated against them as children, and the majority likewise vaccinated their own children against those diseases when we look at uptake data from the past, I am not seeing any hypocrisy there.
Jessica765 likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 02-21-2017 at 09:05 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#19 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 09:06 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,657
Mentioned: 150 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1742 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post

On the other hand, wanting the government to impose a legal mandate, but not complying with that legal mandate unless/until it is imposed, is not hypocritical.
Have you ever advocated for a policy without espousing the arguments that support it? Is it necessary to have a law in place before you practice what you preach? Or should you be doing that even without a law compelling you to do so?

If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like you're trying to separate the policy from the principles and convictions that underlie it. But the two are inseparable.

I'll introduce another non-vaccine example. This Senator from Pennsylvania argues that low-income TANF recipients should undergo mandatory drug testing.

Quote:
“Hard-earned tax dollars, quite simply, should not be used to pay for someone else’s illegal drug habit.
If he supports the principles behind mandatory drug testing for citizens receiving tax money, he behaving hypocritically if he is unwilling to apply this principle to himself and his colleagues. This means that unless he, (and his other cohorts who support this law), are willing to pee in a cup---even before the law passes--his case less credible and reeks of hypocrisy (and perhaps uric acid ). Members of Congress, after all, are funded by our hard-earned tax dollars, and I'd hate to think that I'm paying for---how did Sen. Argall word it?--"someone else's illegal drug habit."

For these reasons, I have long argued that politicians proposing mandatory vaccinations for school-children need to provide an amendment requiring vaccine compliance for themselves, as a condition of their employment.

Now let's look at the principles behind the AMA's push for coercive vaccination policies for school-children.

The AMA cannot really take seriously the principles behind this policy position because the members who set these policy positions are unable to apply them to themselves.

But even if I accept their supporting statements for the sake of argument, (which I don't, on a number of grounds), infectious viruses and bacteria don't care whether or not you're a doctor. If anything, they hit doctors more because doctors are exposed to illness on a daily to almost-daily basis.

If their principles are important enough to apply to school-children, they are important enough to apply consistently to themselves. This belief-behavior gap leads me to believe that A) they don't sincerely believe their own underlying arguments for coercive vaccination policy or B) they want to think that they're too speshul and exceptional to have their own informed consent rights taken away.

There's a theory to explain the latter, one that applies to far too many doctors and politicians IMHO. But who am I to speculate?

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Proud member of #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#20 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 09:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

1. To be clear, the link in the OP about adult vaccinations uptake talks about pneumococcal, HPV, tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, Flu, and the shingles vaccines.

The shingles, HPV, Hep A, flu, Pneumococcal, and HPV vaccine are not on the required list to attend school for any of the three states that have mandatory vaccination laws.

Trying to compel a family to vaccinate when you yourself are not up to date with on your vaccines (for whatever reason) is not OK. It is hypocritical, as per dictionary definition.


2. So we are left with tetanus and hep B from the OPs link. The link says about tetanus "...the proportion of adults receiving any tetanus toxoid–containing vaccine during the past 10 years was 64.2% for adults aged 19–49 years, 63.5% for adults aged 50–64 years, and 55.1% for adults aged ≥65 years..." that is not far from the 68% mark of adults and tetanus is not a vaccine that is required yearly for general adults. Hep B is a newer vaccine so I doubt most adults are even aware they can receive it let alone that they should. I would need a lot more information on that one to conclude that is due to hypocrisy and not just ignorance.

Around 60% of adult not having had a tetanus booster in the last ten years is a big deal. That is a lot of people not UTD.

The OP has put up several links. They can loosely be grouped in two: general public favouring mandatory vaccines and health care workers/organisations favouring mandatory vaccines.

As per the general public not knowing about the Hep. b vaccine, that might be the case. None-the-less, ignorance is no defence. If your opinion is an ignorant one, then I am not going to weigh it. If you are going to favour mandatory vaccines and especially if you are going to advocate vaccines, then you really do need to be utd on your own vaccines, or have a plan to get that way soon. Otherwise, your opinion means very little.

Healthcare workers have absolutely no excuse for advocating mandatory vaccines if they are not in compliance with recommendations.


3. Further, the link in the OP only mentioned that adults were in favor of the MMR and polio vaccine being required for school. Since the majority of adults in this country have either had those diseases naturally or been vaccinated against them as children, and the majority likewise vaccinated their own children against those diseases when we look at uptake data from the past, I am not seeing any hypocrisy there.


The Op listed 4 links in the first page, 3 in the OP. This issue isn't about one link: it is about whether it is ok to advocate for mandatory vaccines (either as a layman or professional) if you are not utd. .
I think we need to keep in mind the definition of pro-vax.

Pro-vaxxers advocate for compliance with the schedule. They may allow a very little wriggle room, but some not even that. If you pick and choose vaccines and timing, then you are selective delayed. I have never met a sel/delayer who favours mandates.

If someone is going to call themselves pro-vax, as all healthcare organization do, then yes, they need to walk the walk to have any credibility.

Frankly, the fact so many nurses and doctors reject certain vaccines for themselves (typically flu) and/or want to have the right to decide for themselves what vaccines to use makes it look very bad when they then favour mandates for the masses.
applejuice, Deborah and Devaskyla like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 09:46 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#21 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 09:47 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Have you ever advocated for a policy without espousing the arguments that support it? Is it necessary to have a law in place before you practice what you preach? Or should you be doing that even without a law compelling you to do so?

If I'm reading this correctly, it sounds like you're trying to separate the policy from the principles and convictions that underlie it. But the two are inseparable.
Sometimes it is necessary to have a law in place before I practice what I preach, yes. The taxes is a good example. I believe in the principle of people of certain incomes paying more taxes than they currently do for government services. But that doesn't mean that I am going to practice what I preach by unilaterally paying extra taxes on my own. There might be other examples too--I might strongly support laws requiring vehicles to have better gas mileage, yet in the absence of such a law I might myself drive a car with non-optimal gas mileage--for reasons of cost or convenience, combined with a feeling that the marginal benefit of one individual person choosing a more efficient vehicle is of negligible impact. I can hold to the principle "we would all be better off if everyone were required to do X" without necessarily holding to the principle "each individual should always choose to do X."

Quote:
I'll introduce another non-vaccine example. This Senator from Pennsylvania argues that low-income TANF recipients should undergo mandatory drug testing.

If he supports the principles behind mandatory drug testing for citizens receiving tax money, he behaving hypocritically if he is unwilling to apply this principle to himself and his colleagues. This means that unless he, (and his other cohorts who support this law), are willing to pee in a cup---even before the law passes--his case less credible and reeks of hypocrisy (and perhaps uric acid ). Members of Congress, after all, are funded by our hard-earned tax dollars, and I'd hate to think that I'm paying for---how did Sen. Argall word it?--"someone else's illegal drug habit."
No, I don't quite agree with your analysis. The hypocrisy is in wanting a law that mandates drug-testing for some people who receive tax dollars, but not other people who receive tax dollars, and not having a good reason for making the distinction between those two groups.

If the Senator wanted a law mandating drug-testing for everyone who receives government money (senators and welfare recipients alike), yet he personally refused to pee in a cup unless/until that law were enacted, there would be no hypocrisy.

If the Senator had a valid reason (and I would not argue that there is one) for drug testing one group and not the other, there would not be hypocrisy.

Quote:
For these reasons, I have long argued that politicians proposing mandatory vaccinations for school-children need to provide an amendment requiring vaccine compliance for themselves, as a condition of their employment.
I can see that argument. I could also see arguments for why someone would think there are valid reasons to limit vaccine mandates to schoolchildren (principally that there is a mechanism by which that could be enforced, which seems utterly impracticable for adults). [For the record, I am not advocating any such mandates or laws.]
Jessica765 is offline  
#22 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 09:53 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
Sometimes it is necessary to have a law in place before I practice what I preach, yes.]
(gently) That is a human failing, though.

Policy needs to rise above.

If I am going to sign my name to a policy or even advocate firmly for something, I need to be able to do what I am trying to compel others to do.

FTR, I don't think people should try to compel or coerce others to do things, but if you are going to go down that path, make sure your own house is in order.

It would be very fair for someone to question my intents or devotion to a cause if I did not walk the walk for an idea I was firmly promoting.
applejuice, Deborah and Turquesa like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 10:00 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#23 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 10:00 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
(gently) That is a human failing, though.

Policy needs to rise above.

If I am going to sign my name to a policy or even advocate firmly for something, I need to be able to do what I am trying to compel others to do.

It would be very fair for someone to question my intents or devotion to the cause if I did not walk the walk for an idea I was firmly promoting.
I don't think it's a human failing to not unilaterally and voluntarily engage in everything you advocate as a legal requirement. As long as I am willing to "walk the walk" by abiding by the policy I advocate (e.g., paying more taxes) in the event that it becomes policy for everyone, I see little to no hypocrisy or human failing.
Jessica765 is offline  
#24 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 10:01 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I don't think it's a human failing to not unilaterally and voluntarily engage in everything you advocate as a legal requirement. As long as I am willing to "walk the walk" by abiding by the policy I advocate (e.g., paying more taxes) in the event that it becomes policy for everyone, I see little to no hypocrisy or human failing.
So - you think it is fine for a doctor to want mandatory vaccines but not be utd himself?
applejuice, Deborah and Bow like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#25 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 10:04 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I don't think it's a human failing to not unilaterally and voluntarily engage in everything you advocate as a legal requirement. As long as I am willing to "walk the walk" by abiding by the policy I advocate (e.g., paying more taxes) in the event that it becomes policy for everyone, I see little to no hypocrisy or human failing.
I guess we just disagree. In general, I am not prepared to listen to someone who advocates for mandatory A but does B. Obviously, they do not feel strongly about A if they cannot or will not (as is almost always the case with vaccines) do it themselves.

An example: Doctors and nurses may spout the benefits of the flu vaccine, but if they have the choice, many of them reject it.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/healthcareworkers.htm

"Early season 2014–15 flu vaccination coverage among health care personnel was 64.3%, similar to early season coverage during the 2013–14 season (62.9%)...
Early season flu vaccination coverage was higher among health care personnel whose employers required (85.8%) or recommended (68.4%) that they be vaccinated, compared to those whose employer did not have a policy or recommendation regarding flu vaccination (43.4%)

What people do matters a lot more than what they say.
applejuice and Deborah like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 10:20 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#26 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 10:08 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 553
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 475 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
So - you think it is fine for a doctor to want mandatory vaccines but not be utd himself?
No, not fine. But not necessarily hypocritical.
Jessica765 is offline  
#27 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 10:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
No, not fine. But not necessarily hypocritical.
then what?

And please do not come back with "human nature."

I am not going to fillet-o-fish you as you do not speak for all pro-vaxxers, and are usually respectful...but there has been a lot of finger pointing over the years by pro-vaxxers at vaccine critics for not being utd. We are selfish, free-loaders, etc, etc. I can get links. But when a individual professes to be pro-vax, they get a pass for being not utd? Not only should they also be called selfish freeloaders but hypocrisy should be thrown in. They are trying to coerce families into to being compliant with the schedule when they are unwilling to be compliant themselves. Ick.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 11:02 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#28 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 11:06 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,857
Mentioned: 526 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3490 Post(s)
@kathymuggle , I do not have a lot of time right now but the links I was referring to where the pew poll that said 68 percent of adults were in favor of mandatory vaccination for school and the link to the adult vaccine uptake. The article she linked about the poll only mentioned adults being questioned on the MMR and Polio vaccine. I didn't see the link to the actual questions, but it does not sound like it was a blanket question of "should children be required to receive every single vaccine available on the market to attend school, even ones not on the required list to attend school?"

So in that sense, I do not think there is an argument that it is hypocritical to advocate for vaccines being required that the majority of adults either received themselves as children or gave their own children.

If person A is an advocate (and I'd argue that answering an anonymous poll does not make a person a hardcore pro-vaccine advocate in and of itself) for children receiving the MMR to attend school due to the extremely contagious nature of measles and high complication rate, it does not make them a hypocrite if they choose not to get the flu vaccine. Those are totally different vaccines and measles and the flu are totally different diseases. So my argument, in other words, is that an adult can be in favor of vaccine school mandates while simultaneously not getting the flu vaccine for themselves without it being hypocritical since the flu vaccine is not part of the required vaccine list to attend school anyway. Ditto other vaccines with low adult uptake that aren't on the schedule.

I also disagree that in the context of this thread, not being aware is not the same thing as being hypocritical. The responses at the beginning implied there was a deliberate intent of wanting children to assume the risk and burden so the adults could reap the benefits without accepting the risk themselves. If an adult has no idea that a Hep B vaccine even exists for adults let alone that they should receive it, that is not hypocritical of them to not have one. Ditto if they think they are within the 10 year limit of the tetanus vaccine but actually aren't. This is not a black and white issue, there is room for nuance. The reason why an adult is not up to date on vaccination matters greatly to me in the context of whether they are being hypocrites or not.

Lastly, this not addressing the point brought up by Jessica that if we say, for the sake or argument, that these are adults who are simply refusing the vaccine for themselves while holding the position that children should receive them for school, that if they have a legitimate reason why they feel children should be required to receive vaccines while adults shouldn't, that could determine whether it is hypocritical or not. For example, would it be hypocritical of an adult smoker to be in favor of laws forbidding the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 18 simply because they smoke themselves?
Jessica765 likes this.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 02-21-2017 at 11:08 AM.
teacozy is offline  
#29 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 11:48 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,119
Mentioned: 237 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2321 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
@kathymuggle ,

I also disagree that in the context of this thread, not being aware is not the same thing as being hypocritical. The responses at the beginning implied there was a deliberate intent of wanting children to assume the risk and burden so the adults could reap the benefits without accepting the risk themselves. If an adult has no idea that a Hep B vaccine even exists for adults let alone that they should receive it, that is not hypocritical of them to not have one. Ditto if they think they are within the 10 year limit of the tetanus vaccine but actually aren't. This is not a black and white issue, there is room for nuance. The reason why an adult is not up to date on vaccination matters greatly to me in the context of whether they are being hypocrites or not.

Lastly, this not addressing the point brought up by Jessica that if we say, for the sake or argument, that these are adults who are simply refusing the vaccine for themselves while holding the position that children should receive them for school, that if they have a legitimate reason why they feel children should be required to receive vaccines while adults shouldn't, that could determine whether it is hypocritical or not. For example, would it be hypocritical of an adult smoker to be in favor of laws forbidding the sale of cigarettes to children under the age of 18 simply because they smoke themselves?
You may (or may not have noticed) that I was being gentler on the general public than I was on pro-vax advocates or health care professionals.

I agree with you that it is likely the 68% or so of people who said they favoured mandatory vaccine are not firm vaccine advocates. They may indeed be ignorant on some of the information and issues, and in an ideal world should hold their tongues, but I am not going to flame them for answering a quick poll. I still think they are lower case h hypocrite, as ignorance is no defence - but that is not a huge deal. I am also not going to weigh their opinion heavily or even use it to back up a point. I do not think a quick poll of the masses should carry much weight.

My larger issue is with those who are firm pro-vax advocates - be it laypeople or professionals. They are not uniformed, and should be willing to get recommended vaccines for their age group if they are trying to compel others to do so.

As per your last paragraph, I see some issues. I don't think there are legitimate reason why an adult (without health issues) should decline a vaccine for him or herself but insist on a child being utd to go to school. What legitimate reasons do you see that are not rare exceptions? Vaccine mandates, it is argued, are about protecting the herd - if you fail to get your flu, hep, etc shot...then you are failing to protect the herd.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-21-2017 at 12:35 PM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#30 of 59 Old 02-21-2017, 01:12 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,922
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 173 Post(s)
Quote:
This is not a black and white issue, there is room for nuance.
Oh, the irony.

Sus
applejuice, Deborah and Devaskyla like this.

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 12,373

24 members and 12,349 guests
Bow , cadence.clair , chispita , creativegarden , Deborah , greenemami , jamesmorrow , Janeen0225 , japonica , katelove , Katherine73 , LiLStar , Lucee , Michele123 , NaturallyKait , oshenalchem , redsally , Rose-up , sarrahlnorris , scaramouche131 , Skippy918 , Springshowers , that1russian.17 , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.