Mothering Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<p>I've been reading (from both sides) that they've noticed a marked shift in news articles the last 6 months to a year on the topic of vaccines. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where there used to be a lot of non vaccine coverage, it seems like the pendulum has swung the other way, and not just online either.   Except for the Katie Couric gardasil episode,  I haven't really seen much non vaccine reportage on television either. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you agree? If so, what do you think caused it?  Is it the bigger outbreaks of diseases like measles?  Or are more parents of children with VPDs speaking out?  Is it because of the Wakefield scandal?  Are more pro vaccine pediatricians speaking out?  Or is it due to the increase of pro-vaccine blogs/facebook pages? Or Are pro vaccine supporters just getting more organized through social media etc? (for example, I don't think that Chili's would have had the overwhelming negative feedback from pro-vaxxers that they got had they done the fundraiser two years ago) Something else? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have a feeling this topic would not go very well in the debate/discussion forum, so I thought I'd bring it here because I think it's an interesting one. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thoughts? </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
<p>I think in general this is the case, but I have seen a few stories from Huff Post that don't follow this trend.</p>
<p>It looks like most of the stories that come out are in relation to news about outbreaks. With measles on both coasts, mumps crossing several states and whooping cough epidemics having led to several deaths in the past years, it just seems like the time is right to get the pro-vax message out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whether or not this media coverage is really helping one side or the other is something that concerns me. I don't think pro-vax media messages are always beneficial if the goal is to get better vaccine coverage. Take an example from today, where parents who own guns are compared to parents who don't vaccinate (<a href="http://time.com/68249/vaccines-anti-vaxxers/" target="_blank">http://time.com/68249/vaccines-anti-vaxxers/</a>). Whats the benefit of confusing these two contentious issues? It just makes the message more muddled and more divisive. Parents who vaccinate and own guns are offended, parents who don't vaccinate and don't own guns are offended, and I guess somewhere in there is probably a slim margin of people who think this is a great comparison. That doesn't even get into the other annoying judgments the blog's author makes about the vocations of people in his parenting group, or what might or might not qualify someone as an "anti-vaxxer."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's an opinion piece, as many of these are, but it's hosted by a major media organization so it just makes me wonder-- what is the goal?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I also noticed a few examples in the most recent flu outbreak when my state's DHH would update pediatric death statistics and the media would report "two new flu deaths" and "get your vaccine." Well, the "new" deaths were actually from as many as 2 months earlier, and had only just been confirmed. Sloppy reporting, in my opinion, undermines public health objectives <em>and</em> it fails to give people the opportunity to make informed decisions-- which, to me, is more important than either pushing or condemning vaccines.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whichever side it represents, the media doesn't seem to have an interest in following the debate for the benefit of public health so much as it follows the controversial talking points and scary headlines. It irritates me, to be perfectly honest.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
<p>Dr. Oz just did a segment on the increase in measles and whooping cough, and comes out with a strongly pro-vaccine position:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/health-alert-3-deadly-diseases-making-comeback#comments" target="_blank">http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/health-alert-3-deadly-diseases-making-comeback</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/community/t/1400859/is-the-media-becoming-more-pro-vaccine#post_17615368" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>ss834</strong> <a href="/community/t/1400859/is-the-media-becoming-more-pro-vaccine#post_17615368"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
I think in general this is the case, but I have seen a few stories from Huff Post that don't follow this trend.<br>
It looks like most of the stories that come out are in relation to news about outbreaks. With measles on both coasts, mumps crossing several states and whooping cough epidemics having led to several deaths in the past years, it just seems like the time is right to get the pro-vax message out.<br><br>
Whether or not this media coverage is really helping one side or the other is something that concerns me. I don't think pro-vax media messages are always beneficial if the goal is to get better vaccine coverage. Take an example from today, where parents who own guns are compared to parents who don't vaccinate (<a class="bbcode_url" href="http://time.com/68249/vaccines-anti-vaxxers/" target="_blank">http://time.com/68249/vaccines-anti-vaxxers/</a>). Whats the benefit of confusing these two contentious issues? It just makes the message more muddled and more divisive. Parents who vaccinate and own guns are offended, parents who don't vaccinate and don't own guns are offended, and I guess somewhere in there is probably a slim margin of people who think this is a great comparison. That doesn't even get into the other annoying judgments the blog's author makes about the vocations of people in his parenting group, or what might or might not qualify someone as an "anti-vaxxer."<br><br>
It's an opinion piece, as many of these are, but it's hosted by a major media organization so it just makes me wonder-- what is the goal?<br><br>
I also noticed a few examples in the most recent flu outbreak when my state's DHH would update pediatric death statistics and the media would report "two new flu deaths" and "get your vaccine." Well, the "new" deaths were actually from as many as 2 months earlier, and had only just been confirmed. Sloppy reporting, in my opinion, undermines public health objectives <i>and</i> it fails to give people the opportunity to make informed decisions-- which, to me, is more important than either pushing or condemning vaccines.<br><br>
Whichever side it represents, the media doesn't seem to have an interest in following the debate for the benefit of public health so much as it follows the controversial talking points and scary headlines. It irritates me, to be perfectly honest.</div>
</div>
<br>
I'm on my ipad and I stink at typing on this thing so please excuse any typos or weird formatting.<br><br>
I agree about the gun article. It was not good. Even when v4v posted it on their Facebook asking for opinions on it, a lot of pro vaxxers said they didn't like it and thought it was polarizing.<br><br>
Having said that, I'm not sure what the best way to increase vaccine rates are. I'm not convinced that polite articles will convince non vaxxers either. There was a study recently published in pediatrics demonstrating just that. Unfortunately, I think the only thing that might have a significant impact are diseases coming back. It's a lot easier to say you don't want your child vaccinated for measles when there aren't any outbreaks around you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/community/t/1400859/is-the-media-becoming-more-pro-vaccine#post_17616202" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>teacozy</strong> <a href="/community/t/1400859/is-the-media-becoming-more-pro-vaccine#post_17616202"><img alt="View Post" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br><br>
I'm on my ipad and I stink at typing on this thing so please excuse any typos or weird formatting.<br><br>
I agree about the gun article. It was not good. Even when v4v posted it on their Facebook asking for opinions on it, a lot of pro vaxxers said they didn't like it and thought it was polarizing.<br><br>
Having said that, I'm not sure what the best way to increase vaccine rates are. I'm not convinced that polite articles will convince non vaxxers either. There was a study recently published in pediatrics demonstrating just that. Unfortunately, I think the only thing that might have a significant impact are diseases coming back. It's a lot easier to say you don't want your child vaccinated for measles when there aren't any outbreaks around you.</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Most importantly I think the pro-vax media should be accurate and intelligent. Media can be aggressive about a message without being needlessly offensive. I don't know which study you are talking about, but I found one which has classified parents as follows:</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="quote-container">
<div class="quote-block">
<div>"Five distinct parental groups were identified: the ‘unquestioning acceptor’ (30–40%), the ‘cautious acceptor’ (25–35%); the ‘hesitant’ (20–30%); the ‘late or selective vaccinator’ (2–27%); and the ‘refuser’ of all vaccines (<2%)." <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/12/154" target="_blank">http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/12/154</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>If journalists (or pro-vaxxers in general) get into the habit of confusing maybe the last 3 groups (up to 59% of people, or the majority) with whatever mindset they think leads to total refusal by the <2%<a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/12/154" target="_blank">,</a> and attacks them all with namecalling for not being part of the up to 40% who accept without questioning-- then IMO the discussion is going to stay heated and very unproductive. I don't know if the goal is to convince non-vaxxers to vaccinate, or just to shame them for not doing it, but nationally they represent only a small minority of people who are overall interested and concerned about vaccines. If solid reporting leads <em>hesitant</em> parents to vaccinate, then that's good for public health. If inaccurate or offensive reporting leads hesitant parents away, then it's not working.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There's a place for the impolite discussions, on private blogs and such, where people know they will encounter this. But I've seen in my own group of friends, some of whom do not vaccinate or are selective/delayers, that the kind of media message that send people into defensive positions for no reason by namecalling, etc, just makes the discussion a lot more difficult one-on-one. I imagine care providers experience the same kind of backlash when their patients come in with a defensive attitude, feeling like the provider who encourages vaccines also regards them as "loons" or "nutjobs" or whatever terminology is used against them in the media, simply because they have questions. Everyone does not have to be converted to an "unquestioning acceptor" or else shunned in order to have a vaccination program with high participation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it's critical that the media constantly steer people toward reliable sources and scientifically-supported conclusions rather than diving into the back-and-forth controversy.</p>
<p>There are great reports out there, for sure.</p>
<p>Despite those great reports, a couple of mean-spirited articles from edgier magazines (<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html" target="_blank">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/13/thanks-anti-vaxxers-you-just-brought-back-measles-in-nyc.html)</a> can turn the discussion from one of mutual problem solving to nasty divisiveness very quickly.</p>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<p><a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/community/u/121979/ss834" style="display:inline-block;">@ss834</a>  I agree.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the study I was talking about <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365" target="_blank">http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<strong style="border:0px;color:rgb(64,56,56);font-size:13px;line-height:1.5em;margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;">RESULTS:</strong><span style="color:rgb(64,56,56);font-size:13px;font-style:inherit;line-height:1.5em;text-align:inherit;"> None of the interventions increased parental intent to vaccinate a future child. Refuting claims of an MMR/autism link successfully reduced misperceptions that vaccines cause autism but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable vaccine attitudes. In addition, images of sick children increased expressed belief in a vaccine/autism link and a dramatic narrative about an infant in danger increased self-reported belief in serious vaccine side effects.</span></p>
<div id="user_sec-4" style="border:0px;clear:both;color:rgb(64,56,56);text-align:justify;vertical-align:baseline;">
<p id="user_p-4" style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-bottom:15px;margin-top:15px;text-align:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;"><strong style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin:0px;padding:0px;text-align:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;">CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Current public health communications about vaccines may not be effective. For some parents, they may actually increase misperceptions or reduce vaccination intention. Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive. More study of pro-vaccine messaging is needed." </p>
<p style="border:0px;font-style:inherit;margin-bottom:15px;margin-top:15px;text-align:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;"> </p>
</div>
 
  • Like
Reactions: ss834
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top