I read a great interview today with Eula Biss, author of "On Immunity: An Inoculation". The author is a mother who was a vaccination skeptic, researched the subject in great depth, came away a vaccination supporter and wrote a book about her experience.
What struck me about the interview was her take on what is driving the anti-vaxx movement, her thoughts echoed some of my own on other contentious science issues where public opinion and scientists do not see eye to eye.
Eula Biss: I think what can be really confusing about this subject is a lot of the conversation and debate is conducted in scientific or pseudoscientific terms, and it can appear to be a debate about science, or it can appear to be a debate about information… I think that can be a kind of smoke screen for what’s really going on when we talk about this.
Scientists are not debating vaccination. It’s a social debate. it’s a social debate that’s being conducted in the terms of science. We’re using the language of science and the products of the scientific process to talk about other things.
At the bottom of it all stands an important question, one that I feel has been increasingly skewed in favor of "every man for himself"
The root question is a question of how do we live together? What’s a responsible way to be a citizen? And I think those are big questions that are then, complicated, by the historical and political baggage that people bring to the conversation.
Ah, historical/political baggage. Like industry and capitalism, inability of govt to regulate and police industry including the coverup of real malfeasance to the historical sexist relationship between the medical community and women.
To the question of capitalism/private profit/govt mandates, this was a brilliant rejoinder:
So capitalism, yes, is not serving us well, but does that mean that we can’t use the fruits of capitalism to better each other’s health? To me, that’s a really interesting and, I think, pressing question. That we’re operating within a broken system doesn’t mean we have to turn on each other, more or less.
The more I learned about vaccination and how it works, and what mass vaccination is meant to do and why we use it, the more kind of beautiful I found it, actually, in terms of being actually counter-capitalist in its ethos. Here’s a system that’s based on people voluntarily using their bodies to protect other vulnerable people. I just think that’s very different than a lot of what we see in this competitive, mercenary space of capitalism.
Bucking the idea of "herd immunity" immediately brings to mind the anti-vaccer as"maverick", someone willing to take risk to set themselves apart. That goes back to the original and most important question, who are we in relation to our fellow citizens? What is the best path to bring antivaccers back, anger or reasoning? Again, those of us who know the science is settled and see the damage caused jump to the first. (After trying to discuss this with a few anit-vaccers, reasoning may not be an option.)
On this subject, the author has no easy answer. She likens it to other aspects of our lives where we see people acting selfishly, be it mothers with unruly children in a playground or bikers who simply don't know how to share a bike path. Personally I feel this is one of the fruits of a society where we no longer need to feel any responsibility to our fellow human beings, where it's everyone for themselves.
Interesting read.
How one vaccine skeptic became a vaccine supporter