Public sentiment on the importance of safe, lifesaving childhood vaccines has significantly declined in the US since the pandemic—which appears to be solely due to a nosedive in support from people who are Republican or those who lean Republican, according to new polling data from Gallup.

In 2019, 52 percent of Republican-aligned Americans said it was “extremely important” for parents to get their children vaccinated. Now, that figure is 26 percent, falling by half in just five years. In comparison, 63 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners said it was “extremely important” this year, down slightly from 67 percent in 2019.

  • emrebfg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    5 months ago

    My dad contracted polio as a teen a year before the vaccine came out in our home country. Fuck people who think vaccines are dangerous. Ask my dad how well his legs work.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Vaccines are dangerous. The probability of vaccines progressing from phase 2 to licensure within 10 years was 10.0%.

        Your cited evidence does not support your claim of danger. Safety is demonstrated in phase 0. After determining that the vaccine isn’t particularly dangerous, phase 1 is for determining dosage and side effects, and phase 2 is for determining efficacy.

        Safety is demonstrated in the first few months, but the FDA doesn’t (normally) approve something just because it is safe. It also has to be effective. During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.

        The 90% of vaccines that failed to gain approval were not dangerous. They failed because they were ineffective.

        • wicked@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          During the pandemic any degree of effectiveness would save lives, so emergency approval was justified.

          What? Pretty sure the requirement of effectiveness was at least 70%, and the approved vaccines had a >90% effectiveness. Obviously as the virus mutated the effectiveness nosedived, but they were very effective against the original strain. (edit: Effectiveness versus getting infected at all, not against serious illness and death, which remains good)

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ok, X% of vaccines that are developed are abandoned for safety reasons.

          My point is that vaccines are not automatically safe, they are rigorously tested before they are licenced.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I think what you’re saying is reasonable, but the way you’re saying it is uncomfortably close to how antivaxxers present their arguments.

            I would say that if it doesn’t pass phase 0 (safety trials), it can’t even be considered a vaccine.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Unfortunately antivaxxers have completely polarised any discussion on their topic. Anything even mistaken for being negative towards vaccines is automatically down voted.

              I would argue that development of a vaccine starts long before the trial phases. They aren’t like viagra where you target something different and accidentally end up with a vaccine after trials.

              Vaccines are not safe because they are Vaccines. They are safe because they are designed and tested to be safe. (Also, safe is a relative measurement but that discussion is too easy to misinterpret)

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I would argue that development of a vaccine starts long before the trial phases.

                I would argue that its safety or danger at this stage is irrelevant. You can’t go down to your doctor and request to be vaccinated with one of these products: they are not available to the general public. It is disingenuous to argue that they are “dangerous” when they pose no actual danger.

                The vaccines you can get from your doctor are safe.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yes, safety is only relevant when a vaccine is tested on live subjects, but it is still a vaccine, even before testing.

                  Vaccines from a doctor have been tested to filter out treatments with dangerous side effects. It is not disingenuous to recognise that this filtering has occurred nor discuss the reason why.