Gallup: Far Fewer in U.S. Regard Childhood Vaccinations as Important

Really shows how the Republican party has devolved. Vaccines are more dangerous the underlying disease? 136,000 people died of Measles in 2022. In 1980, 2.6M died from Measles. How many people died from Measles vaccine? Only 104 deaths have been documented in people who took the vaccine from 2000 to 2015. It is not clear that any were attributed to the actual vaccine, as no cause and effect has been tied to the reported cases.

Should you take every vaccine possible? No, but come on!

I've seen conservative Christians avoiding vaccinations and even things like colonoscopies and cholesterol medications because of things coming from the "fever swamp", unfortunately. Part of it is insularity in the circles I travel, another part of it is that the materials handed out to new parents really don't make the case well, and another part of it is a reasonable response to the fact that our public health authorities botched a LOT with their COVID responses.

Like it or not, public health authorities have the credibility of Joe Isuzu right now, and yes, a lot of people are going to pay with their health and even their lives for Dr. Beagle Torturer's antics.

I was never a vaccine avoider, either for myself or my kids until doctors started being really pushy about vaccines for things that weren’t as serious as measles (like chicken pox or HPV). Those last two were optional in my state. I had my kids vaccinated with all the required vaccines (for diseases with far more danger), and decided to skip those last two. It was right around that time (early 90’s) coincidentally or not, that the anti-vax movement really started to be noticeable (at least to me). I didn’t buy what they were selling, but I could certainly empathize with what they were seeing from doctors they used to trust.

Fast forward to 2020… once the government started getting really pushy about trying to make all Americans take the covid vaccine, yes, people started getting suspicious, and understandably so. Anyone who wanted the vaccine could get it, so they didn’t need to try to make those who didn’t want it take it anyway. After all, if it was so helpful, it was only to their own danger, particularly since we were supposed to be staying away from everyone else anyway. And BtW, the people I know who didn’t want it were not conspiracy-theorist types who thought it was all about control, or microchips in your blood, etc.

And yeah, right now I would trust Joe Isuzu (I can still see him in those old commercials) more than I would Fauci, Birx, or Walensky, let alone WHO. If they want to restore trust, they need to come clean about all the numbers they have, and suppression of doctors and source theories, etc., whether they are complimentary to those in power at health organizations and government or not, get rid of those who lied to us (even those who claim it was for our own “good”), and maybe they can start to rebuild trust. Simply claiming that those who don’t trust them are “loons” or similar will have about as much effect as calling people “deplorables.”

The medical establishment squandered a longstanding inheritance of pubic trust to force "vaccines" that really weren't even vaccines on the public. This is absolutely on them. (We suddenly went from vaccines being something that prevented a disease to something that might prevent a disease if you were lucky. But in most cases, would just boost your immune system a bit. Probably. You might still get really sick though. And might die. But won't. Probably won't.... C'mon, we're the experts! Just accept it and be a good Christian or person, or whatever.)

Incidentally, where I lived in SE Asia at the time basically stopped administering childhood vaccines so they could pump kids full of vaccines and boosters for a disease that wouldn't have amounted to much more than a cold for the vast majority. The numbers made the local officials look good. Childhood vaccination levels still haven't resumed, which I consider a tragedy.

This is just a fraction of the poisonous legacy of the global covid response, and it is going to continue a long, long time.

Andrew, it's worth noting that every vaccine works by reducing the likelihood that you'll get the disease, and every vaccine actually has a failure rate. So what the CDC/NIH did there was actually to change their definition of a vaccine to match what vaccines actually do--reduce the likelihood of infection, and (most importantly) reduce the rate at which people transmit a disease to others.

No doubt that the COVID vaccines had--or are at least perceived to have--a much higher rate of ineffectiveness than many other vaccines, and no doubt that pushing COVID vaccines to young people has probably pushed other critical health initiatives to the side. But one thing that I think the CDC/NIH did right was to define vaccine properly in that time.

(like a diamond amidst a sea of coal, it sometimes seems, but...)

I don't necessarily disagree with you over all, Bert, but recall that the redefinition coincided with moving goalposts.

That is, we were told initially that vaccines would prevent the disease. I think most people are aware that vaccines can occasionally fail (or more often, immune systems can fail), but "prevent" disease to the public means at the least, simply, that most people won't get the disease.

That turned out not at all to be the case. But instead of a measured, thoughtful response to the situation, the public received something that felt to them like gaslighting to achieve a certain result. Even altering the online dictionary definition.

I don't agree that the CDC/NIH was right to define vaccines properly in that time. The right time for that would have been decades earlier. The proper thing to do in the middle of the pandemic would have been to explain, "No, these are not "vaccines" as you understand and commonly use the term; we were wrong. But they will boost immune defense against the disease and bring about public benefit in slowing disease spread, especially for the sick and elderly" (and I agree and could support such a statement).

Fast forward to 2020… once the government started getting really pushy about trying to make all Americans take the covid vaccine

There were no federal vaccination requirements for Americans in general. As far as I know, there weren’t even any states that mandated statewide vaccination. Maybe it is in some states for public school students?

I don’t see where “really pushy” happened at a government level, other than messaging. A whole of advocacy happened, and of course funding, so you could easily go get it done. Is that pushy? It’s in the eye of the beholder, guess. To me, it just seemed prudent and responsible. (And a good rehearsal for when something far more deadly breaks out eventually. Hopefully, lessons learned stay learned that long.)

Quite a few businesses required their employees to get vaccinated, and probably some federal agencies required their employees to be vaccinated. Most of the pushiness, though, was private enterprise, which should tell us something.

The proper thing to do in the middle of the pandemic would have been to explain, “No, these are not “vaccines” as you understand and commonly use the term; we were wrong.

I don’t think this criticism is accurate. Vaccines have always been less then 100% effective in preventing infection, though generally much higher than the Covid vaccines.

Smallpox: 95% (CDC)

Measles: 93% in one dose, 97% in two. But this is an average. Note: “(range: 67% to 100%)” (CDC and also CDC2)

Polio: This one is really interesting. (Copy of original press release on the vaccine). Apparently it was 60%-70% effective initially (ACSH).

So, vaccines have long—maybe always—had a range of effectiveness in preventing infection. And they have always worked in fundamentally the same way: by stimulating the body to produce immune defense to a pathogen ahead of exposure to the actual pathogen.

I can’t see any reason the Covid vaccines should not have been called vaccines.

As for the definition changing…

I just looked it up on a 2016 Webster dictionary

vac•cine n : a preparation of killed, weakened, or fully infectious microbes that is given (as by injection) to produce or increase immunity to a particular disease (Merriam-Webster’s Intermediate Dictionary, 2016, ISBN 978-0-87779-697-8. p.892)

Current Webster…

: a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as…

I think further digging and comparing would produce similar results. The definition is essentially the same now as before Covid.

Edit: Sorry for all the edits. The question got me really curious.

Here’s an older Oxford Concise Dictionary definition…

vaccine /ˈvaksiːn, -ɪn/

■ noun
1 an antigenic preparation used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against a disease.
(Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson, eds. Concise Oxford English dictionary 2004: n. pag. Print.)

Here’s another older Webster…

vac•cine \vak-ˈsēn, ˈvak-ˌ\ noun
[French vaccin, from vaccine cowpox, from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae cowpox), from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow; akin to Sanskrit vaśa cow] 1813: a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease—vaccine adjective

(Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.)

So, the Oxford Concise is a bit vague on what sort of immunity is involved, but Webster is clear on that point. “Increase” is part of the concept at least as far back as 2003.

If definitions changed due to Covid, it was probably to clarify what has always been characteristic of vaccines—in response to widespread confusion (in some cases, intentional misinformation).

I agree Aaron. Also, it is easy to look at this with hindsight bias. There is also some Apophenia and Confirmation Bias taking place. This was a fast moving virus and a rapidly changing situation, one in which no medical or scientific person had ever been alive to experience. It didn't align with most models. It is easy to look back 2 years later, point out the mistakes people made and highlight those mistakes to promote people to question medical professionals in general. It is also easy to take a look at all of the crazy ideas, highlight that a few were right, therefore everyone else should be trusted.

So you get the comment that Dave made above, "right now I would trust Joe Isuzu more than I would Fauci". While it is easy to say that because you can identify a few people who were right and you can identify mistakes that Fauci made. But it is a biased view. Would we really say that giving our kid Ivermectin was a more trustworthy solution from a guy who sells pillows that from Fauci? Really?

You also have to realize this was very political. Politics put a huge amount of pressure on the science community, beating them up, pushing them in certain directions that it created a whole host of problems. The guy served 54 years in government service, been awarded 50 times from countless organizations and presidents from his work. Now in the most politically charged situation, he all of a sudden became evil personified.

Biden: “Despite America having unprecedented and successful vaccination program, despite the fact that for almost five months, free vaccines have been available in 80,000 different locations, we still have nearly 80 million Americans who have failed to get the shot.”

Biden: “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

This was right before he announced mandates for federal employees. Of course those didn’t touch those of us who didn’t work for the feds (directly), but the implication was obvious. Thankfully, it never came to a general mandate, though I have no doubt it would have if he could have figured out a way to do so. That’s why I said “pushy.” His quotes fit that definition to a “T.”

It’s not that Fauci made mistakes. Everyone did at that time. What he did wrong was

• 1. Lie directly to us about masks, and then justify that lying. And then show he didn’t believe his lies anyway as he was seen in public without masking.
• 2. Misled (maybe even lied) about other aspects of the pandemic (like claiming no gain of function research being done, etc. etc.)
• 3. Claim “They’re really criticizing science, because I represent science.” What a crock.
• 4. Etc., etc.

Worse, he has never apologized or been forced to come to terms with his dishonesty. He didn’t become evil personified as much as he became a liar. And not just any liar — an authority who could not be trusted with his authority. He’s the sole person responsible for loss in his credibility. The same is true for the others I have mentioned. You want us to trust the organizations again? Hold accountable those that were dishonest with the American people.

And BtW dgszweda, you’re mixing up your TV salesmen. Joe Isuzu had nothing to do with pillows. What you don’t understand is that we know to distrust TV salesmen and take what they say with a grain (or pound) of salt. I shouldn’t have to do that with people in Fauci’s position. Their job is to give us the truth, so the American people can prepare for what is coming. When it has been shown that they haven’t, they fall way below TV salesmen in believability. My statement isn’t a measure of how much I trust Joe Isuzu. It’s a measure of how much I will never again trust a word Fauci says. If you still trust Fauci, I have a bunch of unopened masks to sell you cheap that will absolutely protect you and your loved ones from the next virus that comes…

"I can’t see any reason the Covid vaccines should not have been called vaccines."

It's really simple, Aaron: Literally everyone I knew and worked with got the vaccinations and boosters (it was a government requirement in my country--you couldn't even enter a store without scanning an app to prove it--and you couldn't cross an international border around the world without a vaccine certificate), including me and my family.

And nearly every single person I worked with, including myself and my family, got covid. Some had terrible cases.

I think that's pretty good reason to not call them "vaccines." As your statistics prove most people who got earlier vaccines didn't get the disease at all. Exactly what I said. And probably most of those who were infected only got very mild cases. As I pointed out, that was not usually the case with covid.

Oh, and I already allowed that no vaccine has 100% effectiveness. Sorry, but as a talking point, that's absurd. No medical treatment has 100% effectiveness.

"Also, it is easy to look at this with hindsight bias. There is also some Apophenia and Confirmation Bias taking place. This was a fast moving virus and a rapidly changing situation, one in which no medical or scientific person had ever been alive to experience. It didn't align with most models. It is easy to look back 2 years later, point out the mistakes people made and highlight those mistakes to promote people to question medical professionals in general. It is also easy to take a look at all of the crazy ideas, highlight that a few were right, therefore everyone else should be trusted."

It was a pandemic. We've been here before as a race. Many times. The only difference is that medical technology had improved and information technology had improved, and govts around the world had the hubris to think they could completely control it with draconian measures of overreach disproportionate to the actual effects of the disease.

...missed by Fauci and company:

• That 126nm particles, when expelled forcefully with air, tend to form aerosols. This is why, for reference, so many of their measures to prevent transmission failed; the mean time suspended was not a few seconds or minutes, but hours, and it went around masks readily.
  • This is also likely why hospitals became "death wards". They simply were not prepared to deal with a virus that stayed in the air for hours, where surgical masks did little to reduce transmission.
• That natural immunity is a strong part of herd immunity with any contagious disease, and that a quick way to get strong herd immunity is to let the less vulnerable contract the disease.
  • This failure is why, for example, public schools in Minnesota were having kids eat lunch outside....IN DECEMBER.
• That nursing homes were a horribly bad place for COVID patients to recover.

Regarding mandates, here you go. About 100 million Americans effected.

My take is that there are understandable mistakes, and there are ones where I will remember. These are mistakes I will remember, as they go against a lot of basics in epidemiology. As a pathologist friend of mine who works with immune responses noted, "you quarantine the sick, not the healthy".

"I think further digging and comparing would produce similar results. The definition is essentially the same now as before Covid."

A final note: I don't think this is true at all.

In every pre-covid definition you provide, the goal of the vaccine is to produce or bolster immunity, which is of course the state of not being responsive or susceptible to a disease. If you're immune to something, it doesn't affect you, right? That is clearly not exactly the same thing as "stimulating the body's immune response." If anyone reads through the definitions carefully, all references to "immunity" as an effect, as opposed to the intent of the treatment, are gone.

I think this is a significant change, and one done so to manipulate public perception in light of the growing awareness of the weakness of efficacy of the vaccines.

Incidentally, here's a fun article that went under the radar about how the US ran their own anti-vax campaign during the pandemic for political gain: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covid-propagand…

I read with interest a post above pointing out that bias and politics had a lot to do with it. That statement came from a poster who has been aggressively pushing the vaccine from the start. Others of us have taken a more cautious approach and suggested that we should let people chose on their own whether or not to take the risk. Meanwhile, the person who implied that they are above the bias and politics has made it clear from the beginning that in their view there was only one option that anyone should consider- take the vaccine. It is clear who has been biased and closed minded on this subject, so why should we expect a balanced approach from them now?