This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vaccine hesitancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 140 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page notices and readership | |||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
These should be two different articles, as there is a distinct culture of anti-vaccine activism that goes above and beyond mere hesitancy. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
very strange request, irrelevant to general topic
Dronebogus (
talk) 14:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
The racist term Latinx should be remove from the article. 84.203.60.124 ( talk) 07:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
|
The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Vaccinationists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The leading photograph shows an anti-vaccination activist wearing a poster that says, "Kids have a 99.99% Survival rate with natural immunity." The label says, "An anti-vaccination person wearing a false claim that children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity"
I have two problems with this. The first is that the poster does not use the word solely. That was made up by a Wiki-editor. The second is the word false. Whether the poster is stupid or whether the wearer was trying to put across a false message is beside the point. If you are going to say a message is false you need to have reliable citation that the actual message is false. No such citation exists because the poster is not false. The mortality rate of the common cold, for example, when left to a child's natural immunity, is less than 0.01%. The same applies to most childhood medical problems. (These are actually cuts and other wounds that could be treated with an anti-tetanus jab.) The entire article states very clearly (and has reliable references) that an anti-vaccination stance is wrong on many levels. There is no need to add propaganda. OrewaTel ( talk) 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The photograph was taken at a protest in Leicester, England in October 2021 for the movement "Against Vaccine Passports UK". The man in the photo is wearing a T-shirt with the letters "AGAINST VACCINE PASSPORTS .COM". Though the domain name has been taken over, here is an archived version of the website.
The poster relates directly to Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic which has a section for "Arguments and controversy § Natural immunity".
What I'm saying is that the poster most definitely was about vaccine hesitancy (during Covid, in particular), and not simply about natural immunity of ALL childhood diseases (such as colds). I'm pretty sure the anti-vaxxers were using the 99.99% figure (compiled pre-Covid) to forward their message of "I don't want to get a Covid vaccine and damn sure don't want a vaccine passport to hinder my travelling". Grorp ( talk) 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this subject. Structuralists ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article at this time. I wanted to add a section to safety concerns about adverse effects in vaccines. I have several examples which are specifically linked to vaccine hesitancy. The Dengue Fever vaccine case in the Philipines which resulted in increased complications from infection: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
As well as Polio vaccine rollouts in Africa which caused Polio cases: https://www.science.org/content/article/first-polio-cases-linked-new-oral-vaccine-detected-africa Puerto de Nile ( talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vaccine hesitancy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 140 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page notices and readership | |||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
These should be two different articles, as there is a distinct culture of anti-vaccine activism that goes above and beyond mere hesitancy. BD2412 T 18:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
very strange request, irrelevant to general topic
Dronebogus (
talk) 14:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
The racist term Latinx should be remove from the article. 84.203.60.124 ( talk) 07:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
|
The redirect Vaccinationists has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Vaccinationists until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The leading photograph shows an anti-vaccination activist wearing a poster that says, "Kids have a 99.99% Survival rate with natural immunity." The label says, "An anti-vaccination person wearing a false claim that children can be effectively protected from disease solely by natural immunity"
I have two problems with this. The first is that the poster does not use the word solely. That was made up by a Wiki-editor. The second is the word false. Whether the poster is stupid or whether the wearer was trying to put across a false message is beside the point. If you are going to say a message is false you need to have reliable citation that the actual message is false. No such citation exists because the poster is not false. The mortality rate of the common cold, for example, when left to a child's natural immunity, is less than 0.01%. The same applies to most childhood medical problems. (These are actually cuts and other wounds that could be treated with an anti-tetanus jab.) The entire article states very clearly (and has reliable references) that an anti-vaccination stance is wrong on many levels. There is no need to add propaganda. OrewaTel ( talk) 19:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The photograph was taken at a protest in Leicester, England in October 2021 for the movement "Against Vaccine Passports UK". The man in the photo is wearing a T-shirt with the letters "AGAINST VACCINE PASSPORTS .COM". Though the domain name has been taken over, here is an archived version of the website.
The poster relates directly to Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic which has a section for "Arguments and controversy § Natural immunity".
What I'm saying is that the poster most definitely was about vaccine hesitancy (during Covid, in particular), and not simply about natural immunity of ALL childhood diseases (such as colds). I'm pretty sure the anti-vaxxers were using the 99.99% figure (compiled pre-Covid) to forward their message of "I don't want to get a Covid vaccine and damn sure don't want a vaccine passport to hinder my travelling". Grorp ( talk) 02:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this subject. Structuralists ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I cannot edit the article at this time. I wanted to add a section to safety concerns about adverse effects in vaccines. I have several examples which are specifically linked to vaccine hesitancy. The Dengue Fever vaccine case in the Philipines which resulted in increased complications from infection: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
As well as Polio vaccine rollouts in Africa which caused Polio cases: https://www.science.org/content/article/first-polio-cases-linked-new-oral-vaccine-detected-africa Puerto de Nile ( talk) 01:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)