POX on ANTI-VAXERS

I believe in getting immunity the old-fashioned way: By letting a bat virus take control of my lungs and turn my face into a disgusting plague fountain while my immune system desperately Googles 'how to make spike protein antibodies'.

Comic by XKCD.com

Germany ain't pulling their punches – AVs are kept under surveillance.  Deniers come from different tribes: loyal Trumpers, skeptics, lazy layabouts who can't be bothered.  Read about a far-left Catholic nun who thinks the vaccines are a capitalist plot. And  I know a kid. 23, she thinks the planet is dying and we are too,  so what's the use.

Every AV, unless they're hermits, is a walking talking time-bomb for the rest of us. The vax jab protects us, but we can still get ill. And we'll all be stuck a lot longer in virus-limbo. Unless AVs wear T-shirts with ANTI VAXER printed in 3-inch letters  in bright red on the front,  we won't know who is safe and who is not.

About 25 % of the word's pop. are AVs. Even if some far-off country is the worse-hit, the virus and its variants are speedy spreaders. Just about anywhere, except the great outdoors, is not safe. Sweden (pop. 10.5 m.) with its 'let it all hang out' policy, has had 15,000+ Covid 19 deaths. Finland (pop. 5.5 m.), with hot spot restrictions and obligatory face masks in public places has had 910 deaths – the best record in the EU. Hip, Hip, hurray for SUOMI!

Sources: The Economist, Washington  Post New York Times, Cyril Marret

Next week:  EKI's "VIRTUAL REALITY" course for DUMMIES


Note: 

I know a few anti-vaxxers too. What's scary is that some of them are people that I actually like in normal circumstances. Smart colleagues, dear old schoolmates, and so on. Intelligence - or being an overall good person - does not seem to be a foolproof guard against conspiracy theories.

I've had too many debates on Facebook and other social media with these. It's rather infuriating at times: how do you reason with a person whose position is not based on reason? 

Well, the same as with any other form of science denial. Try to be calm, state the facts, point out the lies and logical fallacies. Go high when they go low. Not for the one you are debating (they are likely beyond salvation already), but for the others reading the discussion (they maybe are not).

But as said, this can be rather irritating: you are restricted to sticking to the actual verifiable facts and need to take into account all uncertainties, while the opponent can just spew new lies every time the previous one has been debunked. 

And in the end, they do not even need to win. It's enough if they can sow something that looks like "reasonable doubt" to the layperson, and suddenly the scientific consensus is just another "opinion".

I'm worried that this might be a losing battle. And THAT is scarier than anything.

CU

--

Eki