Is it Fair to Call those Not Vaccinated ANTI- VAXXERS?

Question

Why Title Them Like The Rest of Those in Society we Tend to Title? xx

AmandaYVR · Accepted Answer

No, it's inaccurate. Anti-vaxxers are against all vaccines. By the non-specificity, it implies 'all.'

Covid came up relatively quickly, so the R&D on this was atypically rushed through, AND most of them are synthetic. And we aren't given a choice of whether we receive the synthetic or non. 50+ years of "it's not quite safe yet" and then all of a sudden, "oh yes it is. No problem." Yeah right.

The technology got pushed through and approved because of the impact of this virus worldwide, and how much economic and mortality devastation it caused. It was a governmental judgment call to make everyone forced to get a new vaccine. I understand the risk-benefit. What I don't appreciate is the dumbing down, and suppression of contrasting information, that has happened, since this all began. We are not children. Don't tell us things in certainties, and then later contradict it. You lose credibility. That's what I've seen time and time again. I know the science reveals new information. But then don't dismiss the old, or not acknowledge the change, or act as if something won't change again. Nothing is 100%. The information a few months in, right after, was actually more diverse and interesting, than the 'information' now being publicized governmentally.

But that does not mean that people who are wary, and distrustful (for damn good reasons) about the safety, are anti-vax in all contexts. It makes them prudent; understandably cautious. I am extremely concerned about the body's long-term reaction to both covid-19 and the vaccines. Saying it doesn't matter, the vaccine is safe because it leaves the system soon thereafter, is just an oversimplification of what mRNAs are. No one can say for sure what disruptions they may cause. Some have sent people to the hospital. Some have died. Some have still gotten covid. Thousands and thousands of women have hormone disruptions. Pregnancy risk is unknown. Yes, the odds of these are small compared to those who have appeared to have little reaction. But this is genetic engineering. And I am against gene "therapy." Fuck using the word "therapy." That's window dressing for a whore house inside, with the lights dimmed. aka marketing bullshit. Technologists, and some doctors, are excited about the future of this, because it opens up all sorts of doors and possibilities to try and treat various ailments and diseases. Yes it does. But it's also tinkering with the human body, which is its own system (a self-regulating system, in fact), and fucking around with it, trying to keep every person alive, for as long as possible, is what humans do, but what about the means to get there? I do not want my body being used to further the 'science'. I don't believe in it.

I researched the whole anti-vax thing years ago, and found some very questionable sources to how that whole idea first began. (Celebrities have huge influence but not medical degrees.) The science does not support the autism connection, from what I could conclude. Polio was eradicated. I've been vaxed for mumps and chicken pocks when I was a child. I have no issue with all of that. But I do not want to be a guinea pig for what will now be a future intertwined with genetically engineering (whether that's producing, or saving) humans. I thought it was a lousy idea with the sheep, and dinosaurs. "Cool" is not enough of a reason to do something.

loveisbeautiful · Accepted Answer

No, because that insinuates that they're against all vaccinations instead of just this one vaccination. It's not even that people are against it per se, they're just nervous about it because of how fast it came about and wasn't given the same amount years plus research that most vaccines are given. Most importantly though, just because someone doesn't want to get this shot doesn't mean they're against it, they probably have a good reason why that don't want to get it, I know I do.

So, it's unfair to label somebody something without knowing if they really are or not.

MrOracle · Accepted Answer

I'd bet a lot of those people have had other vaccines - vaccines that were developed carefully over time and that have been studied over the long term. But these vaccines are radically new, and literally no one can tell you what the long-term effects will be. I believe that they're probably fine, but there's still a decent chance that they could cause serious problems. We just don't know yet.

There are also people who have medical conditions where they aren't advised to be vaccinated by their doctors, even if they're otherwise willing (even anxious) to be.

There are people with religious objections to vaccines - objections that are NOT new.

THEN we have all of the politics. In the US, the administration (and thus the media) absolutely refuse to consider any other potential answers except vaccination - yet tons of people got COVID before the vaccinations even existed - and plenty since - and survived and have the same antibodies in their system that a vaxed person would have - in fact, they're arguably better protected than a vaxed person. Other countries have acknowledged this, and have research with COVID that validates it. But under Biden, that can't even be discussed - platforms are banning such discussions.

Then there are vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The government would LOVE everyone to have a vaccine passport and get used to showing it, because then they can continually add requirements to it and slowly ratchet up the restrictions. Soon you won't be able to buy ice cream because the government has decided you're overweight or your blood-sugar is too high. If you don't think that's in the works, you are fooling yourselves.

I'm all for the vaccines being available, but that's where it should end. Get vaxed if you want, and if you don't, don't. COVID isn't going away, even if 100% of the Earth's population was vaxed, because the vaccine doesn't prevent COVID, doesn't prevent mutations, and only results in a minor reduction of the transmission window. Mostly what it does is reduce the severity of the symptoms - which is a GOOD thing, no question, but it isn't the "fix" that most people seem to think it is.

The point is: plenty of people who haven't taken the jab are NOT "anti-vaxxers", and plenty of people who HAVE had the jab are still absolutely against the mandates and the passports, for damn good reason. Government is ALREADY WAY too much like Big Brother, and far too many folks have no problem with things getting far worse - until it's too late and they do something "wrong" and get shuffled off to a camp or to "re-education" or whatever. And by then, it's already way too late.

Juxtapose · Accepted Answer

With all the red flags surrounding these vaccines (it's a library now..), it's anti-stupidity at this point.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

No, it is not fair, but name calling is just standard operating procedure for the left.

ShadezMcgee · Answer

That depends. Are we referring to just a specific vaccine or all vaccines? If the former, no. If the latter it depends on whether they decide prefer natural immunity or medical or religious reasons. That does not make them an anti vaxxer because they chose not to do it.

Anti vaxxer implies that one is against vaccinations to the extreme and believes they have no benefit to individuals which is not the case. Vaccines help, but that doesn't mean they protect you fully or are all needed, either. It is an immunity strengthening tool at the end of the day.

Hans222 · Answer

I voted C. In some cases yes. But for me it's simple: getting vaccinated is taking your responsibility. We can only protect ourselves and each other by doing it together. If 30% of the population is letting the other 70% down the degree of immunity is not sufficient and we continue to be in misery 🙈

NamerOfStars · Answer

It's an ad hominem; an attempt to avoid legitimate criticism and questions of the overeager adoption of this prophylactic by linking those who criticize and ask with the Wakefield nuts. The scary part is that it seems to be working.

joeldalton · Answer

No. That's just more of a propaganda smear. Plenty of people are rightly concerned about these shots but have all other vaccinations. And they've increased the definition of "anti-vaxxer" to include people who disagree with vaccine mandates. This is pure divisive propaganda and it's disgusting.

abc3643 · Answer

Of course not because that assumes all 3 statements below to be true:

1) Everyone is permitted to get the vaccine.

2) Everyone can get the vaccine.

3) Everyone should get the vaccine.

None of those statements are true.

For instance, let's look at examples of facts refuting those 3 assumptions.

1) Kids generally have not been permitted to get the vaccine.

2) There are places in this world where the vaccine is unavailable.

3) Some people have medical conditions in which getting the vaccine can adversely affect their health such as persons with compromised immune systems.

Ad_Quid_Orator · Answer

Depends on why they refused to get vaccinated. If they didn't get it because there's less medical infrastructure where they live or they have a pre-existing condition that would make getting it worse then no. However, if you refuse just as an "F you" to your country (given that most Americans support the vaccine mandate, it's not the government telling the people what to do, it's the people telling the government what to do), then yeah the term Anti-Vaxxers would be applicable.

bolverk · Answer

No they cannot be called ANTI- VAXXERS,
They are NOT running around spreading the ANTI- VAXXERS propaganda,
They are concerned about some of the side effects or honestly do not want the vaccination, it is after all their own choice and should not be demonised for that choice by the Government nor the Main Stream Media.

Anonymous · Answer

No you call them smart.

Moderna vaccine causes problems. Sweden just banned it for 30 and under.

Johnson and Johnson has had issue with there vaccine as well.

Phizer has multiple drug issue.

Cnn until recently was against big pharma

Is it Fair to Call those Not Vaccinated ANTI- VAXXERS?

JesseJayNeak · Answer

No, it's not right. Of all the vaccines I got only the C-19 and Flu shots are the ones I avoid to take. I avoid the flu shot because the first (and only) time I got it I risked resting 6ft under and never took it since. I avoid the COVID shot because the way they keep promoting it is quite suspicious to me. Also, the fact that it took only 6 months to discover the cure makes me even more suspicious

sarahlumpkin · Answer

Some are and some are not. There are those who believe that the cure is worse than the disease. There are those who have medical issues. There are those who don't believe it's a threat to them. I call the first anti-vaxxers.

FakeName123 · Answer

It's not necessarily about fairness, but about semantics. Someone who is generally pro vaccines, but only critical towards a specific vaccine is NOT anti-vax per se. This is propaganda.

Lliam · Answer

That's like calling someone who doesn't like to eat GMOs and chemicals "anti-food", or calling someone who is picky about whom they have sex with "anti-sex". It's ridiculous.

People have every right to make informed choices.

Astarlessnightsky · Answer

There are people who can't get vaccinated for medical reasons but would take the shot (s) if possible.

Likes2drive · Answer

Probably not, I don’t do that, they probably have their reasons, it’s not something that’s been around long so people don’t trust it or may have a problem with it

Cherry234 · Answer

If the person is a conspiracy theorist or spreads lies about the vaccines, then yes

Anonymous · Answer

I think people should consult their physician and make a decision rather than basing their decisions off of their political affiliation or their religion

Jerre · Answer

I have no problem calling them anti-vaxxers. But I don’t put people in that category who because of religion or health reasons, do not want the vaccine.

karaspara · Answer

Not really Paris many reasons people won't or can't get vaccinated xx

Anonymous · Answer

I don’t know. Maybe Vaxxphobic would be more politically correct?

noohair · Answer

Nothing is fair Paris. That was the first lesson I taught my daughter when she was 5 yeras old.

ChiPaPa · Answer

What if they're just against that particular vaccine?

Sabretooth · Answer

Most. Some are just just stumble across lies:

Anonymous · Answer

A cheap molecule that cannot be patented exists to treat the virus. It is censored, and then a so called vaccine is rushed out and everyone is encouraged to take it. When you know this for a fact (I've seen it in action with my own eyes), it really does not matter what anyone calls you...

Anonymous · Answer

No.
There's a pro-vax subset of people who are freaks about it to the point where anyone who isn't totally onboard with the vaccine must be a "stupid antivaxxer". When really the vast majority of people who didn't jump right on it don't have a problem with other vaccines, they're hesitant about this particular vaccine given the controversy, politics, and the psychos who demand they get it. They're "vaccine hesitant" not "anti-vaxxers".

Deku2009 · Answer

No name calling is unacceptable regardless if tge name suits them

Evil_Chuck · Answer

At this point, pretty much. If they're of age and it's available in their area then they really don't have a leg to stand on anymore.
We dismiss people who reject flu and tetanus shots as cranks and rightfully so, but suddenly when it's a COVID shot "it depends what their reasons are"? Not with a death toll of 600,000 and counting, it doesn't. Get the shot and pick your battles more wisely in the future.

Barry88 · Answer

That full depends on the reason why they're not vaccinated. Some people want to get vaccinated, but it's not safe for them to get the vaccine because of medical reasons. Those people aren't anti-vaxxers.

jimmy2 · Answer

Winter is coming and non vacs will spike throughout winter

allaboutyou2 · Answer

Some of the non vaccinated have medical reasons or religious reasons and some just don't think it is right for them, that doesn't make them anti vaccine, just like someone who doesn't drink doesn't have to be anti alcohol.

humanearth · Answer

How about call them freedom fighters.

Tamera952 · Answer

At this point, ... umm, yea.

Shizunk · Answer

That's like calling those who oppose illegal immigration "anti-people". Dumb is an understatement.

Andres77 · Answer

HIPAA. It's no one else's business.

PAcc92 · Answer

There's a difference between being anti-vaxx and being against one particular vaccine that you don't feel has undergone sufficient long term testing.

Wiredone · Answer

Calling people anti-vaxxers is a form of bullying. It is name Calling. I thought the UnitedStates is against bullying.

Vigors · Answer

Anti vaxxers are retarded 🤣🤣

Iron_Man · Answer

Yes you have a point Paris

Pete671 · Answer

It's a matter of choice imho, I'm double vax now, but anti-non-vaxxers, I just try and avoid them,,,

Anonymous · Answer

I am not anti-vaccine; I am pro-liberty. I am pro-waiting for long term study data. I am also pro-privacy (especially medical privacy).

msc545 · Answer

Yes, what else would you call them?

Year3000 · Answer

Depends on the country they are from. In Nigeria no, in France yes.

Ardafit67 · Answer

I am fory turkey my name is arda how are you :)

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

No, it is not. There is something seriously off about this whole Covid situation. Any person that can’t see that is a moron.

TheSpaceGnome · Answer

Nope.

Still-alive · Answer

Mostly it is yes.

Massageman · Answer

No, just sane.

Bklynbadboy12 · Answer

No its not

Is it Fair to Call those Not Vaccinated ANTI- VAXXERS?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is it Fair to Call those Not Vaccinated ANTI- VAXXERS?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.