In this letter, Heidi Larson & David Broniatowski argue that,
vaccine hesitancy is not the same as being “anti-vaccine.”
And that conflating the two risks driving the hesitant towards the fringe. Before exploring that, pause to admire the term Emotional Epidemiology which they [adopt from physician Danielle Ofri.]
Anti-vaxx typically shifts goalposts, embraces other conspiracy theories, and pushes explicit agendas. (To say nothing of deliberate disinfo, or shifting among mutually inconsistent theories.)
But vaccine hesitancy is diverse, including:
- Safety concerns
- Individual or community history
- Questions about COVID-19 vaccines specifically
For example, you can be pro-vaxx and know that the replication crisis ⋅ probably ⋅ affects ⋅ big ⋅ clinical ⋅ trials, so you want to be sure about any particular new vaccine. Especially, say, one that set world speed records from research to production.
In this case after enough time without obvious problems, or a properly done study, a trusted person being convinced, or simply an increased risk of pandemic death, you’ll decide it’s safe enough. You may even be able to state those conditions ahead of time.
Finally, there’s the decision theorists who rationally decide to vaccinate only if others don’t. This is a moral problem of collective action, not a failure to understand. It’s why there are often laws about such things.