You are talking about how difficult it is to deal with cognitive dissonance. Its not really unique to the pandemic. Typically people have an innate psychological reaction to defend their point regardless of how wrong they are. Like for example if two people are arguing about some random history fact and when someone looks it up and proves a person wrong sometimes they will double down and become angry. Its hard to face being wrong.
Exactly. I just think the result or response to it natural leads to a "we/them"... There's another word for it when you're, say, in a class full of students. Majority of the class wants to go partying but two or three of them want to do otherwise. The group, naturally insulted by the opposition of their plans, turns against the two. What makes it a cult mentality (or like word) is if one of the people in the group sided with the minority but can't because he would be shunned. It's a mental dissonance that government, experts, and media tend to push. There are distinct examples of it, but provaxxers will discredit it. It's a weird thing that mindset can do. As for me and a few others that align in part with my thinking (don't know to many) aren't immune. Just in the pandemic, by default, it's highly provaxxer-oriented.
And I agree that there are people like that in the pandemic. I just don't think that it applies heavily with "pro-vaxxers". Though I could imagine that people against vaccination or even people who downplayed the severity of the virus like anti-maskers might have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that their actions and beliefs caused the death of a quarter million people in the US. It must be hard to think that ones through process and the through processes of other people who you so desperately believe to be in the right has a lot of blood on their hands.
I actually don't know many antivaxxers (people against vaccination) and unvaccinated (without any political stance) any different in their responses than provaxxers (those for vaccination) and those vaccinated (without any political stance).
But what about provaxxers negativity? The anti/provaxxer debate is bothersome in itself, but do provaxxers feel justified in their feelings against antivaxxers that seeing the other side (empathy) would not cross their minds?
But just from the context of your post it seemed that it was aimed at people who think everyone should be vaccinated. That they somehow are unable to look at side effects of vaccination because of some ideological push for vaccination.
I don't really see that. I see people knee-jerk reacting to people with concerns about vaccination. And sometimes that is for good reason. Anti-vax people have been coming out of the woodwork in an attempt to hamper the only weapon we've had at fighting the worst thing that has happened in many of our lifetimes.
And I'm not talking about you specifically in this post but there are a ton of people who take extremely rare and sometimes very minor side effects as a broad talking point to crusade against vaccination.
Whats worse is a lot of people listen to them. The fact is vaccination is safe. Side effects are rare. Non-trivial side effects are extremely rare. And getting the target goal of vaccinations is extremely important.
Somewhat. Vaccinated people want everyone to be vaccinated (for herd immunity). They're unable to look at side affects (because of cognitive dissonance or just rejection) not because of ideological push for vaccination.
Do you mean antivaxxers on television? I can kinda agree with that just from what I see and what media talks about. I don't see provaxxers mainly (my assumption) is the majority is on their side. It makes the antivaxxers look silly why the provaxxers (and the unvaccinated) watch from behind the screens.
It is extremely rare. CDC, WHO, and other officials are looking into these rare occurrences. My question is why aren't these side affects seen in the same severity than the benefits of vaccination? Why discredit them rather than accept their severity and choose from that? (Can one make a decision that's not biased because of the majority rules?)
I think there's only two anti-vaxxers here that talk against the vaccine in a manner provaxxers talk against the antivaxxers. But those who aren't in this ballpark just make the decision based on the same info as the vaccinated and call it a day.
My question is why does one need to be an antivaxxer, ignorant, not knowing the facts, just for choosing not to vaccinated?
I'm sure there are other criteria that makes one an antivaxxer rather than just choosing not to vaccinate, no?
Vaccination is safe "and" it has side affects that the experts are looking into regardless the rarity.
Why discredit the other side?
It doesn't mean you're wrong... just means both sides are acknowledged --equally and and objectively--.
