Rates of routine childhood vaccination hit a 10-year low in 2023. That, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, puts about 250,000 kindergartners at risk for measles, which often leads to hospitalization and can cause death. In recent weeks, an infant and two young children have been hospitalized amid an ongoing measles outbreak in Philadelphia that spread to a day care center.
It’s a dangerous shift driven by a critical mass of people who now reject decades of science backing the safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccines. State by state, they’ve persuaded legislators and courts to more easily allow children to enter kindergarten without vaccines, citing religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs.
Growing vaccine hesitancy is just a small part of a broader rejection of scientific expertise that could have consequences ranging from disease outbreaks to reduced funding for research that leads to new treatments. “The term ‘infodemic’ implies random junk, but that’s wrong,” said Peter Hotez, a vaccine researcher at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. “This is an organized political movement, and the health and science sectors don’t know what to do.”
Changing views among Republicans have steered the relaxation of childhood vaccine requirements, according to the Pew Research Center. Whereas nearly 80% of Republicans supported the rules in 2019, fewer than 60% do today. Democrats have held steady, with about 85% supporting. Mississippi, which once boasted the nation’s highest rates of childhood vaccination, began allowing religious exemptions last summer. Another leader in vaccination, West Virginia, is moving to do the same.
An anti-science movement picked up pace as Republican and Democratic perspectives on science diverged during the pandemic. Whereas 70% of Republicans said that science has a mostly positive impact on society in 2019, less than half felt that way in a November poll from Pew. With presidential candidates lending airtime to anti-vaccine messages and members of Congress maligning scientists and pandemic-era public health policies, the partisan rift will likely widen in the run-up to November’s elections.
When a target is chosen for attack, the method of attack chosen will be designed around any resources they have and reactions they can take. This is an advantage conferred by the attacker having initiative, they can put much more thought and planning into exactly how they want to execute their attack, and can try to predict and preemptively deal with likely responses. Where a defender is stuck on defense, and has to try to spread their attention out to try to predict and guard against a wide multitude of potential attacks, if they’re even expecting attack in the first place.
Defenders are frequently defeated by this mechanism.
Defenders have advantages of their own, though, one of which is a natural moral high ground. Where an attacker can make a specific plan, concentrate their force, and strike where the defense is weakest, a defender can frequently call for and receive reinforcements.
And that is what we’re seeing. An organized attack, and pleas for help from the defenders. And if we value their services, I think we’d best honor the call. How, then…? Grassroots civic engagement, of course, wherever the opportunity presents. Unless you can think up some sort of tech solution.
It’s funny, the fascists tend to think that all the militaristic-trained thinkers are on their side, but that’s not actually true.
I’m so tired of pretending we need to take these idiots seriously. Make vaccination a requirement for attending public school and cut all funding for private schools. If you really want to send a message then start allowing hospitals to refuse treatment to people who are unvaccinated against said diseases without a valid medical exemption. Let them do their own research as they’re so fond of saying.
Society has to stop acting like every individual opinion is worthy of equal consideration. That simply isn’t true. We are all worse off for allowing people who obviously don’t understand medicine to make rules about practicing medicine.