The Forced Vaccine Narrative - Pick a Side

Vaccines.  What else needs to be said? 

Vaccines have become part of just one more cultural narrative.  Narratives, of course, are those pesky abstract cultural phenomena that force you to discard rational evaluation of an issue.  Instead they force you to "choose sides", because otherwise you might run the risk of inadvertently agreeing with your enemy on the other end of the issue.  Remember, someone has to win a battle of ideology, so we don't have time to ask if the battle should be fought in the first place.

This post is not about Jenny McCarthy.  It's not even about Michelle Bachmann who had this to say about the HPV vaccine:

I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter.

Ah, case closed.  We can tell the scientists to stop sciencing because Bachmann has it figured out.

But no, this isn't about the people who are against vaccines in general, this is about an issue of vaccines that may hit closer to home.

The Issue

Businesses are forcing their workers to get vaccines, under threat of being fired.  This seems to be mostly related to the health care industry, and is happening all over the country - or at least Wisconsin and Texas. 

"It isn't right for businesses to force people to do something against their will," you might say.  Personally I agree (to an extent), and this is something that needs to be considered.

"Hospitals have to think about the health of their patients.  Workers with the flu may put patients at risk," another might say.  Yes, this is true too and it should be considered.

This is a sticky issue to be sure, but that's not what I'm here to discuss.  What surprised me was hearing that there are some people who, in reaction to hearing that others are forced to get vaccines, are foregoing the vaccine for themselves or their loved ones.  This made me realize that this issue isn't really just about vaccines, it's about the narrative and how it shapes the way we think.

It's an important issue to consider, because as we develop more vaccines to eliminate infections like HPV, which can cause cervical cancer, there's going to be a lot more discussion about whether or not the vaccination should be mandatory.  As we consider these issues, it will be an unfortunate fact that the narrative is going to define the debate.

When businesses took the hardline position of forcing their workers to get a vaccine, there was an equal and opposite reaction from those who now, in a sense, see the vaccines as the enemy.  Instead of discussing the scientific and ethical concerns of the vaccine, now you have to define yourself by choosing from two predefined sides.  Are you a fascist who wants to force people to get vaccines for the supposed "greater good", or do you choose to be a freedom fighter who forgoes vaccination for you (or your daughter) to preserve your rights?

Obviously this is a false dichotomy, but then the narrative wouldn't be so destructive if it wasn't based on a false dichotomy.  

The narrative is defining the issue.  This is why there is such an uproar.  Parents are upset that the HPV vaccine is required for school enrollment, so they attack the vaccine:  "It can cause retardation or other unknown side effects."  Or they attack the company: "Merck has a financial stake in this, that's why it's being forced on us."  Or we attack the flu vaccine: "It has mercury in it."  Whatever the case may be, all of these issues detract from the real issue.

Now, if you think that I'm blaming these hospitals for creating this narrative, you're wrong.  Everyone who participates is equally responsible.  Hospitals didn't make these vaccines mandatory because they want to infringe on anyone's freedom, but because they know that there's an irrational backlash against vaccines and so people would refuse to get them of their own accord.  No single entity is responsible for creating this narrative, we all created it together and now we're all stuck in it.

Ignoring the Narrative

This post isn't really about the businesses that are forcing their workers to get vaccines.  That issue will have to be worked out in the courts, and in public discourse.  

This post also isn't about people who are being forced to get the vaccines.  If you need the flu vaccine to keep your job, or the HPV vaccine to enroll in school, then you have to do what you have to do.

This is for the person who is considering foregoing the flu vaccine in protest, or the parent who will use a "believer's exemption" for their daughter's HPV vaccine, because they're upset that it's mandatory. 

Forget for a moment that the vaccine is mandatory.  Forget the narrative and assess the situation rationally.  Wouldn't you elect to give your daughter the HPV vaccine if it may prevent cancer, or if it could at least help virtually eliminate a disease off the face of the planet?  Well, maybe you would or maybe you wouldn't.  Whatever choice you come to, don't arrive at that choice because you're upset that your freedoms are being infringed. 

When you make this decision, don't buy into the fear mongering just because it justifies the side you've chosen on the issue.  Do you think vaccines are potentially dangerous?  If so, answer this honestly to yourself: Do you think they're dangerous because you have a rational reason to believe they're dangerous, or do you think they're dangerous because it justifies how polarized you feel about the issue?  

There's a lot of information about this out there, and for reference here's a great argument by Penn and Teller (warning: lots of foul language):

The point is, stop caring about the narrative that this is an issue of freedom, and do the only thing you can: Make a rational, informed choice for yourself.  

I'm not telling you not to be mad that these vaccines are being forced on people.  I'm telling you that if that's all you're focused on, then you're missing the big picture.

Science

Of course, this wouldn't be a Christian Freethought post if I didn't explain why what's happening here is bad for science, would it? 

This debate isn't bad for science, per se, however it is a symptom of the poor state of scientific education in America.  When these debates come up, rarely is science the issue.  Instead what we see are ideologues on either side, both attempting to use science to promote whatever ideology they prefer.  Science is like a lone, quiet man in a room full of angry, shouting ideologues.  Whenever the lone man tries to pipe in, he's told to shut up, because each ideologue thinks they're speaking for him, even when they contradict the other ideologues.

Science may be mentioned in the news, but usually in passing.  "There is currently no evidence that these vaccines cause any negative side effects."  Okay, but when you spend 99% of your news article giving people attention for participating in angry, partisan bickering, what do people take away from the article?  Can you blame people for having a loaded and polarized view on the issue when the issue is framed as being one caricature versus another?

This is a symptom of a culture that values ideology over real, rational scientific thinking.  If you're an atheist, you may be nodding your head at this point, but you're part of the problem too. 

A cultural shift needs to happen here.  We should not prefer "science" which backs our partisan bickering.  It doesn't matter which side of the aisle you're sitting.  The problem is, if you're participating in the narrative, then you're committed to winning the battle of ideologies, and if you aren't fighting then the other side wins, right?  Wrong, because no matter who wins the battle, we've all lost.