willem dafoe’s rib cage

tolerated and their conspiracies were considered in debate because people met them at their harmful beliefs. Words matter

isn’t interpreted to be a sub group of what the majority of the public knows and loathes to be ‘anti vaxers’ (like the original post is written). This movement has grown and taken hold of our government because their bad faith questions were

My issue, as well as others’ in the comments of his post, is his mistake in calling ‘vaccine hesitant’ parents ‘anti vaccine parents’. Given the public’s negative connotation to ‘anti vax’ I think it’s important to clearly state why these two groups are in fact not related so ‘vaccine hesitant’

Hi, I am not suggesting to shame parents who are vaccine hesitant for any reason. Everyone deserves to be heard and provided information especially when it protects the lives of children. I understand OP believes this to.

the US & israel kicked this off unprovoked by attacking a school full of kids, i'm not sure why the fuck i'm supposed to see a headline about their murder infrastructure being destroyed and think "oh no, what a bad development"

This is excellent news

Given we have politely coddled anti vaxers questions and beliefs into power I think it’s important to point out why his post is worded poorly. I have apologized multiple times for my language

Is an irresponsible and sloppy comment for someone in public health to make. Which is proven by the angry comments he received for assuming people would understand the point he’s trying to make

You’re right he literally said “I don’t think most anti-vax parents are bad parents because these (anti-vax) parents are more accurately described as ’vaccine hesitant’ ” which doesn’t provide any evidence there’s a distinction between the two at all. I was initially (too) angry because this

The post doesn’t highlight it!

Because the statement: “I don’t think most anti-vax parents are bad parents because these (anti-vax) parents are more accurately described as ’vaccine hesitant’ ” Does. Not. Provide. That. Distinction

And now he have states that can do whatever they want, allowing anti vax parents to freely put their child and others’ in harms way. How many children need to die?

The reason the anti vax personality cult has seized power of our government is because we entertained their conspiracy theories and debated with them as if they had any grasp of reality. Providing an ear to that type of deranged person does nothing but inflate their ego

If a parent understands the scientific explanation of why their child should be vaccinated and still chooses to withold the child’s right to be protected from deadly preventable diseases, more than one child is impacted. More preventative measures, like strict state laws, should be encouraged

The importance of the distinction between the two is the entire point. One group should be educated and one shouldn’t be entertained.

Is it effective public health communication to post “I don’t think most anti-vax parents are bad parents because these (anti-vax) parents are more accurately described as ’vaccine hesitant’ ”? Because that’s what the post says and that statement does not provide a distinction at all between the two

Does that sound like a distinction was made between anti vax and vax hesitant?

His original post literally reads “I don’t think most anti-vax parents are bad parents because these (anti-vax) parents are more accurately described as ’vaccine hesitant’ ”

You can go read them and see that posting “I don’t think most anti-vax parents are bad parents because these (anti-vax) parents are more accurately described as ’vaccine hesitant’ ” isn’t a clear way to communicate the message that was intended

Hello I am from The Public here to tell those of you in Public Health that many people (also from The Public) responded angrily and negatively in the comments to publichealthguy1’s original post. This is due to his ineffective communication.

Please look at the responses to his post before he had to lock down comments. The public reacted negatively to his statement even though he means well.

choose to expose their children and others’ to preventable diseases. I understand the importance of communicating effectively and how difficult it is to provide teaching when there are so many gaps and disparities in public health.

His post reads as ‘out of all of the anti vax parents, most anti vax parents aren’t bad parents’. Do you agree with this? Because ‘anti vax’ is associated very negatively, and appropriately, by the public (i assume the target audience of those in public health) as the horrific cult of people who

And by immediate hostility I’m referring to the comments he receive from the public. Apologies that wasn’t very clear

I do apologize for my language, publichealthguy1. I am trying to explain that this kind of post is an ineffective way to communicate to the public about public health in my opinion. Again, as proven by the immediate hostility.

And I think this is proven by all of the immediate negative responses he received. And his decision was to lock down comments

Especially if the point is to acknowledge that these are two different groups of parents that need to be met with entirely different interventions. Educate and introduce people to terms like vaccine hesitant

bad parents. This is dangerous messaging. And I think this language is too ambiguous given how much negativity, appropriately, is placed on the term.

I would assume effective communication is a large part of public health. I think it’s ineffective to start a statement regarding anti vaxers, or ‘anti vaccine’, by creating a sub group of “most anti vaxers”. This reads that most anti vaxers, the majority, are not

Why call them anti vax to begin with that doesn’t seem helpful to further public education