I Speak of Dreams

Vaccine Hesitant, Vaccine Fearful, Vaccine Refuser, Ex-Vaxxer, Vaccine Abolutionist, Anti-Vaccine: Coming to Terms

This conversation with Johan Bester, director of bioethics for UNLV’s School of Medicine, got me to thinking about me policing the terms I use.

Is there a chance that those vehemently opposed to vaccinations will strengthen their resolve?

I would expect that there are some parents who would double down on their vaccine refusal, and become more entrenched in their opposition to childhood vaccines during the pandemic. The world, unfortunately, has become more polarized in recent years. As the psychologist Jonathan Haidt pointed out, people often make up their minds about controversial issues based on the tribe they belong to, and come up with justifications for their choices afterwards. The same principle is at work for many who refuse vaccines: their identity is tied up with the refusal of vaccines; being opposed to vaccines is part of who they are.

They simply don't trust information from experts, people who provide evidence in favor of vaccines. There is research that shows that some people who have very strong anti-vaccine views become even more opposed to vaccines when you provide them with evidence and facts about vaccine safety. When you present information related to vaccine science to people who have their identity wrapped up in opposition to vaccines, they experience it as a personal attack rather than a discussion on what should be done for a child.

Overall, the key is building trusting relationships. People will hear what you say if they trust you. Relationship and goodwill comes before education and communication of the scientific facts; you can’t have one without the other.

This is one reason I have such an antipathy to the moniker "anti-vaxxer.” It is not helpful to lump all vaccine-hesitant people together under a term that has taken on derogatory overtones. It polarizes the issue further, rather than seeking to build the trust and goodwill needed for people to hear what you have to say.

The reality is pretty subtle and shaded, while online conversations tend to be more polarized, I think.

Personally I've been trying to reserve the terms, "anti-vaccine", "anti-vax", and AV for those who profit or benefit from raising fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about vaccines, and who lie repeatedly about the safety and efficacy of vaccines: the likes of Barbara Loe Fisher, Robert F. Kennedy jr., Larry Cook, Joe Mercola, Del Bigtree, Jack Wolfson, Suzanne Humphries, Sherri Tenpenny, Jacqueline "Deep Roots at Home", Bob Sears, Lawrence Palevsky,

Parents (and others) who parrot their words, without really understanding what they are saying, should be called something else.

Malicious Misinformation Alert: These Are NOT the CDC Guidelines for Opening Schools

Seen this wandering through your social media channels? Here's what pediatrician Jane Macintyre has to say:

If you see this graphic, there are at least three things you need to know:

1. The CDC usually uses their logo, not clip art.
2. The CDC knows how to spell ‘guidelines’.
The CDC would say “only pre-packed boxes”, NOT “pre-packages boxes”.

Parents and guardians, here’s what you should know: here is the actual link to educate yourself and the rest of humanity: https://bit.ly/2LJFnXh

It clearly states

"Schools can determine, in collaboration with state and local health officials to the extent possible, whether and how to implement the guidelines or not.

I, Liz, think this clearly fake "CDC" infographic is from a certain faction in the "vaccines are dangerous" movement, to cause parents to fear and doubt the CDC. I have seen it spread by members of that faction.

The Special Kids' Advocacy Agency (in New York State) also had some things to say about the accuracy of this infographic

Leah Russin, co-founder of Vaccinate California, had more to say on the Vaccinate California twitter feed, summarized here:

Are you seeing a list of draconian-seeming CDC “guidelines” for opening schools circulating? Are people commenting that CDC is out of touch, that it’s never going to work, that they’d rather homeschool than send their kids to school like that?

Guess what: as far as I can tell, it was generated precisely to undermine confidence in the CDC. It is actually a distortion of the real guidelines, which are a collection of suggestions for ways to mitigate risks of exposure in schools for schools to consider, depending on what the actual risk of exposure is, and how feasible each measure is for individual age groups or communities. The earliest version I’ve seen is even formatted on a blue background very similar to the color CDC does actually use on its website, making it look like an actually CDC summary.

None of this is required nor is it even a complete or contextual representation of the CDC document, which you can read here:

Personally, I’d feel better sending my own child to school if as many exposure risks are mitigated as feasible. Plexiglass dividers at group tables allowing kids to see and talk to each other, but not sneeze on each other? Sounds great! But some parents can’t envision how that would work, and it seems absurd or scary.

An example of how the list mischaracterizes the source document: masks and young kids.

The CDC document says — masks are one thing you can consider to mitigate risk of transmission, and it would be a challenge for young children, and you shouldn’t even consider it for children under two. The version circulation disingenuously reframed that to say masks should be required for all children over two.

Liz's Big COVID19 Testing Adventure! Follow Along.

On Monday, May 18th, 2020 I saw an announcement from San Mateo County and Project Baseline (PB) that free COVID19 testing was opening up in my county. So of course, being a good citizen-scientist, I signed up. Plus, I wanted testing.  Plus, I eventually wanted access to antibody testing. Yes, I had to give PB some personal medical information, but nothing that probably isn't already publicly available.  I mean, my height and weight are on my driver's license. Here are the states where Project Baseline testing is available:

Free COVID-19 testing is open in select states:
CA, CT, DE, ID, MA, MD, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA and VA, and we are continuing to expand.

The first available convenient appointment was Wednesday, May 20th, at 11 pam in Daily City, which is about a 30 minute drive from my house. I arrived at the testing location (buildings that belong to Jefferson Union High School District) to an almost-empty parking lot. The first stop was a sheriff's officer, who asked me (through my rolled-up window) if I had an appointment. I indicated I did, so he waved me, still in my car, to the next stop, which was a gloved, gowned, and masked man who asked me to put my driver's license up to the window, so he could sort me into the correct line.

And this is where I discovered something, or had something brought to mind: I have a danged hard time understanding people when they are wearing masks and talking to me through my closed car window.  (To-do list: referral to audiologist please).

At the next station, two other masked, gowned, and gloved women looked at my driver's license through the car window, retrieved an already-labeled plastic envelope, and tucked it under the car's windshield wiper, and directed me to the correct line for a pair of tents (I wasn't allowed to take pictures or video.)  Then there was a little bit (less than 5 minutes) delay.   I think they had just opened up, and were working out the logistics of where to put directional and stop signs for optimal processing of cars.  Well, people in cars. So, some rearrangement of signage.

Finally, it was my turn.  I pulled up to see a woman in mask, face shield, and one of those disposable yellow gowns. She smiled, gestured theatrically (a nice touch) to a DON'T IDLE--TURN OFF YOUR CAR sign, and turned to the table to don a fresh pair of gloves. She retrieved the plastic envelope from the car windshield and put it on the table. Turning back to me with a vial and a swab, she then told me her first name, that she was a nurse, and that this test would be a self-administered swab. 

I already had a plastic bag open on my lap (in case it was a nasopharyngeal swab, and I gagged and vomited), so I was relieved.

I could hear her clearly through the closed window, so the engine noise might have been part of the problem. I think she asked me if I still wanted to continue with the testing -- I said yes, of course.  Then she described how to do the test.  I was to "take the swab, stick it up my nose until I hit resistance, twirl it around 10 times, and then repeat (10 twirls) on the other side."  I asked, "both nostrils?" and she said yes.  She also said the swab makes some people cough or sneeze; it I did to turn my head into my car.  Then she asked me to crack the window, and poked the vial in so I could grab it, and had me grab the swab from the sterile packaging.   It looked kind of like this.

A teeny little stalk and a fuzzy head, MUCH smaller than a Q-tip.  I did as instructed.  Scraping around the inside of my nose made my eyes water, but not profusely, and there was a residual unpleasant sensation that persisted for about 15 minutes.

Anyway, swab twirling on both sides accomplished, I opened the vial, dropped the swab in, fuzzy end first, and secured the top. I cracked my window again, handed the vial to the nurse, who placed it in the plastic specimen envelope. We wished each other good day, and I was on my way.

From turning off my engine to restarting was less than 10 minutes (I should have started my stopwatch....) and may have been less than 5 minutes. 

By the time I got back to my house, I'd had an email from Project Baseline:

So, by Tuesday May 26th  at the latest, I'll know if I am currently infected with SARS-COV-2, or not.  I predict not.  Check back in a couple of days, I'll update on the next step. 

Update #1:evidently there's some confusion about the test offered. Here's a visual

: