We need to split the US up into two parts so we can do A/B testing.
As others have said, the problem of vaccines isn’t that they don’t work. The problem of vaccines is that they work too well. They have completely eliminated the diseases that motivated their development, so people can’t imagine a world where these vaccines don’t exist anymore.
We need to split the US up into two parts. One gets vaccines, the other one does not. Wait 30 years. Then the people will see the effects and then the people will understand why we should have vaccines. If the people don’t see the alternative scenario, they can’t see the difference that vaccines make. We need to make these differences more visual.
Sadly, there is no amount of in-their-face proof to overcome the “I do my own research” mentality.
And the original meme here misses the most important piece - they lack the basic concept of logic to understand how cause and effect relate to each other. So showing them A vs B won’t get them to the results you expect - even though it should.
I mean your premise seems to be that various diseases will reemerge and that will scare people into getting vaccines. But what if they end up healthier and so adapt in different ways? Better sanitation, immune boosters, improved forms of treatment, etc. What if the medical culture takes a totally different route because you allowed people not to get vaccinated?
And if you’re wrong? What if those who are vaccine free do better? I mean you’ve got a good idea there with the A/B testing but what if your premise is wrong or the anti-vaccine crowd is right and they do end up healthier despite the presence of diseases?
We need to split the US up into two parts so we can do A/B testing.
As others have said, the problem of vaccines isn’t that they don’t work. The problem of vaccines is that they work too well. They have completely eliminated the diseases that motivated their development, so people can’t imagine a world where these vaccines don’t exist anymore.
We need to split the US up into two parts. One gets vaccines, the other one does not. Wait 30 years. Then the people will see the effects and then the people will understand why we should have vaccines. If the people don’t see the alternative scenario, they can’t see the difference that vaccines make. We need to make these differences more visual.
Singling out a random group of people to fuck over “for educational purposes” doesn’t seem like a humane idea…
Random?
self-chosen
Sadly, there is no amount of in-their-face proof to overcome the “I do my own research” mentality.
And the original meme here misses the most important piece - they lack the basic concept of logic to understand how cause and effect relate to each other. So showing them A vs B won’t get them to the results you expect - even though it should.
I mean your premise seems to be that various diseases will reemerge and that will scare people into getting vaccines. But what if they end up healthier and so adapt in different ways? Better sanitation, immune boosters, improved forms of treatment, etc. What if the medical culture takes a totally different route because you allowed people not to get vaccinated?
I don’t know how that would work. Everyone that I know who is anti-vax thinks all the rest of your list is elitist crap as well.
And if you’re wrong? What if those who are vaccine free do better? I mean you’ve got a good idea there with the A/B testing but what if your premise is wrong or the anti-vaccine crowd is right and they do end up healthier despite the presence of diseases?