who are the anti-vaxxers — and how did they get there?
it's hard to come up with a clear profile. it's a fairly diverse group that crosses income and education lines
6 minute read
an unnamed canadian boy being vaccinated in 1959.
library and archives canada/national film board
with various outbreaks of measles in pockets across the country, the call for mandatory vaccination policies has grown, as has condemnation of the anti-vaxx movement. so who are the anti-vaxxers? it’s hard to come up with a clear profile. it’s a fairly diverse group that crosses income and education lines, but its adherents do share some traits. tyler dawson and sharon kirkey look at what we know about them, why it matters and how they got there in the first place.
who are the anti-vaxxers?
you can essentially break anti-vaxxers into two groups, says tim caulfield, the canada research chair in health law and policy at the university of alberta. the first consists of full-on disbelievers who make up somewhere between two and five per cent of the population, depending on which study you look at. their minds won’t be changed. the second group — somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent of canadians — is for what some now call the vaccine-hesitant. they may get some of the required vaccinations for their children, but not all of them. the reasons for their poor follow-through are varied: there could be logistical reasons, single parents without the time to get their children vaccinated, or they might harbour fears of specific vaccines. “there’s a whole bunch of factors that are relevant to why a child may not get vaccinated, and i think that’s really important,” caulfield said. “it’s not all about these vaccination myths and the anti-vaxx ideology, there are also practical considerations we need to factor in.”
advertisement
which group is a bigger threat to the overall health of canadians, the devout anti-vaxxers or the partial vaxxers?
the hesitant crowd, because there are more of them, so they have a larger overall impact on herd immunity. the more people are immune, the easier it is to protect everyone. one of the arguments in favour of vaccination is that it doesn’t just protect you, it also protects your neighbours and those who might not be able to get a vaccine because they’re very young or very old or have a compromised immune system. the scientific literature identifies “three c’s” of vaccine hesitancy. confidence is the amount of trust in the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety, including trust in those who are suggesting vaccines; complacency is the perception of risk — is a vaccine really necessary, in this day and age, in this part of the world? then there is convenience: location of service, vaccine availability and cost. “some feel they lack information or have safety concerns, others might find themselves too busy and many are unaware of the risks of infectious disease,” says a 2017 report from the c.d. howe institute that explores under-vaccination in canada.
what are the objections to vaccines?
advertisement
there are a litany of them. there’s the fear of toxic substances in vaccines, and belief in a “big pharma” conspiracy to sell these drugs to as many people as possible. still others believe a child’s immune system could be overwhelmed by too many vaccines at too young an age (it will not) or that natural immunity, achieved by being infected and living to tell the tale, is superior. then there is the classic fear of autism, a belief born from a debunked study by british doctor andrew wakefield that said the mmr (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes the developmental disorder. in early march, a study published in the annals of internal medicine of more than 600,000 children confirmed that children who received the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine were not at increased risk of autism. one 2010 ontario study that looked at who is opting out of vaccines grouped children born in 1997 and earlier, and children born in, or after, 1998 — the year wakefield’s paper was published in the lancet. younger children were much more frequently exempted for “moral,” “conscientious” or “philosophical” reasons. children exempted for religious or philosophical reasons are 35 times more likely than vaccinated kids to contract measles, the authors reported, “in addition to increasing community risk by upwards of 30 per cent.”
advertisement
who is promoting anti-vaccine rhetoric?
mostly hardline anti-vaxxers through advertisements, social media and a strong online community, an echo chamber that becomes hard to break into. “it creates this impression that there is a scientific debate to be had on these topics,” caulfield said. a 2017 australian study by naomi smith and tim graham on anti-vaxx messaging on facebook found that social media is an enormous incubator of anti-vaccine sentiment. “the redefinition of expertise has created an environment for anti-vaccination activists to effectively spread their message,” they wrote. those who are already faintly skeptical are more susceptible to the fear-mongering and rhetoric of hard-line anti-vaxxers, caulfield said. the influence of like-minded community members can also sculpt views. but, there could also be a precipitating incident, such as a child getting sick shortly after being vaccinated. parents “draw a connection between the vaccine and the incident, even though there’s no actual scientific connection,” caulfield said. fear also plays a role. a young parent today hasn’t experienced polio or perhaps even seen its effects, so there is less motivation to protect oneself and one’s children.
advertisement
are income, age and gender determining factors?
caulfield believes anti-vaxxers come from a wide spectrum of income and education backgrounds. in 2015, the polling firm mainstreet research found that 39 per cent of canadian anti-vaxxers had household incomes of more than $100,000, 38 per cent had a university degree and a full 66 per cent had some post-secondary education. according to the poll, 65 per cent cite health reasons for not vaccinating, and 19 per cent give religious reasons. while none of the world’s major religions officially oppose vaccination, a skeptical preacher could tilt views of a congregation, caulfield explained. “there are groups like the christian scientists … that seem to be more skeptical towards vaccines,” he said. as for gender, the picture is unclear. caulfield said anti-vaxxers trend slightly male — and some research from the united states backs that up. (interestingly, whether one has children doesn’t seem to affect views on vaccination, says a 2015 study from the pew research center.) but the reverse seems to be true on facebook, where the majority of anti-vaccine sentiment comes from women, according to the study by smith and graham. women outnumber men by a ratio of approximately three to one. “the gender composition of the anti-vaccination movement reflects dominant cultural understandings of parenting.” the study concludes that the anti-vaccine movement is now primarily led by women.
advertisement
how are anti-vaxxers claiming the moral high ground on this issue?
a recent study out of australia explored the moral roots of anti-vaxx attitudes among parents active on parenting websites. the parents (296 in all) were grouped into three distinct categories: vaccine accepters, fence sitters or rejecters. compared to vaccine accepters, rejecters and fence sitters “exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual),” the authors report, and a low tolerance for authority. they also had a higher moral preference for purity, described as “an abhorrence for impurity of body or mind and ‘unnatural‘ acts.” “given that rejecters demonstrate a low endorsement of authority, and a strong endorsement of liberty, they are unlikely to be swayed by persuasive appeals from health authorities,” the researchers wrote. what’s more, punishments, like australia’s “no jab, no pay” law, in which parents who object to vaccinating their children risk losing childcare benefits and rebates, “run the risk of triggering moral outrage amongst this group.” even the fence sitters were firm in their belief parents have a right to decide whether to vaccinate their children.
advertisement
email: tdawson@postmedia.com | twitter: tylerrdawson
email: skirkey@postmedia.com | twitter: sharon_kirkey
email: skirkey@postmedia.com | twitter: sharon_kirkey
share story
