spinofflive
A White House nurse prepares to administer the H1N1 vaccine to President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. 
(Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
A White House nurse prepares to administer the H1N1 vaccine to President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

ScienceOctober 22, 2019

Four ways to talk with vaccine sceptics

A White House nurse prepares to administer the H1N1 vaccine to President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. 
(Official White House photo by Pete Souza)
A White House nurse prepares to administer the H1N1 vaccine to President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

It might be tempting to yell, but there are more effective ways to talk to doubters about the value of vaccines, write Julie Leask and Maryke Steffens.

Your neighbour is telling you about his new baby. He feels nervous about vaccinating, and says he’s considering delaying Lucy’s vaccines.

Your mother’s group is chatting about vaccines. One mother tells the group Jimmy isn’t vaccinated, and she’s using the Immune-Strengthening Diet instead.

In a Facebook parenting group, someone comments we shouldn’t trust pharmaceutical companies because they’re covering up studies showing vaccines cause autism.

These and similar scenarios may sound familiar. So what do you do when you’re faced with someone who questions vaccination? Do you try to convince them to vaccinate? Do you ignore them? Or might something else work?

Talking about vaccination can be really difficult. Vaccination touches on strong values, like protection of children, social responsibility, and respect for science.

So, if you’re a vaccination supporter, you may feel perplexed, even angry, when people don’t vaccinate their children. If you’re a parent who has overcome minor worries and vaccinated your child, it can be galling when another parent dismisses vaccination, putting others at risk.

But talking about vaccination can also present pitfalls. Attempting to convince someone with strong views they’re wrong can strengthen their commitment to their position.

Free smallpox vaccination, as illustrated in a 1905 edition of Petit Journal, France. Photo by DeAgostini/Getty Images

Our work, with a team of researchers, clinicians and the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, shows the best way to respond depends on the situation. Your approach will be very different with a person who has fixed negative views on vaccination, compared with someone who is cautious. How you respond also depends on what is most important in your relationship.

Here are some options.

1. Don’t go there

This approach is handy if you encounter a person with fixed beliefs. They may say, “I’ve done my research.”

Your automatic response may be to counter their claims, saying “The science is clear. Vaccinate your kids.”

But if the relationship with this person isn’t important to you, or their emphatic pronouncements are unlikely to do harm, then little is gained by engaging. People with fixed beliefs don’t budge much.

You may encounter active opposition to vaccination on social media. A small number of anti-vaccination activists colonise online forums.

So avoid protracted conversations. Facebook’s algorithm privileges posts with high engagement, so your interactions may bring them even more attention. Energised by the response, anti-vaccination activists may coordinate and bombard you or your organisation.

This is what happened to US clinic Kids Plus Pediatrics in Pittsburgh. The clinic eventually produced a guidebook on how to handle anti-vaccination attacks.

Increasing the visibility of anti-vaccination posts can have other drawbacks. Onlookers may come to see vaccination as riskier, and vaccine refusal as more popular than it really is (in reality, only about 2% of Australian parents decide not to give their children some or all vaccines).

But countering anti-vaccine views can also bring benefits: it can diminish these negative effects, and affirm vaccination for hesitant onlookers or “fence-sitters”.

So which option is best? If this person’s posts are getting exposure anyway or they are influential, then you may decide that responding is worth the risk. Just keep any interactions brief, factual and polite. Otherwise, don’t go there.


Related:

How to talk about vaccination without losing your shit


2. Agree to disagree

Agreeing to disagree may be an option when you are with friends and family who hold firm views and whose relationship is important to you.

There could be a family get-together with your cousin who steadfastly rejects vaccination and the topic comes up in conversation. Family members start debating it. With strong views on either side, this could be explosive. Here you could say, “This is a topic we all have strong views about. We could just argue, but I propose that we leave this one alone.”

Discussing vaccination would not change your cousin’s mind. Her views are deeply held. Don’t let arguments get in the way of these relationships.

3. Affirm vaccination and move on

This option can be useful when you want to avoid conflict, but also advocate for vaccination.

Parent group situations might warrant this approach. For example, a couple at your antenatal class declare their plan to delay vaccination. While you might feel annoyed, try to focus on a strategic goal: showing other parents it’s not a group norm to delay vaccination.

You could say, “We are planning to vaccinate our baby. We think it’s really important.” While this probably won’t persuade the couple, it may reduce their influence on others.


Related:

Why vaccine opponents think they know more than medical experts


4. Listen, affirm and recommend

This approach may be suitable when you are with family and friends who are hesitant about vaccinating. For example, your daughter and son-in-law are hesitant about vaccinating their child — your grandchild.

These relationships may be important to you, and you probably want to encourage them to vaccinate.

We and others recommend several steps:

Understand people’s concerns and motivations

Listen to what people say and ask clarifying questions. This helps you better understand their reasons. Avoid the temptation to jump in, and keep a check on your emotions.

Affirm them as parents

This means acknowledging their concerns, as well as their care as parents. A person who feels respected is more likely to listen to your viewpoint. It’s how we all like to be treated. You could say, “I can see you are trying to do your best.”

Offer to share information

Sharing information means giving factual information relevant to that person, explaining your view, and why you believe it. Use quality information, such as via the World Health Organisation’s Vaccine Safety Net portal. Personalise it: “I believe vaccination is important because …”

Close with a plan

This creates opportunities for future conversations. Some parents review their decisions, such as during a localised outbreak or when the child is older. It’s also good to have an exit strategy because vaccination discussions can go on and on. You might ask, “Can we talk about this again some time?”

Decide how you want to spend your energy

Responding to people who question vaccination can be hard. So be judicious about where you spend your energy.

If you truly want to make a difference, avoid the temptation to reflexively correct what you believe is wrong and getting embroiled in lengthy vaccination debates or games of scientific ping pong.

Jump in without thinking, and you risk wasting your time, affecting relationships with family and friends, or even inadvertently amplifying anti-vaccine views.

Instead, assess that person’s position on vaccination, your goals and what is most important in your relationship.


Information for parents who have questions about immunisation is available here.The Conversation

Julie Leask, Professor, University of Sydney and Maryke Steffens, PhD Candidate, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keep going!
the super moose

ScienceOctober 18, 2019

Could an uber-moose take over Fiordland?

the super moose

Ten moose were upended into the Dusky Sounds in 1910. Now, their descendants are getting their day in the sun.

The climate crisis is affecting wildlife all over the country: rockhopper penguin populations are in drastic decline, tuatara eggs aren’t hatching females, and the ice walls keeping predators away from kea are melting.

But it’s not all bad news: the largest animal in Fiordland has the smallest population, but the most chance of surviving the climate crisis. That’s right, the moose boom is coming.

The glacial hills of Fiordland aren’t much like the forests and tundras of Saskatchewan, and it’s long been debated that it’s an inappropriate place for moose. “The climate down there isn’t suitable for moose,” said Blake Cole, an experienced huntsman and a regular on the Fiordland tracks. Luckily for hunters like Cole, that’s about to change. The changing climate is accelerating and, maybe, moose evolution is too.

Moose were released into Fiordland because it’s the wettest part of New Zealand, and a significant portion of the moose diet is aquatic vegetation. They like to munch on your standard leaves and bark – young or disturbed forests are prime moose fodder – but they also bloody love a swamp lettuce. Usually, they eat the swamps bare in one season and go back to nibbling on bushes for the next.

The climate crisis – or climate Christmas for some lucky ungulates – is offering aquatic veg the chance to branch out. “Rapid change supports rapidly breeding species that humans usually consider invasive,” said botanist and natives keeper Sam Willyams. “Watercress is both invasive and edible.” Watercress grows commonly in New Zealand, where it enjoys growing in cool streams; like the edges of a southern fiord, or an alpine river. It’s already present in Fiordland, but hasn’t taken over the National Park the moose live in. 

NIWA predicts Fiordland will see the highest increase in rainfall in New Zealand as the climate changes. Already, rain falls at least 200 days a year in these misty hills. The glaciers are melting faster than snow can fall. There are about to be a few more fjords in Fiordland.

And that’s just how the moose like it. Moose, like other species of deer, can swim very well. They’re known to dive up to six metres for their lunch. When the weather gets too warm for their thick coats, they go for a swim to cool off.

A classic moose-friendly environment is a dense, tall forest with some disturbed areas – free from logging or fires – for easy nibbling, and dotted with ponds and streams for paddling and snacking.

Whether the Fiordland moose’s aquatic foraging abilities resemble their ancestors’ is unknown. This is because they’re inbred. There was a founding population of eight (ten were released but two were shot soon after), but species have come back from worse.

In New Zealand, we can turn to the black robin. In 1980, there were only five of these fluffy chaps. Now, 250 of them live in the Chatham Islands. Interestingly, they seem to have few negative effects despite having such an extreme population bottleneck.

Moose are not short-lived birds, and may not be as good at processing inbreeding. However, that’s not a huge problem yet. They’re known to maintain low population densities. They’re very big and they eat a lot, but they rarely deplete their resources. They also avoid inbreeding as long as possible, so the eight moose who survived likely built as varied a gene pool as possible in their first couple of generations of breeding. 

This means the Fiordland moose are probably only slightly inbred and are still capable of diving into glacial pools to pig out. 

In 1985, the Norwegian island of Vega was colonised by three splash-happy moose. By 1992, the population was up to 24, including four fresh immigrants in 1991. The effects of inbreeding on the population were a slower birth rate and smaller babies. Small calves are less likely to survive predator attacks and cold weather.

The moose has no natural predators in New Zealand, except the lawless huntsmen and gold miners who sneak around the fjords in the dead of night. The weather is only getting warmer. There is no pressure on their population save their own cautious instincts. Given their low population, is it possible they could be a protected species? “I think the Conservation Act specifically deals with New Zealand native species,” said Fiordland Department of Conservation spokesperson Jamie McAulay.

Is it a pest, then? “It certainly isn’t at a high enough density to be causing problems.”

Well, not yet. Fiordland is getting warmer and wetter but will never be unbearably hot for a moose. There isn’t as much bark and pine for them to eat, but there are waterways and scrub full of tasty leaves. 

Thanks to climate change, Kiwi moose hunters like Ken Tustin may soon be seeing the waterworld version of a moose: smaller, bolder, and more aquatic. Whether they’ll prove a danger to humankind is yet to be seen.