Covid-deniers and Anti-Vaxxers - What are they thinking?

Over many months, I’ve been listening and discussing Cv19 with various people on social media who have not taken the vaccines & are more sceptical about Cv19 generally. Here is what I believe is an accurate synthesis of their views.

Most that don't want this vaccination aren't anti-vaccinations or even necessarily anti THIS vaccination. They have all their other vaccinations with no issue.

They just want to wait until there are 3/4 years of data before deciding whether to take this one or not. 

After all, that's the usual timescale before a new vaccination is given a licence, because new treatments that seem to work prima facie, can have longer-term side-effects that may make the cure worse than the virus. 

Remember, we are not dealing with a virus akin to the Black Death here. If we were, we would have 25 -30 million dead from it in the UK alone by now. In reality, we have around 0.5% of that figure, and that is ‘with’ Cv19, not ‘of’ Cv19.

In fact, the average age of death 'with' Cv19 is 82, which is the normal average age of death in England & Wales.
Under 55, the ‘with’ Cv19 deaths is so small as to be statistically insignificant, very sad for those people & their families though it of course is. 
And even the over 75s who catch Cv19 have a 4 in 5 chance of surviving it.

So the claim is NOT that Cv19 is a hoax, or that the vaccinations are completely useless. 

It’s that the severity of Cv19 is exaggerated, and demonstrably so; that the efficacy of the vaccinations is exaggerated (you can still both catch & transmit it AND need boosters every 6 months) & with long-term consequences unknown; and that, because of these exaggerations, it is perfectly reasonable to want to wait for the normal long-term data on efficacy and side-effects to come in before taking the vaccination, particularly for the majority at almost no risk.

Moreover, the exaggeration of the Cv19 risk has caused policies to be brought in which cause far more societal damage, both short and long-term, than the virus itself. 

Just think of all the money we don’t have that’s been borrowed resulting in inflation and much higher tax levels; all the cancer and other non-Cv19 diagnoses and treatments missed with the consequent backlog of many millions of cases putting pressure on the NHS, the very thing we were supposed NOT to be doing; the mental health toll with, for example, an almost 50% increase in mental health referrals in the 15-19 year old population; the disruption to an entire generation’s education which always affects the poorest most; and the various civil liberties given-up with some at least, unlikely to be returned.

With a compliant media (both mainstream & social), we have been propagandised into believing that the Cv19 risk is magnitudes greater than it really is; that the vaccines are more useful than they really are, (particularly for the under 65s); and that the restrictive rules brought-in were far more necessary and useful than they really were. 

We have spent a colossal amount of money in the wrong way and far too many seem very happy to demonise anyone who asks perfectly reasonable and, frankly, obvious questions, as either stupid or evil or both. 

But Covid-deniers or anti-vaxxers, the vast majority of these people are not.

Covid 19: Thesis and Anti-Thesis

This is an attempt to explain why CV19 policies (and it applies to many other things), has become so tribal. There are broadly two camps, those that accept the mainstream line on Cv19 and those who don’t accept it. The former support the CV19 Thesis and the latter are Anti-thesis.

Covid 19 Thesis:

CV19 is believed to be a serious threat to public health many magnitudes greater than even a bad flu.

Promoted by the mainstream media; the main social media channels; most Governments; most opposition parties; global bodies e.g. WHO; large pharmaceutical companies

Those who differ in their opinion are characterised by those who promote the thesis as Covid-deniers; anti-vaxxers; conspiracy theorists and even by some as potential murderers (granny-killers).

The condensed view of the Covid 19 thesis believers is that lockdowns both work and are required; masks work and need to be mandated; vaccines are safe and should be mandated across most/all age ranges to protect both themselves & others; and vaccine passports should be mandated so that things can open-up faster and pressure people into getting vaccinated. In summary, heavy societal controls and restrictions are needed as CV19 is more dangerous than any downsides the restrictions bring.

CV19 Anti-thesis

CV19 is not sufficiently serious to warrant the level of response seen. It is barely more serious than a bad flu season and badly affects only the very elderly (average age of CV19 death is 82) or those with specific long-term conditions that make them generally more vulnerable to any and all viruses.

This idea is not promoted by any large mainstream or social media organisations but there are many individual scientists, doctors and others who can be found on social media who believe that the response to CV19 has been exaggerated, inappropriate & ultimately counter-productive. The differing approaches across the world with no correlation between cases/hospitalisations/death outcomes and the levels of restrictions or vaccinations imposed is cited as evidence.

Those who differ in their opinion to CV19 anti-thesis believers are characterised as Government shills; unthinking sheep; fear-mongers and selfish dictatorship enablers.

The condensed view of the Covid 19 anti-thesis believers is that lockdowns are not needed and don’t work; masks have so little efficacy as not to be worth wearing; vaccine passports are simply a way to divide society with no proven benefit; in the near future we can expect to see a scapegoating of the unvaccinated and that we are on the precipice of a slippery slope that leads to increasingly draconian biopolitical control measures, the grip of which is unlikely to release, even when the pandemic is over.

In summary, more societal damage (across the economy, non-CV19 health, mental health, education and civil liberties) is done by heavy restrictions than by Cv19 itself.

Can we find a way forward?

Both of the above perspectives have some validity.
However, in anything but the most simplistic of situations, extreme views are ALWAYS wrong to one extent or another because they attempt to simplify the complex in a way that misses crucial factors.

We all have lives to lead which take up a lot of our energy, both physical and mental. It’s a form of self-preservation to simplify things down so that we can integrate them into our lives with minimal effort. We want to reach a situation, and quickly, wherein we have decided what ‘the answer’ is, so that we can stop having to think about it.
Our natural reaction to anyone suggesting that our answer may be wring is usually to push-back and double-down. Any thinking we do tends to be simply justifying to ourselves why it’s ok to carry on believing as we already do.

Put simply, and for various psychological reasons, we hate having to change our minds, especially on important issues.

Now clearly, this is less than ideal in terms of being open-minded and being less susceptible to propaganda. But as long as we know and acknowledge that’s what we do, so that when serious complex issues arise, we are consciously aware of our over-simplified biases, we at least have a chance of discussing things open-mindedly, rather than taking the easy but divisive route of simply seeing anyone with a differing opinion as either stupid or evil.

Neither the thesis or anti-thesis view of Cv19, when held tribally and uncritically, is right, and we do ourselves no favours in the long-run by closed-mindedly choosing a side and refusing to consider reasonable questions and concerns from the ‘other’ side.

We need to be able to synthesise a reasonable way through this which doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater or end in one side feeling totally victorious and the other totally defeated. Becoming either a tyrant or a slave are not good options.

The problem is that there is no arena for a sensible, good-faith discussion.

It could be done by the mainstream or social media, but these organisations have nailed their colours to the mast and are actively censoring views and individuals that don’t agree with their chosen position.
Governments could do it but again, they don’t want to be seen as uncertain or vacillating, so they also tend to nail their colours to one mast or another.
Global quangos like the WHO or the UN could do it but sadly, they are so riven with internal & geo-politics and vested interests that it doesn’t happen there either.

So it is left to small independent thinkers like Jonathan Haidt or the you tube channel Rebel Wisdom, to try and bring some reasonable thinking into difficult areas.
All any individual can do is support these reasonable thinkers and do what we can on social media in our small way. We can also try to introduce other perspectives into conversations.

What is the kind of thinking we need to move forward collegiately?
Well in simple terms it means not insisting upon winning; not insisting on being right; being aware of the danger of all of our thinking being merely rationalising why it’s ok to go on believing what we already do without asking often obvious questions and genuinely trying to see the other point of view.
It requires, ‘yes, and..’ or ‘true but only partially’ or ‘ok, but what if…’ or ‘ok but perhaps we could consider this as well…’

Politically, it comes down to how we want to organise our society.
Do we want: 1. as much genuine democracy as possible? This requires high levels of openness and public discussion and involvement;
2. Occasional democracy interspersed by a virtual dictatorship? Where the elected Government gets to do basically whatever it likes until the next election;
Or 3. no democracy at all? Accepting that a ruling class know what’s best and the rest of us happily just do as we’re told – something foreseen by Aldous Huxley.

What we must have is genuine open and honest debates on vital societal issues. Otherwise, we will find that those with power and influence change our society without us having any meaningful say.

As well as books and you tube interviews by Jonathan Haidt and the Rebel Wisdom channel, I would suggest certain books to read. They are all available on kindle for well under £10 (actual books more expensive). They explain how we think and how easily we can be influenced:

Influence by Cialdini
Think Fast, Think Slow by Kahneman
Mistakes were made but not by me by Tarvis et al