Immunize

Despite some very convincing scientific evidence there seems to be an ongoing debate on immunization against infectious diseases. I came upon a rather lengthy, heated, and interesting debate on Facebook. I weighed in but I have a bit more to say.

In my mind, unless you are going to have an allergic reaction, you should be immunized. The benefits to yourself and your community far outweigh the risks or costs (at least in Canada where universal health care provides the vaccination and injection service without direct cost to the end user.) That being said, a lot of people are dead set against immunizing themselves or their children.

One of the biggest problems in the debate about immunization is the people who work in public health and know about this kind of stuff are really smart. Now, don't get me wrong, we want smart people in charge of this kind of stuff. The problem is people tend to live, work, and socialize with people similar to themselves. So these really smart people spend the vast majority of their time with really smart people. Now, smart people like to be accurate in their communication, and as such, they usually develop very deep and broad vocabularies. 

This is where the problem starts to set in.

Wait a minute, immunization is a very serious thing. We are exposing millions of people to the disease we are trying to prevent. Don't we want the people in charge of this to be very accurate when they are doing what they do to make and test vaccines? When the smart people are talking to each other we absolutely do, when they are talking to the general public, maybe not.

Since changing jobs and dealing with the public on a regular basis I have relearned that most people communicate in a simple way. A lot of people don't like 'big words' and would rather use three or four simple words than one obscure but accurate word to get their point across. So when the really smart people argue with science, too many people tune out and turn to pseudo-science or celebrities for their information.

Jenny McCarthy has been a strong advocate against immunization and a lot of people are buying her message. She's not a scientist so, why?

As a matter of full disclosure, I did have posters of Jenny McCarthy hanging in my house when I went to university. However, it was not her scientific knowledge that I was admiring. Since my mom reads my blog from time to time we will just leave it at that.

I don't know how deep or broad Jenny McCarthy's vocabulary is but when she speaks publicly, she uses simple words and short phrases. It's easy to understand. So when she presents her argument, everyone understands what she is trying to say. It doesn't mean what she is saying is correct but if you are not educated about immunization, what she says is plausible and understandable. Her message gets through, which is critically important.

The idea of immunization is scary. Vaccinations are constructed in a lab and contains the very disease you are trying to prevent. That's not very natural. There are a lot of people that believe if it is natural it can't be that harmful. The has long been central to the argument provided by the pro-weed lobby. That's not a very strong argument. Arsenic is natural, it's not made in a lab or a factory. If you ingest it, you will end up good and dead.

Another argument you often hear is you can take natural herbs to boost your immunity, they are plants and not harmful. If your argument is something is safe because it's a plant, feel free to roll around in poison ivy and let me know how that works out for you.

There are a few things that don't look good for immunizing yourself. Some people take the vaccination and still get sick while others don't take it and don't. Many vaccinations are delivered by needle and a lot of people don't like needles. Most people feel a bit under the weather for a few hours after taking. Some people have bad reactions leading to long term problems. These are tough things to overcome.

Today, I don't know what the message should be to get everyone who can be immunized to take the vaccine. I'm not educated in that area but I know something about communicating.

The message must be delivered so that a dishwasher at an all-night diner understands and accepts it. It can't use scientific terms. It needs to get the point across without using percentages, outliers, or any rate. If you use numbers they need to be small whole numbers. The really smart people need a message that makes sense to someone who doesn't see the value in finishing high-school or washing their hands after using the toilet.

I admit it is not an easy task but if Coca-Cola can convince hundreds of millions of people to regularly consume a beverage that has no value or benefit then there is hope.