THE VACCINE CHOICE: part 3

PART 3: The vaccine divide. 

Read part 2 here.

Soon you will be offered a vaccine. A few of you already have been; some of which have gladly accepted, others of whom have politely declined. And rightly so- your body, your choice. A strictly personal decision. Isn’t it?  

In the early instances of vaccination, there was opposition. But nothing like the modern movement we see today. It is termed movement, as momentum is surely gathering. But, why now?  

For example, to be anti-vaccination in the early 1900’s was extremely rare. “In 1905 the US Supreme court ruled on Jackson v. Massachusetts over a five dollar fine imposed on a pastor who refused to vaccinate. The court ruled that the states may restrict individual liberties if great dangers to the safety of the general public are present.” This, however, came with a concession: “although states could punish those who refuse to vaccinate with fines or imprisonment, they could not forcibly vaccinate. An analogy was made by the Supreme Court to periods of war, when individual liberties may be reduced in order to protect the larger community”. The judges were searching for a legal balance between the rights of the individual versus the benefit of the collective. We are seeing similar discourse in our media today: should border workers and other high-risk employees be demoted or transferred if refusing to be vaccinated?  

The modern anti-vaccine movement is quite different to the original, often isolated, vaccine hesitancy instances of the past. The modern movement took off after a publication in 1998 that claimed there was a link between the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine and a new type of autism. The paper was published in the British Medical Journal Lancet. Later, ten of the twelve authors issued a retraction, the journal took the unusual step of retracting the article, a judge ruled that the vaccine was safe for children, and the lead author of the paper, Andrew Wakefield, was shown to have a conflict of interest which he did not declare. A retrospective study of over 5000 children found no increased risk of developing autism symptoms in the months following vaccination.  

The sad reality is that misinformation in our era spreads quicker than validated, factual news. This was reflected in a 2008 study of internet websites, revealing that more than 50% of search results returned for ‘vaccine safety’ and ‘vaccine danger’ provided inaccurate information. Where 18th century anti-vaccine activists distributed pamphlets and held rallies; modern activists have instant access to an array of social media platforms that can appear legitimate while spreading information that is uncorroborated or simply incorrect. This isn’t to say that those who are vaccine hesitant are uneducated or ignorant. It is only to say that we must be aware of the potential correlation between information and statistics out of context, and our current media consumption habits.  

Vaccine hesitancy doesn’t always mean misinformation, as we have seen with recently authenticated reports that viral transmission is still possible post vaccination. Research has verified this, yet receiving the vaccine significantly reduces your risk of getting the virus or passing it on. Breaking these chains of transmission is the reason for the vaccine, before the virus is able to mutate and become uncontrollable. Seeking out complete and contextual information is crucial.  

And even with the same information, we won’t always agree. We are all aware of the differences of opinion within our community as a Christ-centred movement. These are wonderful, they bring a richness and diversity that challenges and strengthens. And despite these distinctions, we are like the many veins in one body: all different but linked to the one heart. The Christ who cared deeply for the lowly, the Christ who sacrificed, the Christ who laid down his life.  

History will remember our decisions during this desperate time. Will we be remembered as a collective that fought for the lowliest, or as a group of bystanders that were fixated on the rights of self? That's your choice. 

This article is part 3 of 4, taking a look at our collective role in the vaccine choice. Part 4 will explore our sphere of influence and the role we must embody as followers of Christ. Follow us on Facebook to be notified of posts 2-4 (published this week), or check back on our website.




Sources:

-Rodney Stark (1996) The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.
- The term vaccination comes from the Latin word vacca- meaning cow. A vaccine is an agent that creates immunity against a disease-causing agent (pathogen) without causing the disease itself.
-https://www.livescience.com/65304-smallpox.html
-Jonathan M. Berman (2020) Anti-Vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement. P77
-Journal of medical Internet Research 10 (2008): e17.
-https://view.newsletters.cnn.com

+64 9 526 8444
© 2021 New Zealand Baptist Missionary Society. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service
Handcrafted by
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram