Vaccinations and immunology have been an important part of medical science for centuries now. Like many established institutions vaccinations are met, but by some people, with a lot of skepticism. Skepticism in the case of vaccinations and immunology takes the form of the anti-vaxx movement. Brenden Nyhan approaches the issue of the resurgence of anit-vaxx in his article “What Really Makes a Difference in Vaccination Rates?”. This article primarily focuses on the effect social media has had on the movement and how improved legislation an help solv the issue.

           The article begins by bringing up a famous case where a teenager got vaccinated without their parents’ consent. The teenager said that his mother got her misinformation from a social media platform. For many people this hint at causation but Nyhan states that” it’s not obvious that social media is substantially increasing overall vaccine hesitancy”( What Really Makes a Difference in Vaccination Rates?, Nyhan). He then claims that the increase trend of social media use does not have a positive correlation with vaccine hesitancy. With quick research one can find that this is true with the rate of vaccination remaining relatively stable over the years and the use of social media increasing. He compares this phenomenon with the blame of increase political polarization falling on social media when the trend towards increased political polarization predates the rise of social media. Statistically speaking the correlation between social media and vaccination doesn’t exist but the increase of social media could be a reason why the general public Is being increasingly exposed to this vaccine resistance. The author proposes that while social media platforms shouldn’t encourage anti-vaxx forums the primary culprit in the persistence of anti-vaxx is inefficient legislation. Unlike social media and vaccines there is a correlation between efficient legislation and vaccination rates as studies showed that states that banned non-medical exemptions led to higher vaccination rates and less outbreaks.

 

Overall I agree with the authors point that legislation is more important then regulating social media but I also think that social media should be monitored so this dangerous movent doesn’t gain substantial traction. It is important to look a issues like this through multiple lenses (political. Economic and social primarily) in order to understand its impact on the world. This specific issue effects the social world more then the scientific one but like many other scientific controversies, the solution is often some form of regulation.