Saad Omer’s “How to Handle the Vaccine Skeptics”: A summary and Analysis In his New York Times essay, “How to Handle the Vaccine Skeptics”, Saad Omer discusses the growing number of outbreaks of diseases once believed to be eradicated. In his article he shifts his gaze to parents who do not wish to vaccinate their kids for nonmedical reasons, most of which he believes are basing their arguments on “false notions like that of a link between autism and the measles vaccine” (Omer).
Omer then focuses on how to reduce the number of nonmedical vaccine exemptions. He argues that creating laws that make it impossible for parents to acquire nonmedical vaccine exemptions won’t work, and will only lead to a strong backlash from the anti-vaccine community. …show more content…
He cites several facts and statistics showing the relation of the increase of nonmedical vaccination exemptions and the increase in diseases. He begins his essay with one of these statistics, stating that the amount of measles cases have drastically risen from 2000, when it was pronounced eradicated, to “a record 644 last year, and 102 last month” (Omer). He credits this rise to the “parents who refuse vaccinations for their children” (Omer). By making this claim with the support of the measles statistic he is able to create a ‘so what’ element to his article: nonmedical vaccinations are at least part of the reason the measles outbreaks are occurring, we need to stop them here’s how. To support his method of coercion, not force, he references an incident in 1853 when the smallpox vaccine was made mandatory in England and Wales, and where “there were years of protest, until a commission exempted those with conscientious objections.” (Omer) This example of a real event uses deductive reasoning to lead the reader to the conclusion that, because the anti-vaccine community protested and won in 1853, the same would happen if similar bills banning nonmedical exemptions were adopted …show more content…
He constantly discourages any chastising of the community and warns against the outright banning of nonmedical vaccination exemptions in his essay. Instead of undermining or belittling the anti-vaccine community, he instead advocates for providing them with proper education on the subject. To conclude his essay he states that “condemning vaccine skeptics as ignorant and irresponsible” (Omer) and will not solve the issue of abundant nonmedical exemptions. Omer asserts that their “misplaced skepticism” (Omer) is simply based on “false notions” (Omer) and is partially influenced by “intemperate comments by politicians.” (Omer). He believes that their opposition to vaccines is because they are being misled, and that by providing them with facts they will no longer want to get exemptions for their
Omer then focuses on how to reduce the number of nonmedical vaccine exemptions. He argues that creating laws that make it impossible for parents to acquire nonmedical vaccine exemptions won’t work, and will only lead to a strong backlash from the anti-vaccine community. …show more content…
He cites several facts and statistics showing the relation of the increase of nonmedical vaccination exemptions and the increase in diseases. He begins his essay with one of these statistics, stating that the amount of measles cases have drastically risen from 2000, when it was pronounced eradicated, to “a record 644 last year, and 102 last month” (Omer). He credits this rise to the “parents who refuse vaccinations for their children” (Omer). By making this claim with the support of the measles statistic he is able to create a ‘so what’ element to his article: nonmedical vaccinations are at least part of the reason the measles outbreaks are occurring, we need to stop them here’s how. To support his method of coercion, not force, he references an incident in 1853 when the smallpox vaccine was made mandatory in England and Wales, and where “there were years of protest, until a commission exempted those with conscientious objections.” (Omer) This example of a real event uses deductive reasoning to lead the reader to the conclusion that, because the anti-vaccine community protested and won in 1853, the same would happen if similar bills banning nonmedical exemptions were adopted …show more content…
He constantly discourages any chastising of the community and warns against the outright banning of nonmedical vaccination exemptions in his essay. Instead of undermining or belittling the anti-vaccine community, he instead advocates for providing them with proper education on the subject. To conclude his essay he states that “condemning vaccine skeptics as ignorant and irresponsible” (Omer) and will not solve the issue of abundant nonmedical exemptions. Omer asserts that their “misplaced skepticism” (Omer) is simply based on “false notions” (Omer) and is partially influenced by “intemperate comments by politicians.” (Omer). He believes that their opposition to vaccines is because they are being misled, and that by providing them with facts they will no longer want to get exemptions for their