Convincing anti-vaxers is sort of like convincing smokers to quit. Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid.
I tend to break anti-vaxxers down into several different groups. Please note that someone who is hesitant about getting a COVID-19 vaccination is not necessarily an anti-vaxxer.
Firstly, what is an anti-vaxxer? Broadly speaking, an anti-vaxxer (in the US at least) is someone opposed to vaccines and vaccination, although in some cases, the opposition might be more specific like being opposed to a specific type of vaccination (the standard MMR vaccination in the US is a good example of this).
From the anti-vaxxers as mentioned above, I tend to further break anti-vaxxers down into a few groups, usually based off the reason they are opposed to vaccinations. Some of the opposition is based upon ideology, which can include religious beliefs as certain religious sects are opposed to many modern medical interventions. Unfortunately, some of the ideology is also political and this absolutely applies to attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines in the US, with many who remain unvaccinated in the US stating that they are unvaccinated because they are "conservative".
Some of the opposition is also based off ignorance. It is unfortunately true that many in the US are unaware of the long history of vaccinating people from diseases, or much of the science that is involved. This ignorance, when presented with the vast amounts of misinformation on vaccines, often leaves people unable to distinguish accurate information, from information that is wrong, or even outright false. This leaves people as ripe targets for crackpots and charlatans.
There is also a type of person who will profess opposition to vaccinations because they are seeking to gain benefit from doing so. This is often a financial benefit, though it could include doing so to attract more followers, increasing the size of their following and reach of their powers of persuasion, etc. If one were to look at some of the specific individuals and groups that have been opposed to COVID-19 vaccinations as well as mitigation efforts in the US, one might notice that a number of the individuals and groups had a financial stake in doing so. This also applies to a number of people opposed more generally to vaccines and often modern/conventional medicine as well. An example of which might be a doctor who happens to push "natural" health cures and just so happens to hawk vitamin supplements and organic foods that the doctor promotes as alternative treatments...
I readily admit I am most infuriated by those who should/do know better, who continue to promote agendas that will line their own pockets at the financial expense and health of the people who listen to them.
Also as a side note, some of the ignorant can sometimes become so swayed by the misinformation that is floating around, and there is a lot of it, often deliberately written and collected in such a way to try and convince more people, that the belief becomes entrenched in their minds. An interesting psychological study which IIRC was done within the last four years, indicated that information people draw first from the Internet, was often what people would stick to believing, even if later on the people were presented with documented evidence showing that the first set of information was false or incorrect.
Second side note: I have noticed that one of the tactics anti-vaxxers use is to present large amounts of false information, essentially attempting to overwhelm a person and convince them that due to the quantity of information, that the anti-vaxxer is correct, despite the reality that the information if not outright false, is almost always of poor quality. Another tactic often used in tandem with this, is for links and citations to other works to provide further supporting "proof". I note this for three reasons. The first being that often the links and citations to other sources are often dead and/or do not connect to anything. The second is that often when a link or citation is correct, it takes one to an article or study which does not support the argument the person who provided the link or citation is actually making. The third reason I mention this is that I have noticed recently here on DT with some posters using similar tactics when providing support for their claims. The poster would claim one thing and link to an article which stated something different and rather contrary to what the poster claimed.
.
