That is your opinion stated as if it were a fact.

Here are facts:

Anti-vax is a shortening of the term anti-vaccination, and it is not a surprise to find that people who are 'anti-vax' are against vaccinations, and many of them actively try to recruit people to their cause of avoiding vaccines. Anti-vaccination is a highly accurate term.

I and many others who are pro-vax don't think that anti-vax people are against a vast range of science-based medicines. To the contrary, I am amazed at how many anti-vax people will smoke cigarettes (DNA poisons) and drink alcohol (DNA poison) and take antibiotics and blood pressure medicines and see a dentist and see a regular doctor. Not to mention that many who are against a covid vaccine have had many other vaccines. This selective position against vaccines and not other treatments only makes their anti-vax attitude appear even more irrational.

But if you want different word, then vaccine hysteria would be a good choice. Because that's what anti-vax attitudes have caused, and now a few hundred thousand people have died from it. Think of the damage all those avoidable deaths will cause for millions of people.

What is a neutral term?

I have been dealing with them in person in a clinical setting for a while now and struggle to see a non-negative side to the behaviour directed at myself and colleagues.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it was not a metaphysical impossibility that some unknown issue with the novel technology applied in these vaccines was missed in the severely abbreviated clinical trials. The control groups were all vaccinated the second the EUAs were granted, so we have no controls against which we can check our hypotheses. In the (I know, completely impossible) hypothetical I am putting forth, wouldn't the first hints of the problem be something like unexplained excess deaths coinciding with vaccine rollout?

>well reasoned skepticism would come naturally for technical professionals.

It's not well-reasoned skepticism to question the safety of a vaccine for which every vaccine adverse event reporting database reports two orders of magnitude more adverse events than previous vaccines? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10928-z would you call Nature an anti-vax journal?

Healthy well reasoned skepticism is exactly what leads to "anti-(COVID)-vax sentiment", because the data is not good.

If you doubt that, just browse this thread with showdead turned on. The people pointing out that the vaccines could be causing this are all being killed. Probably this comment will be gone within minutes. Yet those comments are also providing evidence and citations. Meanwhile, the "pro-vax" comments are all like yours: merely wishing away people who disagree with no arguments or evidence.

So which side is truly the one with the appreciation for science and reason?