There are a number of reasons why there is so much disagreement when it comes the efficacy and necessity of the Covid vaccines. I believe there are a few things we as a nation and as a people could do better to help us understand each other and come to more agreement than what we currently have.

1. Humility

Covid is a brand new virus that brings unique challenges. Yet almost from the origin of its discovery absolute statements about what we should or should not do were being made. Not only were these statements absolute, but they were universal. Anyone who disagreed with these universal, absolute statements were marked as ignorant and/or hateful. This was done on both sides.

When discussing the efficacy and safety of the vaccine or the appropriate response to Covid in general three types of language should be avoided.

Absolute language

Even though this was a new situation absolute statements were quickly being made. Absolute statements require much well-conducted research and then follow-up research to a new set of questioning to validate the findings. But many made absolute statements on best available information. Relatively new, best available information, which could be very flawed, should not be used to justify absolute statements.

These absolute statements drew the ire of those who disagreed with them. This made further conversation more difficult.

How many times did we see those who disagreed with the mask mandate point out that the CDC previously stated with authority and indignation to not buy and wear masks? If we were more humble in our approach, later changes would be more easily accepted.

Language such as "As of now ...", "As far as we know ... ", and "For the time being ..." should have been employed. This would have helped a great deal in further communication.

Universal language

Not only were these statements absolute, but they were universal. Everyone was lumped into the same category and nuance was not allowed. This again drew the ire of those people who were not in the same situation as what was generally described.

I understand that when you are trying to run a nation of millions of people that nuance is incredibly hard to govern effectively. Universal dictates are hard enough to enforce; nuanced dictates can be even more difficult due to possible misunderstandings of the nuance.

However, an allowance of nuance demonstrates respect, understanding, and trust. I believe that those three principles are much more valuable and effective than universal dictates for the sake of ease.

Disparaging language

Disparaging language was used very quickly to describe those on the other side even though our knowledge of the situation was limited and bound to change quickly and often given time. This language helped to more rapidly form and isolate two sides. Graciousness went out the window very quickly and people in the middle had to deal with the very difficult task of calming people down before any helpful discussion could occur.

Disparaging language stops fruitful discussion. The primary goal of discussion is understanding. Disparaging language reveals that someone has very little interest in understanding someone else. If you use disparaging language, then the other person may start using disparaging language and before long both sides are more interested in making the other side look bad than understanding them. Most people, even if misinformed and confused, still look for truth. Disparaging language takes the conversation off the path of truth and onto the path of insult and humiliation. When someone feels insulted or humiliated truth is no longer the primary concern, vengeance and one upmanship come to the forefront.

2. Understanding

One reason we have failed so poorly in handling the vaccine issue so far is because we have failed to try to truly understand one another. Sure we may have "read the other side" (maybe ... or at least a headline from the other side), but did we try to understand why the data that they referenced was convincing to them? That is the larger issue. Why was one set of data more convincing than another?

Instead of merely trying to understand the data, we should try to understand the reason why the data is convincing for someone. Whatever that motivation is, that is the underlying issue that we are just speaking past. We should try to get to the core of why someone is convinced by a particular data point and address that issue.

Admittedly this is not easy. This also will not guarantee that we will come to an agreement. One reason we may still not come to an agreement is because often times the deeper reasons we find something convincing is embarrassing when we discover what those deeper reasons are. Many times we are not aware of the deeper reasons as to why we believe something. When we discover those deeper reasons and that they may be illegitimate, we can feel humiliated, which leads back again to disparaging language and vengeance. But at least one's conscience has been prodded and there can be an eventual turn.

Medical personnel vs. non-medical workers

I believe one of the greatest reasons for the large disagreements between people is a lack of understanding between medical workers and the general public who do not work in medicine. Both sides can be prone to error due to being too close or too far away from the situation.

Medical workers see first hand the death and pain that Covid can bring. They are a limited number of people taking on an excessive number of cases. They have been pushed to the breaking point - and for some beyond - and they are the ones making the decisions on how to deal with this health crisis. Since they are inundated with death and pain, they are making decisions with that in mind. What they may fail to understand is that the vast majority of people have not seen that death and pain at all and that everyone may not need to take the same urgent actions that they feel everyone should.

Many in the general public who do not work in the medical field are completely untouched by the Covid outbreak with the exception of the mandates handed down to them by those who be. Take Texas for example (a state that is slightly above average for cases/100,000 people). As of September 1, 2021, there have been 12,458 cases per 100,000 people. That means that only about 12.5% of the population has been known to contract Covid. And here is the kicker: the vast number of those cases are mild. So from the general public's perspective, Covid really is not that bad. But what these people fail to understand is that hospitals - something they have not stepped foot into during the pandemic - are oftentimes overrun with Covid patients.

This inability to understand the other person's experience - the failure to walk a mile in the other person's shoes - is one of the main reasons there is so much misunderstanding among the people. Health care workers need to understand that for the vast majority of the population Covid is not dangerous and so take that into account when suggesting mandates to government bodies (and government bodies should do a better job taking all perspectives into account). Those who do not work in the field of health care need to understand that many health care workers are seeing the worse Covid has to offer.

It can take a decent amount of work to understand someone and then to be understood. If you would like to read more about how to do that, read here.

3. Clear, detailed, frequent communication from leadership that seriously and directly addresses concerns

The President of the United States has as much power as he wants to have. Unfortunately this power has not been used to utilize the most powerful weapon the world has to offer: clear communication.

Clear communication does not merely dictate what directives should be followed. It also explains why these directives should be followed. Not only should the reasons for the directives be given, but they should be highlighted. Most of the time should be dedicated to explaining why. Having to explain the reason for a directive will hopefully open the eyes of leadership if their reasons are weak.

The reasons for decisions were often times left out from leadership. Leadership often times gave directives and just assumed that people would follow them without asking why. Leadership also just ignored or derided any opposition. Rarely was there a detailed explanation as to why opposing arguments were invalid.

The President should have something as inviting as the old fireside chats of FDR back in the 1930's. Instead of boring, formal press conferences that give little information, the President should host intimate, sit-down, mostly prepared conversations between himself and a board of scientists. Some of these conversations should directly address the common concerns of the people regarding the vaccines. Some of these conversations should even include popular vaccine doubters with statements and questions. This would reveal to the general public that the government is not trying to silence anyone and that there are adequate answers to vaccine doubters.

Conclusion

Humility goes a long way in building bridges. In a new development like Covid, much humility ought to be employed when discussing this issue. Disparaging language ought to be avoided as it only creates blind spots and knee jerk reactions. An honest attempt to understand the root motivations of others is very important to create unity. Clear and detailed information that directly addresses the concerns of others should be used. If we merely hand wave the concerns of others, then we will never be able to reach them.

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​