I agree. More effort should be emphasized on transparently matching scientific understanding to the general public. It’s not fair to punish people in an age where disinformation is so widespread.
Sometimes, and when i say sometimes i mean quite often, people don’t listen, regardless of what the experts say.
And that is because, it’s easier for them to look at conspiracy theories and gossip than to learn the truth, they are not uninformed, they are misinformed, but they have decided to be like that.
And so you’d rather treat them like children and rob them of agency? Unrestricted authority is a slippery slope. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on coercing people without broader efforts that focus on discussion and transparency. Otherwise, how can we expect to live in a cooperative society if we just bully each other?
Laws are pretty much a coercion mechanism, and in some places doing things that are not prohibited by laws still can get you kicked out of said place, rather than treating them as children, i assume that getting the vaccine is a matter of common sense, and if you don’t want to because you trust conspiracy theories more, then there is nothing wrong with not being allowed to be in some places where common sense is mandatory.
I understand that laws are by definition coercive. Ideally they would be minimally so, that way we can achieve a maximum amount of social good with minimal coercion. I also don’t disagree with the choice to pursue non-association with those who are unvaccinated by those who deem the risk too high.
My point is that if you use a hammer approach, i.e. mandating vaccination so quickly and especially when many individuals could come from marginalized communities whose skepticism may arise from a legitimate history of mistrust (for example, the US has and still has a long history of government-led abuse towards various communities, one example is forced sterilization ). Rather than succumbing to authoritarian approaches, the long-term reward is greater when putting the effort in methods that value and respect individual agency, build trust and can lead to mutually agreeable outcomes.
I belong to a marginalized group, and i pretty much can guarantee you that if marginalized people rejected the vaccine, it would be for the same reasons that non marginalized groups would. Ignorance.
Marginalized groups tend not to know their own history, so although i understand your point, i think in this case ignorance acts in the same way for all groups. Don’t get me wrong, taking a more conciliatory approach should be the way to go, but in a case like the coronavirus one, taking short term measures is better than long term measures, it’s literally the difference between life and death.
I also belong to a marginalized group. I agree that belief in conspiracy and lack of knowledge is a big driver, but what legitimizes belief in conspiracy, at least from conversations I’ve had with others, seems to stem from government mistrust.
I also agree with you that urgency is key in dealing with Covid. I am just hesitant to impose top-down restrictions without enough community support. I’ve seen enough instances of top-down impositions back-fire because there was not enough understanding of the primary motivations of why people behaved the way they do. I can name several countries that right now are currently dealing with high death tolls, even though they have tried strict lockdowns and do indeed have some access to vaccines. In these cases, it appears to me that the primary reason for low compliance is a broader lack of faith and trust in government. Whereas community led organization can be far more effective, for example, among indigenous groups in the US.
I agree. More effort should be emphasized on transparently matching scientific understanding to the general public. It’s not fair to punish people in an age where disinformation is so widespread.
Sometimes, and when i say sometimes i mean quite often, people don’t listen, regardless of what the experts say.
And that is because, it’s easier for them to look at conspiracy theories and gossip than to learn the truth, they are not uninformed, they are misinformed, but they have decided to be like that.
And so you’d rather treat them like children and rob them of agency? Unrestricted authority is a slippery slope. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on coercing people without broader efforts that focus on discussion and transparency. Otherwise, how can we expect to live in a cooperative society if we just bully each other?
Laws are pretty much a coercion mechanism, and in some places doing things that are not prohibited by laws still can get you kicked out of said place, rather than treating them as children, i assume that getting the vaccine is a matter of common sense, and if you don’t want to because you trust conspiracy theories more, then there is nothing wrong with not being allowed to be in some places where common sense is mandatory.
I understand that laws are by definition coercive. Ideally they would be minimally so, that way we can achieve a maximum amount of social good with minimal coercion. I also don’t disagree with the choice to pursue non-association with those who are unvaccinated by those who deem the risk too high.
My point is that if you use a hammer approach, i.e. mandating vaccination so quickly and especially when many individuals could come from marginalized communities whose skepticism may arise from a legitimate history of mistrust (for example, the US has and still has a long history of government-led abuse towards various communities, one example is forced sterilization ). Rather than succumbing to authoritarian approaches, the long-term reward is greater when putting the effort in methods that value and respect individual agency, build trust and can lead to mutually agreeable outcomes.
I belong to a marginalized group, and i pretty much can guarantee you that if marginalized people rejected the vaccine, it would be for the same reasons that non marginalized groups would. Ignorance.
Marginalized groups tend not to know their own history, so although i understand your point, i think in this case ignorance acts in the same way for all groups. Don’t get me wrong, taking a more conciliatory approach should be the way to go, but in a case like the coronavirus one, taking short term measures is better than long term measures, it’s literally the difference between life and death.
I also belong to a marginalized group. I agree that belief in conspiracy and lack of knowledge is a big driver, but what legitimizes belief in conspiracy, at least from conversations I’ve had with others, seems to stem from government mistrust.
I also agree with you that urgency is key in dealing with Covid. I am just hesitant to impose top-down restrictions without enough community support. I’ve seen enough instances of top-down impositions back-fire because there was not enough understanding of the primary motivations of why people behaved the way they do. I can name several countries that right now are currently dealing with high death tolls, even though they have tried strict lockdowns and do indeed have some access to vaccines. In these cases, it appears to me that the primary reason for low compliance is a broader lack of faith and trust in government. Whereas community led organization can be far more effective, for example, among indigenous groups in the US.