BBC News. (2020). Getty’s Image
The topic of discussion centers on distributing the coronavirus vaccination and what will happen to the already-divided country if it becomes a mandate for all citizens. I selected this topic because it’s controversial, realistic, and incite some level of anxiety, especially in individuals who do not believe in taking the vaccination. Many individuals are erring on the side of caution because the vaccination hasn’t been tried and tested long enough to roll out within the next month, which happens to be around election time. There are people who believe taking the vaccination violates their personal beliefs (religious and non-religious). Additionally, there are people who vehemently opposes the vaccination but choose to follow a holistic, healthy lifestyle that includes a healthy diet, exercising, and engaging in medicinal herbal remedies. Moreover, let’s not forget the people who won’t wear a mask in public. How do you approach them with the possibility of a mandate policy on COVID-19 vaccination?
I personally don’t feel comfortable neither confident for the need to rush this vaccination for public-wide distribution especially considering the expected timeline (e.g. election). It draws skepticism around the motive to release this vaccine without further testing. One report noted that in a coronavirus vaccine trial study, participants complained of side effects ranging from daylong exhaustion, high fever, body aches, and headaches, which are some of the symptoms participants said they felt after receiving the shots. One participant woke up in the middle of the night with chills and a fever after taking the COVID-19 booster shot. Another participant woke up with chills, shaking so hard he cracked a tooth after taking the second dose (Farr.C.Lovelace.B.2020.CoronavirusVaccineTrialParticipantsReport).
I understand many people require extreme medical intervention outside a holistic, healthy lifestyle of natural remedies. However, for those who are cautious of lab-produced medicines, the thought of moving towards a medical dictatorship society is frightening. The New England Journal reported that bringing a vaccine to market is only half the challenge. One option to ensure an increase in the vaccine uptake is to require it. Mandatory vaccination has proven effective (Omer.Mello.Silverman.2020.EnsuringUptakeofVaccinesagainstSARS-COV2). In my opinion, witnessing the catastrophe and hysteria of the pandemic and how government along with world health organizations are handling the virus, I wouldn’t be surprise if we were forced to take the vaccination. More importantly, where will this leave us in the future? Are we expected to take any kind of vaccination the government requires against our will? If they say it’s safe, is that good enough?
I think this topic is worth further discussion as it will be at the top of everyone’s list sooner rather than later. How do we have constructive conversations about this topic without inflicting personal judgment, name-calling, or using political ideologies as a weapon? The Better Arguments Project, a group that operates on the premise that American civic life doesn’t need fewer arguments; it needs better arguments, offered several suggestions. The five major tenets of a Better Argument are: 1.) take winning off the table, 2.) prioritize relationships and listen passionately, 3.) pay attention to context, 4.) embrace vulnerability, and 5.) make room to transform. Lastly, one suggestion that’s rarely practiced, particularly in this political environment, is using emotional intelligence (TheBetterArgumentsProject.2018WhatisaBetterArgument?). It’s inevitable to discuss the coronavirus vaccination without bringing in politics. However, it can be done if we approach it with these strategies in mind.
In an article titled, ‘There’s too much virtue in politics.’ The author referenced the seriousness of our ideology in that any disagreements with it, will be seen as a personal attack. “The main point is that in declaring my politics I am declaring my virtue so when you oppose my politics you oppose my highest view of myself. This explains why political arguments so quickly get to the shouting stage. If you disagree with me about a candidate or policy, you are in effect telling that I am (pick one) selfish, naïve, insensitive, foolish. Disagree with my politics, and you offend, insult, attack me personally”(Epstein.J.2018.There’stoomuchVirtueinPolitics).
Listening to someone else’s point of view doesn’t mean they are asking you to agree with them. Damian Hooper-Campbell, chief diversity officer at eBay, stated civility in an argument is the ability to listen to another party and to understand their opinion (TheBetterArgumentsProject.2018WhatisaBetterArgument?). Pete Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center says that no one individual can know the whole truth (TheBetterArgumentsProject.2018WhatisaBetterArgument?). With this said, is anyone up for the discussion?
Mass Communications Theory - Education 