I’m sorry to hear that. That’s hard to experience. It does feel like these real side-effects are ignored by the those who are promoting vaccines. I don’t think this has helped a whole lot in easing people’s concerns. It’s a tricky balance.
In Australia, we had put most of our money on AstraZeneca. When evidence came out that TTS was a real side-effect, the government and media were thankfully honest and upfront about it. But this widespread news did significantly slow our vaccine uptake. Everyone wanted pfizer and thought they’d die if they got Astra. Our health ministers had to work hard to explain that the risk of side effects were far less risky than catching COVID, and COVID had only just broken out here, so barely any of us had immunity (we had zero COVID for the first half of this year). The government had to rush to try to get as much pfizer as possible, while Astrazeneca was sitting on the shelves. Transparency is so important, but it’s also tricky when the majority of us are terrible at calculating risk vs benefit. I’m actually blessed that my state is now 92% first dosed! (16 and over) An outstanding response. Very proud of my community. The only people who aren’t vaccinated seem to be my closest friends and family!
Fox news is alarming. Being in Australia I’d never heard of it until the COVID pandemic. They were interviewing a so-called scientist who had only ever published in fake journals and also exaggerated his credentials. How do they get away with airing that? We have a similar conservative news program that has been doing some damage of late, but it’s not that bad.
People here watch Fox news for their vaccine information, too, though.
My father suffered from dementia years before he died that slowly cut him off from the rational world. I would not say that your parents are suffering from the same, but I would make sure that someone is looking out for them in case more serious symptoms occur.
This appears to be a “natural” process. It seems that God in God’s wisdom makes it so the brains of some older people lose their ability to think before their bodies die. We need to pray and put them God’s hands, as well as take care of them as they took care of us as needed.
My wife and I are fully vaccinated and have had our booster shot. I wish all my friends, family and church members were, but several of them are not, and that’s NOT because they believe in conspiracies. In that group are lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals. I respect their choices, which have a basis in fact and science.
Respectfully, folks, there seems to be a kind of hive mind at work among this group. It doesn’t seem to me that the majority of folks here read a wide variety of news sources. Elsewise, there wouldn’t be so many condescending and un-Christian comments.
There are obviously some bizarre reasons given for not taking the vaccine, and the ones based in conspiracies are indeed disturbing. I find occasional attempts to “Other” them even more disturbing. It borders on racism and anti-Semitism. These are our countrymen. Many are smarter than us. Not all unvaccinated people are stupid and anti-science.
I joined BioLogos after reading Francis Collins’ book “Language of God.” I thought it would be a place of intelligent discussion guided by Christian charity. Again, many of you need to start reading outside of your comfort zone.
There are more than one antivax members in my church, and they are politically and conspiracy motivated. It’s a small church, so the proportion is high.
We all tend to be susceptible to confirmation bias, and it is something we should be careful to avoid. Still, as I do read the sources my anti-vax friends post, it is obvious they are almost all highly biased junk news sources. Occasionally I will find a pearl, but it difficult at times to separate it from the mis-information. What are some of the sources you would suggest to better round out our reading?
Even in other phases of life, it is interesting how we get happy in our little cocoon and are unaware of what else is out there. My children are both active in church groups outside of the one I attend, and it is interesting how the authors of the books on their shelves are foreign to me, I was talking with a person with a Ph.D in religion from a small Bible college, and she said she had never heard of John Walton and some of the other popular authors quoted around here. I was a bit taken aback at first, but on reflection can certainly see it. Doctorate programs tend to be specialized, and in any field, you tend to learn more and more about less and less, with little time to broaden your experience.
Could you elaborate please? What do you think are some valid reasons for not getting vaccinated?
If there’s a “hive mind” at work here, it’s simply that most of us regulars on this forum are evangelical Christians who are strongly pro-science. For many of us, our stance on science comes from having jobs and careers that demand a high degree of scientific literacy. At the same time, we have friends in our churches who, for one reason or another, are either strongly anti-science or else have some pretty weird ideas about what science is and how it works, and a lot of what we discuss is to consider how best to respond to such people.
I don’t think any of us intend to be condescending. The problem is that being an evangelical Christian in a science-based career can be quite a source of tension at times. On the one hand, we have to approach science professionally and responsibly, to maintain high standards, and to take the consensus of the scientific community seriously in order to do our jobs properly (i.e. without driving our employers out of business or killing people). At the same time, some of our friends put us under pressure at times to lower our standards to a level that would not be even remotely acceptable in any reasonable workplace in order to accommodate their opinions. That can provoke reactions from some of us that can sound a bit prickly, defensive, or even outright scathing at times.
I guess it’s just that sometimes we need to pray, as Jesus did, “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
I am really interested to know what fact and science you are referring to. I had expected my parents to be able to present me with some good evidence to back their claims, but what they presented to me time and time again was not backed by fact and science. I gave some examples in my original post of some of their reasons - none of which were backed by science or fact that I am aware of. Much of it is based on a misunderstanding of VAERS data. Some of it was hypothesis that had not been backed by evidence. Some of it was just… I’m not sure… absurd. Maybe I am missing something, so would be interested to know what that is.
I do want to be gracious and I really am trying to be as kind and loving as I know how. Part of asking for advice in this post was trying to work out how to continue to love my family despite coming to these stark realizations about their belief systems. How can I build my relationship with my parents again when our relationship has become so broken over what seems to be misinformation? It’s such a weird situation to be in. I have basically become ostracized from my family (not physically, but rather emotionally, we’re not as close as we used to be) because I have been trying to share true information with them about vaccine safety. As a result, they think I am going wayward. They think I’m compromising on my faith somehow. It’s a bit hurtful, really. Part of the solution might be a better understanding of how their position might be considered to be based on fact and science - perhaps they are just not very good at explaining it.
One of the things that I learned in my job as a nurse practitioner was a method of engaging people called Motivational Interviewing. Instead of responding to things that we want to argue about which will lead to defensiveness, we engage with open ended questions, affirmations about things we can affirm (their thinking about this, their curiosity, their desire to ____), reflect on what we are hearing and then summarize what we have heard so they know they are heard. Over time this decreases defensiveness, opens the door to more communication and perhaps reflection on what they are saying that may not make as much sense as they thought, and makes people feel heard. Asking questions also forces them to think about what they are saying and perhaps realize the shaky ground it is based upon. Always ask permission to share information is another key principle. So a piece of the conversation might go something like this: “So you are really worried that the vaccines were just developed to make money for pharmaceutical companies and are really dangerous. Tell me more about that…” And then you continue to ask questions about everything they speak about without expressing push back, but rather questions. At some point you will usually find that something that you repeat that they are saying they will disagree with and that is an opportunity to explore that tiny kernel of doubt. But always remember that the ultimate purpose of this communication technique is to help people to feel heard and understood and to ultimately potentially find their own motivation to change.
Thank you for sharing! This is the best advice I’ve heard yet. But I imagine it is something that needs practice. Is it something you got training in as a nurse?
Yes, it does require lots of practice, and yes I had the opportunity for lots of training and coaching. But I think even the guiding principles can be helpful to consider when we are having challenging conversations that evoke lots of emotion and make us want to “batter people with facts”! Here is a link to further information: https://motivationalinterviewing.org/understanding-motivational-interviewing
Natural Immunity.
“I’m willing to take my chances with Covid.”
When governments refuse to allow exemptions to mandates for natural immunity, it’s obviously not about science.
Didn’t you already know these? These are only responses to your question, but that’s not the real issue here.
I keep trying to emphasize on these forums that there are two propaganda streams spewing out BS in our country and world. I agree with @DAVIDMCKISSACK that sometimes I find arguments on Biologos against one side seem to be by people believing the other side.
The media makes more money if they can make us angry because we come back to be made angry again. Fox News may have originated this business model, but now it’s everywhere. Until we deal with the media problem, we will never solve the science problem. Both sides pick their facts to fit their narrative, to make the other side look evil and their side look holy. So we’re arguing here about the symptoms of our cancerous media - one side wants to get you panicked about the unvaxxed, the other side wants you panicked about the vaccine. The shepherds (media on both sides, plus many in government) are liars and thieves, and we’re beating the sheep.
The lies and spin are the hurricane of which, compared to that IMO, the vaccines are a storm in a teacup. Most people will survive being wrong about vaccines. Will we survive our toxic media?
Fair enough. But that only applies to people who have already had covid-19 and recovered. It’s not a good reason for people who haven’t.
I agree wholeheartedly. But the correct response to that is not to listen to the media.
The people we should all be listening to for information about covid-19 are medical professionals who we know personally. We all have friends and relatives who are doctors, nurses, and the like. They are the ones who are on the front lines dealing with covid-19 and treating people with covid-19. They are the ones best placed to give us informed and reliable information about how serious the situation is, and what works and what doesn’t. And if they tell me that I should get vaccinated, then I am going to jolly well do what they say and get vaccinated.
That is a valid reason for not getting vaccinated. Protection from prior infection isn’t as good as infection+vaccination and may not be as good as vaccination alone (studies have differed), but it’s normally how you decide if you need vaccination for other illnesses.
That’s a valid reason provided you will have no contact whatever with other human beings for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, no.
True – it could well be about the operational difficulty of determining immune status for hundreds of millions of people. Does the military test for antibodies before vaccinating new recruits? In any case, I don’t see is how this has any bearing on whether you should be vaccinated or not.
I don’t agree. I think we need to listen, and recognize the lies, hate, and distortions from both sides. While your remedy of listening to medical professionals we trust would be generally sound, you have ignored the sociological trust problem I’m highlighting. People are not sure who can be trusted. Until we get a significant number of people talking about the crap coming out of both propaganda streams, we’re not going to resolve this. It’s a feather in the wind.
Too absolute, Steve. This is a human problem, not a science problem. Let me take your comment as a case study. “the operational difficulty of determining immune status” appears to mean you don’t trust people to tell you the truth about if they have had covid. So it’s OK for you to not trust people to tell the truth, but it’s not OK for people you disagree with to not trust that people are telling them the truth.
Your return to trying to argue “just the science” with a heavy hand tells me what media you are probably watching, probably along with everyone who has “liked” your post.
My point - this is important - is that the media is the real problem. We are not going to resolve the OP’s concerns by debating the science. Even if we are right, the most dangerous disease - two competing propaganda streams - is still festering. Let’s get some sunlight on this!
Can you clarify some mainstream media errors? BBC for example? Thanks. Also, which deviation do they make from CDC and NIH, both of which are quite clear?
It’s easy to pillory the media, and I do that erroneously.
However, we can always go back to the reliable sources. The science is very clear in CDC and NIH, and WHO, I think; the research is reliable in Cochrane and MMWR. All of these are easily accessible to the public.
Thanks.
Are you serious! OMG! Dude, I’m sorry, but if you don’t know, you’re only watching one side, and you are a victim. Where do I begin?? Russian collusion, Nick Sandman, “peaceful protests”, silence is violence but violence is speech, Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation. What a load of effluent! All totally, totally manufactured lies, repeated over and over. But now we should trust them cuz, well, they’re talking “science”! Ooooo. For these other stories, it was “experts.”
Have you tried talking Science with the public? Are you suggesting my wife’s hairdresser should go to the CDC site and decide for herself if the science is sound? Most don’t understand it well enough to know if it is trustworthy. Since the media has utterly disqualified themselves, the word “science” is dismissed as more propaganda.
Look, I know what’s correct and incorrect in the media reporting about covid and vaccines. That’s not the problem here! The problem is that most media can no longer be trusted. Inducing fear and loathing and panic about the unvaxxed is no better than singing the praises of Ivermectin.
That’s hard to experience. It does feel like these real side-effects are ignored by the those who are promoting vaccines. I don’t think this has helped a whole lot in easing people’s concerns. It’s a tricky balance.