Discovering my Family are Conspiracy Theorists

And if not as well-prepared as I hope, I just keep masking, distancing, doing things outside, and eating too many comfort foods.

3 Likes

I enjoyed this approximately 6 minute video on how to talk pleasantly with science-denying family. The 5 rules he recommends are:

  1. Have hope
  2. Keep calm. Show real empathy
  3. Less talking, more listening (my pitfall)
  4. Ask questions about what they really care about, out of real curiosity.
  5. Don’t expect your loved ones to change their minds immediately

Author Lee McIntyre’s 5 Rules for Surviving Thanksgiving with Science-Denying Friends and Family - YouTube

3 Likes

Thanks for this video, Randy! I am anxious to watch it tomorrow.

1 Like

I’d like to hear what anyone thinks of it–pro and con. Thanks!

Hey Randy!
I think the video was helpful, but I would prefer it as an article (really visual learner) with printable mini flashcards, that I could disguise as a minibook in my jewelry. Hope and calm are super important points. I need to focus much more on both of them. I fail regularly at these.
Asking questions…learning to do this even poorly may take the rest of my hopefully longer life. I really don’t want to hear what i anticipate will be drivel or pseudomedibabble, no matter how important it is to the other person…I know that may seem heartless. But I am being honest. How does one learn to tolerate nonsense as of value? Mmmmmm. Super hard.

1 Like

It is hard. McIntyre wrote a book about this, too, but here is a Newsweek article that summarizes some of his thoughts.

My sense of urgency does get on the way of my patience… But they also have a sense of urgency in the other direction. And with my closest family, I have really actually drawn the line at discussing it, because of that. Maybe that will change.

Ignore the clickable ads…sorry!

4 Likes

@Randy Very pro. This has a lot to do with what I’m after. I’m convinced that if we listen more, we would find a lot of people are not as wacky as the media portrays them.

Back on Nov 21 I brought up James 1:19, and I’m really NOT trying to “I told you so” anyone with this, but maybe I should have full quoted it. The video is a brief homily on being “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.”

My only critique of the video is that he only mentions wacky right wing-nut issues. Much more commonly I find covid vax hesitant have valid complaints about the vaccine, about the CDC, and about stupid government policy based on these complaints. Some vaxxed people share these complaints.

More to add, but want to get video comments back to you.

1 Like

The second shot was the worst for me, and the booster did not bother me.

My first 2 were Moderna, and the booster was Pfizer. That may have been a factor.

I wanted the booster before a trip to Peru, and the Moderna booster was not yet available.

My good friend took his second shot and immediately had heart problems. He had to have a pacemaker inserted into his body within 2 days. He chose not to get a booster, despite the fact that his son had died from Covid.

1 Like

My problem is that I’ve yet to see you describe any of these complaints that were actually valid. What you thought was the clearest example – the refusal to acknowledge the superiority of naturally acquired immunity – seems to me to be nothing at all. I can easily think of worse and less accurate examples of messaging from the CDC, but they’re not in a direction that will fit your narrative.

6 Likes

Thanks for the article, Randy. Just reading the suggestions became exhausting. There is not time enough in my life to learn and dig out enough excellent resources to present to the anti-[vaxxer, masker, round-earther, science, evolutionist, EC, critical-thinking, old geology, fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-topic-because-EVERYTHING-is-a-controversy-now] in my life. And being in the church today, they are all over the place in my life. And when I have tried to talk with people some, good information is immediately dismissed as “mainstream media” no matter where it comes from.
Thanks for the article. I’m thinking now could be a good time to take up spilunking. Bats just don’t bother with controversies.

1 Like

I wish there had been LED headlamps and flashlights as a young man when I did a lot of caving on weekends in central Pennsylvania near State College. I remember being on my hands and knees coming into one room with a pretty flat ceiling that sloped upward. When I could finally stand up, I was face to ugly face with a snoozing bat. ; - )

1 Like

Hi @glipsnort. It’s hard to know how to respond to something so deeply dismissive. The CDC “MYTH” claim around NI is just wrong on two levels: factually, and in its real world consequences. That’s not “nothing at all.”

I have a niece who is a nurse in the ICU, has had covid twice, and they have been pressuring her to get the vax. She doesn’t want the vax, given it does have some risks and her NI is better. So the CDC’s “narrative” becomes policy, and adversely affects peoples’ lives.

My point of all these posts is to help people here connect better with those who have these complaints. Dismissing real issues guarantees you close the door on conversation.

Literally no one here has said, “Yeah, CDC distorting NI is wrong.” This was my trial balloon. If no one here can agree with even that, there seems little point in further factual discussion.

OK, sounds like a reasonable statement, but depends on how you define distorting and what the motivation is. The CDC is responsible for public health, and individual situations may vary enough that they fall out of that purpose. They need to make recommendations for the 99%, not the 1%. With natural immunity, no doubt some have a great immune response, some do not and are susceptible to further infections. Even drawing antibody levels is not foolproof as we really do not yet know how antibody levels correlate with protection (and doing antibody levels is much more problematic and expensive than giving a vaccine). So, what is the CDC to do? Confuse the public with complicated disclaimers and alternative scenarios that may or may not be accurate? Or go with the recommendation best supported by the available evidence, which is that vaccination provides the most reliable means of giving the most people the best immunity, regardless of history of prior infection? That is a simplification of a complex issue, and I can see how it could be taken as distorting things, but is not an intentional distortion but rather a necessary accommodation to the situation, and as such is not wrong.

2 Likes

I have read and re-read the CDC statement, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how you came to this conclusion, Marty.

The “myth” has an implied telos: If I have had COVID, there is no utility in getting a vaccine, so I won’t/shouldn’t.

The CDC rebuts this stance by citing data that support the utility of getting the vaccine regardless of whether or not you have previously had a COVID infection.

Now I would agree that the CDC could have written the statement(s) in a more lawyerly fashion so as to make appropriate qualifications stand out more clearly. Their goal (which I and Donald J Trump share) was and is to promote the uptake of the COVID vaccines and boosters so as to improve the nation’s health and prosperity. If your stance is that the CDC could have done so more carefully, and that more careful statements would have promoted the vaccine more effectively and respectfully, I wouldn’t argue with you.

But here’s the thing: you are making blanket claims against the CDC’s use of blanket claims. At least that’s how your phrasing strikes me, as a reader who wants to interact with you fairly and respectfully.

Grace and peace,
Chris

She shouldn’t be allowed to work in a hospital.

3 Likes

If you look at the hyperlink, it attaches to the limitations and full discussion in the Science Brief. It can be confusing for sure, though.

Well put.

1 Like

If 1 and 5 are connected, only implement 2-4.

2 Likes

Well, while we strongly recommend it, it’s hard to get everyone to comply, and it’s felt in our system that the minimum currently is appropriate to have either the vaccine or the prior history. It’s a recommendation for optimum care, and I think it will be standard to be boosted, similar to a flu shot. It may take a long time to turn the battleship around. It is hard to get to the real questions everyone has.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence. I have not seen that ICU workers have any better understanding of immunology than any other medical area not formally trained there. It’s just that we all have to rely on the people who really know their stuff. It is a temptation for me to overstretch my training, too. And the question regarding natural immunity is a good one; maybe with reading the CDC Brief, and other sources, it will help her.
Thanks
.

3 Likes

Mandatory flu shots have existed in hospitals for decades now without any serious complaints, and standard vaccines were required to attend public school, at least when I was a kid. The current state of affairs is a sad commentary on our modern society.

3 Likes

Many in their 60s and 70s tell me they remember polio devastating kids they knew, and recognized the difference the vaccines have made… These are often very ready to take the shot.

1 Like