Think About It

"Millions Are Saying No to the Vaccines. What Are They Thinking?" Good question, so The Atlantic's Derek Thompson simply asked some of them to tell him what, exactly, they were thinking. It's an interesting piece, and near the end, Mr. Thompson notes:

From my conversations, I see three ways to persuade no-vaxxers: make it more convenient to get a shot; make it less convenient to not get a shot; or encourage them to think more socially.

One thing was conspicuous to me in its absence. Convincing people that society was also thinking about them. Mr. Thompson notes, quite astutely, in my estimation, that "The United States suffers from a deficit of imagining the lives of other people." But in this case, I don't know that it requires much in the way of imagining; one of his correspondents came straight out and said: “The fact that there is no way to sue the government or the pharmaceutical company if I have any adverse reactions is highly problematic to me.”

So if "Vaccinated liberals" want more people to join them, why not take affirmative action to either allay their fears, or reassure them that if something does go sideways, they won't be left out to dry. Administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was temporarily suspended because of about a half-dozen instances of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, one resulting in death. And while a lot was made of the blood clotting and low platelet count, along with just how rare a situation this was, very little was said about the treatment that the impacted women received, or who footed the bill. It's not difficult to imagine that they were on their own if/once their insurance was maxed out, leaving them with medical debt that could easily be quite substantial.

On this week's episode of "It's Been A Minute," guest Aarti Singh makes the following observation: "So I don't want to say it's, like, naive or came late in life, but I consistently am telling my parents that - stop relying on any system for, like, accuracy. Like, just know that it's our responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, our communities and everything we can do. I just feel like, over and over again, systems fail us." Sam Sanders repeats this to the audience thusly:

You heard Aarti say just now that when it comes to the coronavirus vaccine, you're kind of on your own. You can't count on institutions or governments to help. They might be able to - maybe, but don't rely on it.

"Thinking more socially" shouldn't simply be a matter of "One for all." It's not unreasonable for the One to expect that if they take one for the team, that the All will step up to help them out. When people have the understanding that if something goes wrong, they're on their own, asking them to take perceived risks on behalf of others falls flat. While ideas of people frivolously suing their way into a life of luxury and ease is the stuff of which a million lawyer jokes are made, the fact of the matter remains that for many people, the legal system is supposed to be about some combination of delivering justice and making them whole. And, okay, in the name of getting a vaccine out and administered to people as quickly as possible, the federal government absolved both itself and the pharmaceutical companies of liability for harm. They have that right. But it doesn't have to end there. There are other ways of making sure that people who step up and take a risk, even a minute one, understand that if that risk comes to pass, they won't be left out to dry. Expecting people to place their faith in institutions or governments that even people who support and trust them feel are unreliable seems unrealistic. If people who are signing up to take whatever risk there might be don't honestly believe that they'll be well cared for if something goes wrong, it stands to reason that people who feel those risks even more acutely would be even less inclined to take the plunge.

Of the three ways of persuasion that Mr. Thompson notes, only the first "make it more convenient to get a shot" comes close to the understanding that "be vaccinated against the current coronavirus" may be better posed as a request, rather than a demand. The point at which one person's perceived need becomes another person's obligation has never been settled, and realizing that is the difference between requesting cooperation, and demanding compliance. And agreeing to at least some of the other party's terms, whether one likes them or not, is always part of the deal when making a request. Of course, there are people for whom this is a "no compromise" situation. Those who do not bow to the clear necessity of action are knowingly doing wrong, and so they have no right to having their interests considered. That's fine when one has the power to command, and enforce those commands. But the low level of social trust in the United States is specifically  fueled by the perception that people are pursuing power, so that they can enforce their interests on others, to the detriment of those others. Perhaps it's better to cultivate the attitude of a beggar, even when one feels entitled to be choosy.