A segment of my opinion shared with family and friends, concerning the article with the (frankly appalling) title 'Don't make martyrs of ignorant antivaxers' by Clare Foges (The Times, Dec 6, 2021).
The main argument of the article (when she gets round to making it) about vaccine passports being preferable to mandatory vaccinations is a potential 'solution' to (one aspect of) the problem. I just wish the title was not so insulting, ditto the authour's attitude towards the unvaccinated.
In the article, I wish more of an effort was made to make a clear distinction between an 'antivaccer' and an unvaccinated person, the former usually being a fanatic who will not consider changing their opinion, the latter presumably a sceptic who for myriad reasons (which you do not need to understand to respect) for the time being makes a conscious choice of abstaining from getting the vaccine. But alas the article writer does not seem to factor in, or even allow for, any scepticism when it comes to the vaccine. Unlike me and my disclaiming words in italics, she remains absolute in her expressed opinions.
She is of course entitled to her opinion, even if it is an insulting one: an unvaccinated person is synonymous to an antivaccer.
[All of this, of course, is taking for granted that an antivaccer is a very very bad bad and stupid person, any way you cut it. No ifs, no buts, antivaccers are the devil (or at least that is the manner in which they are being commonly discussed).]
But let us not confuse opinions for facts. Fact: not all unvaccinated people are antivaccers. Anyone who doesn't see that is being wilfully ignorant and purposefully obtuse. As a journalist, the authour has a responsibility to know and do better, but I suspect divisive articles are her brand. However, I am glad to see several people in the comments section rightfully point out not all unvaccinated people are ignorant, and ought not be lumped in the same category as the antivaccers (who again, are all indubitably evil psychopaths stuck in the dark ages who want to see everyone suffer, apparently, according to mainstream news that cannot allow for any opinion that is vaguely anti-humanist because we humans are so gosh-darned amazing and life is so precious we deserve all the pats on the back*).
[* forgive my cynicism, I do not believe we humans are that great when you look at our overall short-sighted, ego-centric track record, but that is just me.]
Regardless of the above, everyone has a right to their own opinions and beliefs on this issue. This not-so-subtle article, in my own humble opinion, is written in very poor taste. The authour has her own right to refrain from journalistic impartiality, and every right to explicitly express her disparaging opinion on antivaccers. As I too have a right to my own opinion to consider her short-sighted to think the argument for or against the vaccine is oh so simple and oh so one-sided (to vax or not to vax etc.) Life does not occur in a vacuum ma’am.
The trouble with such articles, written in such an attitude (in this case, written by a most evident pro-vaccer), is that they will have little effect in changing the mind of the opposition and probably won't bring them round to the other side; especially when from the title alone the opposition (anti-vaccers) are reduced to sociopathic, ignorant (and in her opinion also ‘irritatingly arrogant’) nut-jobs. If anything, all such articles do are let those in agreement with each other (in this case, pro-vaccers) remain self-righteous, and help reinforce their confirmation bias (https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias).
Again, when the authour finally desists from insulting the unvaccinated (be they antivaccers or sceptics, she seems to lack the desire or ability to make a distinction), she does present her argument against a mandatory vaccine and her support for a vaccine passport. According to her though, one is not able or allowed to have a differing opinion and to be sceptic about certain things without being eligible for mockery, branded as problematic, socially ostracizable, and written off as an overall Undesirable (which down the line may devolve into an Enemy of the State, depending on the country in which you live). I like to think that what is ultimately more favourable and laudable (see, necessary) in article-writers, is more critical thinking, the acknowledgement of nuance, as well as how multi-faceted such grave global issues really are.
For me, the argument that a year later people should know better is, frankly, a very weak argument in the pro-vaccer's favour. Some social issues have still not been resolved and we've known about them for decades or even centuries: e.g. the gender pay gap (!). I am not saying the vaccine does not work; but I do not want to see it dubbed the mandatory deus ex machina for issues which can be resolved in different more creative and tolerant ways; or for governments to use it as a conveniently 'healthy' scapegoat for their own incompetence or unwillingness. The span of a year is entirely negligible, if not arbitrary, when it comes to larger global issues that require rethinking how practically every single aspect of society thinks and functions. Rome wasn't built in a year.
I realise it must be upsetting for people to be in a position where their opinions and beliefs are at odds with some of their family’s and friends’. And by now I am waxing political and become tiresome. But I doubt anyone would appreciate it if (or when) they are sent an accordingly antithetical article (presumably it exists somewhere) that imaginatively (i.e. blatantly insultingly) brands them (for argument's sake, the vaccinated) as: sheep who blindly mindlessly believe every single news report on covid; ignorant boot-lickers who have unwavering trust in the government and its pure, citizen-friendly intentions of zero state-profit incentives; easily persuaded to have utter faith in the absolute success of all medicine “because Science”; people who have no will of their own and allow themselves to get caught up in a herd mentality (or is it mob mentality..?); have no integrity and are swayed by fear tactics and state propaganda; people who give in to their inner fascist and will welcome segregation and discrimination in the name of 'public safety' so long as it means they are safe, etc, etc, etc.
Clearly I am exaggerating for effect here and playing on stereotypes, merely trying to show that there is always two or more sides to every story [apart from fascism in all forms: by definition that is always one-sided and always inexcusable]. Presumably there must be someone somewhere online, scathingly criticising the masses of 'pro-vaccers'. Those article writers cannot all have utterly void irrational arguments, the matter is simply too multi-faceted.
In any case, I am not trying to change anyone's opinions on the issue, my own opinion is that of a sceptic (unfortunately sometimes to the point of an agnostic-borderline-nihilist) and I try to see the arguments from multiple positions and levels (my number one question usually being: who profits from this?: always follow the money), since such a massive issue cannot be seen in either black or white, it is too simplistic to say it is one way or another, where zero middle ground or nuance or exception exists.
In case it has not crossed your mind, sharing such (one-sided, derisive and divisive) articles can be counter-productive in changing one's opinion (if that's your aim), and ultimately may just upset others, perhaps even insult them (which I hope is not your aim).
Even if we cannot understand each other, let us try and accept each other's decisions as respectfully as we can, and be sympathetic to the fact that everyone regardless of their beliefs, most of the time is having a hard time.
It is, after all, a sign of these post-post-modern, Information times.
Looks like they are turning into Reformation times...
Kindness is a radical act.
Dec 6th, 2021
Danae Athanasopoulos Phelps
Edit, Dec 30, 2021: in the meantime, I have also become a statistic and tested positive for Covid. For 21 months I managed to avoid getting it while I lived in Greece, but alas I made it just over a month in England before I too fell ill. That being said, presumably my symptoms would have been a lot worse had I not been vaccinated. But that does not alter the fact that it seems to be very transmittable and even the vaccinated get ill. I still am trying to refrain from taking a more concrete position on the vaccination discussion since it is so multi-faceted, I have not read sufficient data to really know that much about it, and I do believe that it is being weaponised as a way of swaying public opinion on a variety of issues. Many might say I mistrust governments, which I do. I have seen little evidence that profit and self-preservation is not at the top of their agenda, or in any case, that their major priority is the welfare of the general population. Perhaps I took Orwell to heart...
When it comes to Covid, my main issue is that statistics and numbers are often given out of context. I would like to see reports that include percentages such as “3.71% of the English population tested positive for Covid in the week ending Dec 23, 2021″ (www.ons.gov.uk).
This number is significantly less prone to scare people than the large numbers they often choose to use on the news, like “2,024,700 people tested positive for Covid in the week ending Dec 23, 2021“ - that is 2mil out of 55.98mil people (3.61%) (www.ons.gov.uk)! Still a significant number but again, what is the ultimate intentions of those in power concerning the Coronavirus? Will they find ways to use it to their advantage and limit certain freedoms of movement or of speech? This topic is too large to get into in a footnote of a mere opinion piece I wrote to share with family and friends.
In Greece, the “news” certainly had a tendency to avoid placing numbers in context. In a population of 10.72mil (acc. to WorldBank), there have been a total of 1,294,741 cases of Covid which, if my calculations are correct, is 12.07% of the population. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/greece/).
Never did I notice any context given when I lived there, but perhaps I was also reading from news outlets that would reinforce my own confirmation bias.
You see, it really is difficult to express an opinion without a relatively legitimate opposition finding a way to make you sceptical about it. Which is why I was not a fan of how Mrs. Foges was so absolute in her article.
In short, context is everything; absolute opinions ring dogmatic; always question authority (VJ).
