People have their reasons

We may be puzzled by our neighbors' decisions, about almost anything, but as writers we need to remember that our neighbors definitely had SOME reason for each decision.

This realization lies at the very heart of creating a compelling argument that involves an issue or topic or proposal about which reasonable people may disagree. I'm sure there are some people who, perhaps to simplify their life and free themselves up to think about other things, have default positions that they don't need to examine every day. For instance, if you have always voted Republican, and most of your family has voted Republican, that habit might become a default and the default beats out almost any amount of evidence that might argue for a different choice at the polls.

I thought about this today after reading a story in the New York Times (I begin my day with the Denver Post and Colorado Sun and the Times, all on an iPad since we can't get a physical paper delivered routinely to our home in the wilds of Highlands Ranch... but that's another tale). 

The theme of the reporting was that while scientists, health officials, and governmental leaders claim that problems like vaccine refusal or hesitation can be solved through more education, more sharing of facts, the truth is much simpler and more visceral.

One guy who was interviewed said that he felt trapped by many requirements in his life, at the mercy of supervisors scheduling his work hours to city and state ordinances that limited his recreation choices, from smoking to driving to camping overnight. His logic was that deciding what to put in his body was ONE choice that was his. He also finds all the "expert advice" to be patronizing, making him feel ignorant. So, despite what I might say was a dismissal of all sorts of evidence, including the fact that he would make himself much less vulnerable to a disease, he has stubbornly maintained that he won't be getting vaccinated.

I might make all sorts of arguments in his case that I would consider compelling. You might be thinking of many right now that you are certain would change the man's mind. 

We would both be wasting our breath, brains, ink, or pixels. 

What might change his mind? Technically, nothing. After all, his decision does not grow from any science or research or even self-serving logic. What might change is sheer convenience -- "hey, I can just walk into this King Soopers when I'm buying bread and get a free shot" -- or perhaps a close relative who has a brush with death due to the virus. Or some sort of bandwagon effect happens, where so many friends and neighbors have been vaccinated that he feels left out.

It's frustrating, but government's best action here is to keep making the vaccines convenient and free. Make them as ubiquitous as flu shots (though lots of people certainly refuse those, as well). Keep sending positive messages and reporting successes.

Some people refuse vaccines merely due to fear of needles, which seems silly to those who don't share that fear. But what if the vaccine came in pill form, or mixed in a soft drink? The point is to reduce even illogical reasons keeping people from doing something that is a public good.

Bottom line: our arguments need to be more complex and subtle than we might first imagine.