Research-Driven Critique on Coronavirus Pandemic

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Responses: Segment One
Responses: Segment Two
Responses: Segment Three
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Damon Young writes that the coronavirus pandemic has caused many people to be influenced by fake conspiracy theories. A situation arises when people refuse to communicate with their loved ones because the difference of opinion poisons communication. Young believes that there are many reasons why people suddenly begin to believe in such theories, including “skepticism of modern science,” “white-nationalist-adjacent libertarianism,” or a distorted understanding of citizenship (Young, 2022, para. 3). The author writes that even though there are many pleasant memories associated with such people, there comes the point when friendships come to an end (Young, 2022). His discussion is based on his unfortunately unsuccessful experience of convincing loved ones to stop believing fake news about the coronavirus vaccine. Many other columnists have addressed the topic in question, and therefore three other articles will be analyzed within the framework of this essay. This is all the more important because consulting multiple sources allows for a more complete picture of the problem. The following will present what the authors’ main ideas are and analyze how they relate to each other.

Responses: Segment One

The author recalls a conversation he had when he was trying to persuade his friend to get vaccinated. In response, Young heard a refusal, the reason for which was his friend’s distrust of the government. At the time of the argument, the columnist had nothing to say, but he regretted his silence after a while. Young could have said that it was not the government that created the vaccine but scientists who had spent decades becoming professionals in their field. Young tells a personal story, making readers engage the argument more intensely. Indeed, every person in 2022 is familiar with the experience of dealing with someone whom fake theories have influenced. Marianna Spring, in her article, advises staying calm because exposure to conspiracy theories also comes with an emotional component (2020). In addition, empathy is something that will be much more effective than mockery. A kind attitude toward a loved one will demonstrate a connection and give a sense of security, leading to an opening of space for dialogue. In the situation described by Young, Spring’s advice would have helped avoid the confrontation that had arisen between the two friends.

Responses: Segment Two

Young mentions that he tried to influence his loved ones in various ways, but that neither shaming nor logic nor humor helped. He writes that in addition to feeling defeated, he also simply feels sad about the loss of a loved one. This state of mind is becoming relevant to more and more people. Even for people who have worked as psychologists for 25 years and know all the intricacies of how people’s psyche works it is hard to communicate with people who succumb to conspiracy theories (Bagnarelli, 2020). Bagnarelli writes about this phenomenon in her article, mentioning that during the pandemic, many people showed “ugly sides of their personalities” (2020, para. 2). The author writes that the power of misinformation is so great that it can make people neglect their health. The latter means ignoring social distancing measures and taking dangerous medications. In her article, Bagnarelli offers advice to Young that sadness and anger will not help solve the problem. Young’s article says very little about the wisdom of acceptance and that people’s points of view can differ greatly, which is not always a bad thing.

Responses: Segment Three

The columnist asks whether he has the right to decide what his loved ones need to put something in their bodies. Indeed, people are not gods; they cannot make decisions for others. However, as the writer himself rightly points out, there are situations where some of the people’s beliefs must be sacrificed to achieve the public good. Especially since there are no significant risks involved, numerous studies have confirmed the safety of vaccines. Still, it is worth noting that his concerns about the loss of contact with his loved ones are rational and worth of attention. James Purtill further believes that such conspiracy theories have already become “a public health issue that affects social distancing and vaccine rollouts” (2020, para. 3). The author provides excerpts from interviews with those who have found it difficult to maintain contact with their loved ones because of their commitment to conspiracy theories. In an interview with Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist said that the main problem with coronavirus theories is that they affect human health (Purtill, 2020). This increase in the stakes of faith was also mentioned by Young in his article.

Conclusion

All of the articles analyzed in one way or another deal with the topic of people’s thinking Experience does have an impact on people, so too pessimistic predictions about people’s inability to change should not be made. An inadvertent magazine left on a friend’s shelf about proven immunization safety could result in that person sitting in line for a vaccine a week later. Before deciding to end a friendship, relationship, or communication, the pros and cons of disengagement must be evaluated. This decision should be made based on an analysis of how much good and bad a person believing in fake news brings to one’s life. Each author of the analyzed article mentions that this is a hard decision. Young writes of feeling ashamed and that he had a sense that he has lost the battle to find the rational. Bagnarelli tells that her twenty-five years of experience as a psychologist prevent her from simply disowning her loved ones because she disagrees with them. One could say that this is the message of the articles – a warning against hasty action.

The authors convincingly deliver the message that it is worth remembering that the existence of different points of view is normal and even necessary. However, if, as in the case of Young, communication brings only negativity, it is necessary to determine ways to manage this situation. Each of the articles analyzed does not consider ending communication with someone whom conspiracy theories have influenced as the only way to overcome a crisis in communication. That is why a multi-step approach of respect and acceptance is important. However, another circumstance the authors unanimously mention is the social context of the discussion. Refusal to vaccinate, if it becomes widespread, could result in deaths. These visible and terrifying consequences of conspiracy theories are what the authors believe can shift the paradigm. In such a case, soft approaches of acceptance and understanding may not be appropriate. What has to be considered is how alternative views can affect society as a whole. Because it is very likely that if people allow conspiracy theories to spread, the creation of a perfectly effective vaccine will simply no longer be an option.

References

Bagnarelli, B. (2020). Coronavirus conspiracy theorists have now revealed themselves: What can the rest of us do? NBC News. Web.

Purtill, J. (2020). ‘We can’t get her back’: When conspiracy theories ‘hijack’ friends and family. Australian Broadcasting. Web.

Spring, M. (2020). How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? BBC. Web.

Young, D. (2022). How it feels to watch a friend lose themselves to covid conspiracy theories. The Washington Post Magazine. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Research-Driven Critique on Coronavirus Pandemic

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)