Connect with us

COVID-19

How to interact with people in an uncertain world

Published

7 minute read

I want to propose three general ground rules for interacting with people right now.

The rules are: (1) When you make plans, make them very specific, and avoid changing them at the last minute. (2) Defer to the most cautious person in your presence. (3) Do not take it personally if someone is more cautious than you.
To elaborate, with examples I made up:
(1) Be very detailed about any plans you make to see other people. If you invite friends over to sit in your driveway and have a drink, don’t suggest as people arrive that you sit on the back deck instead. Among your friends might be someone intending to give herself 10 feet of space instead of 6. She might have been excited about the driveway idea because it’s not only outdoors but effectively unbounded; she knew she’d be able to make as much space for herself as she felt she needed. Then you move to the deck and space is more limited, and she is faced with a really awkward decision.
If you and your co-worker decide to order from Domino’s, don’t switch it up and order from a local place instead. Your co-worker might be reassured by Domino’s no-human-contact-out-of-the-oven policy. That might be the most important thing to him.
So maybe you’re rolling your eyes right now and thinking, “But all the latest research shows that transmission on food surfaces is not something to be concerned about. Domino’s policy is overkill.” Or, “Transmission outdoors is super unlikely. The deck is fine!”
Not the point!
The point is that trying to make decisions on the fly is incredibly stressful. You might be 100% confident that you understand the relative risk of things. But you don’t know what other people’s understanding is. And the split-second after being told that the location or the menu has changed is not a good scenario for evaluating risk, especially with an audience. Don’t put people in that position.
(2) On that note, when you and a person in your presence have different (verbalized or apparent) levels of caution, the obvious and decent thing to do is match the more cautious person’s behaviors. If you don’t wear a mask but you notice one of your co-workers tends to, then put on a mask when you are going to be anywhere near them. Their mask usage is a clear indicator that they think mask usage is important. So match that caution in their presence as a courtesy, whether or not you acknowledge the public health value of wearing one.
If you and a friend want to take a walk, and you weren’t thinking 6 feet of space was essential, but they suggest a route and mention that they like it because there is plenty of space to give each other 6 feet, then be conscientious and pay attention, and give them space. If you get to a narrow area, recognize that you’ll have to go single-file until it widens again.
Look for body language. Get in the habit of noticing whether people are inching away or leaning back. This tells you that they are not comfortable. They are more cautious than your instincts. That doesn’t mean your instincts are wrong. But in the presence of this person, you need to defer to theirs.
(3) This also doesn’t mean that this person has an issue with you in particular. Do not take it personally.
Some people are approaching the world with an understanding that there are essentially two groups of people: the ones I live with, and everyone else. From a public health perspective, the standards I apply to interacting with anyone in the latter group should be consistent, whether you are someone I work with, a friend, a relative, or a stranger. I do not and cannot know whether you are carrying a potentially deadly, poorly understood, highly contagious virus, so to the greatest extent possible, I’m going to behave like you are carrying it, no matter who you are. It is more nuanced than that, of course, but not much. The point is, even if you’re not careless, the relative you just met for lunch yesterday might have been careless over the weekend. I do not, and cannot know.
So if someone says no thanks to your back deck or favorite pizza, or they wear a mask in a situation you find unnecessary, or they give you a wide berth around the corner of the trail, it’s really, truly, not about you. People want to interact with the world, and some of us never stop thinking about how to do it right in this not-at-all right world we find ourselves in.
I hope these are ideas people can agree to. I hope that, even if you are tired of modifying your behavior, or skeptical about the seriousness of this virus, you will consider these thoughts with a spirit of kindness. I hope, if you have kids, you will talk to them about how their behavior can not only affect other people’s physical health, but also their emotional well-being while trying to navigate many decisions.
Thanks for reading. Be good to each other. Stay safe. Deep breaths.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Chinese filmmaker sentenced to 3.5 years in prison for documentary about COVID tyranny

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

A 33 year-old Chinese filmmaker highlighted the biggest protests China has seen since Tiananmen Square using only film footage. For this crime of ‘provoking trouble,’ he has been sentenced to over three years in prison.

A Chinese filmmaker has been sentenced to three years and six months in prison for creating a documentary about protests against the Chinese government’s heavy-handed COVID-era restrictions.

A Shanghai court sentenced 33-year-old Chen Pinlin, CNN reported, following his conviction for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a charge used to target dissenting Chinese political activists, including journalists.

Pinlin’s apparent crime was his creation of “Urumqi Middle Road,” a film that showed a glimpse of the Chinese government’s tyrannical COVID-19 crackdown and featured ensuing “White Paper” protests, named for white pieces of paper held up by street demonstrators in place of signs, to avoid Chinese Communist Party (CCP) censorship.

The protest movement was sparked by a deadly apartment fire in Urumqi which claimed at least 10 lives, reportedly due to COVID lockdown measures that prevented both the escape of inhabitants and timely rescue efforts. Street vigils cropped up in late November 2022 to remember the deceased, morphing into protests that caught on in several major cities of China, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Xi’an.

The protests became an outlet for the indignation and anguish caused by draconian COVID policies country-wide, and called for an end to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s zero-COVID policies, which mandated that citizens be cruelly locked in their own homes for weeks on end. In Shanghai, for example, the government enforced residence confinement in some cases by sealing or padlocking doors.

At the time, China expert Steve Mosher warned that the deadly toll of Shanghai’s ongoing lockdowns would be “much greater” than any potential lives lost due to COVID, and predicted deaths by starvation, strokes and heart attacks.

According to CNN, the White Paper protests, which often directly attacked Xi Jinping, were the largest China had seen since the 1989 student-led Tiananmen Square demonstration. Pinlin’s documentary, still available on YouTube outside of China, includes film footage of White Paper protestors crying, “We want dignity!” “We want the truth!” “We want human rights!”

Masses of protestors also called for Xi Jinping to step down. Some cried for the “removal of traitor Xi Jinping,” and one man can be heard shouting, “Without the Communist Party, there would be a new China!”

The name of the English version of Pinlin’s film is “Not the Foreign Force,” in objection to claims by the CCP that “foreign forces” had fomented protests against the Chinese government.

Chen “has only ever served the public interest by reporting on historical protests against the regime’s abuses and should never have been arrested. We call on democracies to increase pressure on Chinese authorities to ensure that all charges against Chen are dropped,” Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in a statement in March.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canadian judge orders Purolator to compensate employees fired for refusing COVID shot

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

On January 30, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bradford Smith ruled that shipping giant Purolator must compensate employees it fired for refusing to take the COVID shot, in accordance with a Labor Arbitrator’s decision in December 2023.

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has upheld a labor arbitrator’s decision that Purolator employees fired for refusing the COVID shot must be compensated.  

On January 30, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bradford Smith ruled that shipping giant Purolator must compensate employees it fired for refusing to take the COVID shot, in accordance with a Labor Arbitrator‘s decision in December 2023. 

“I find there was no procedural unfairness to Purolator,” Smith wrote in his ruling.  

Beginning September 15, 2021, Purolator, like many Canadian companies around that time, mandated that its workers get the COVID shot to continue working. Workers were given until December 25, 2021, to comply, with the full policy coming into force on January 10, 2022.   

However, last December an arbitrator ruled that Purolator’s vaccine mandate was reasonable only until June 30, 2022, when evidence sufficiently proved that the COVID vaccine did not prevent transmission of the COVID virus. 

“[The arbitrator] determined that the balancing of interests was not fixed in time, but something which could change as circumstances changed,” wrote Smith.  

“He found that as of the end of June 2022, circumstances had indeed changed, such that the [vaccination policy], although reasonable when it was implemented, was no longer reasonable after that date,” he continued.  

Regardless of this development, Purolator kept the mandate in place until June 2023, barring unvaccinated employees from working.  

As a result, Arbitrator Nicholas Glass ruled that Purolator must give compensation to its hourly employees who did not get the COVID shots, which included the lost benefits and wages they would have earned between July 1, 2022, and May 1, 2023.    

Purolator had also been ordered to give compensation to owner-operators beginning from the first date they lost income.   

Following this decision, Purolator took the case to the B.C. Supreme Court, only to have the ruling upheld by Smith.   

“The Arbitrator clearly proceeded on the basis that employees’ personal autonomy and bodily integrity interests were engaged, and it was reasonable for him to do so,” reads the decision.  

“I find the Decision is transparent, intelligible and justified, and thus reasonable,” wrote Smith. 

The favorable ruling for the Purolator workers is one of the latest positive outcomes for Canadians who lost income, or their jobs outright, for choosing not to get the COVID shots.   

In October 2023, LifeSiteNews reported on how a Canadian arbitrator in Saskatchewan ruled in favor of two oil refinery workers who were discriminated against at their workplace for not complying with COVID dictates.  

Continue Reading

Trending

X