All Corona related issues

[Warren J. Dew]

To be fair, dance itself still is that way, I think.

That's what I would think, too. One might differ on studio policies regarding, say, masks, or on government policies regarding whether studios needed to close, but you don't actually have to discuss those while dancing. If you want to change the policies, you could perhaps talk to the studio or the government, but there's no need to argue with other dancers about it.

I do think businesses taking political stands as a business is unwise. A business owner or instructor on their personal Facebook page, sure, if they feel the need to do so; taking a stand as a business is just alienating to customers.

Of course, I'm insulated from a lot of this by not using Facebook.

 

[lucia_l]

Warren,
I agree that most of the time, businesses taking an overt political stand on any remotely controversial issue tends to alienate customers. However, it doesn't always do so in all circumstances. But I imagine that for ballroom dance or hair dresses it's safer to avoid taking a stand and to try to discourage discussing politics.

There one other student dancer at my studio who really wants to discuss politics. He has strong idiosyncratic views. He wrote some (self published) books. I have various responses when he has tried to to lure me into discussing of those views. One of them is that I only discuss politics with strangers on the internet.

Honestly, that claim is actually true. It's easy enough to find places that exist to discuss any political view. I don't see much reason to argue with an acquaintance from a dance studio!

 

[Warren J. Dew]

Myself: while obviously not an anti-vaxxer, I am vaccine-cautious.

Don't want to get vaccinated? Fine, just stay home.

To be honest, that sounds like you'll make your own decision about whether to take a vaccine, but you expect everyone else to match your decision. I'll make my own decision too - I like the term "vaccine cautious" as that's a pretty good description of my position - but if I'm worried about other people not taking a vaccine that I consider important, I'll consider it my job to stay home, not theirs.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

I agree that most of the time, businesses taking an overt political stand on any remotely controversial issue tends to alienate customers. However, it doesn't always do so in all circumstances.

To me, the reasonable exceptions would be, first, if a business has a vested interest in a particular issue - for example, I could see a dance studio arguing as a business that it should be allowed to stay open - or, second, if a business caters to a specific market and takes a position that will be supported by everyone in that market, such as a dance studio, say, opposing tariffs on dance shoes. I can't think of any others.

Unfortunately, there is a third situation where a business can get away with taking a political position even if many of their customers disapprove: if the business is a monopoly and their customers have nowhere else to go. I don't think that applies to the dance industry much, as we generally have a healthy level of market competition.

 

[snapdancer]

To be honest, that sounds like you'll make your own decision about whether to take a vaccine, but you expect everyone else to match your decision. I'll make my own decision too - I like the term "vaccine cautious" as that's a pretty good description of my position - but if I'm worried about other people not taking a vaccine that I consider important, I'll consider it my job to stay home, not theirs.

I will make my own decision. But no, I won't refuse it and then expect everyone else to take it to protect me. If I refuse it, I will continue to stay home.

My decision will be based on the facts and not some nonsense passed around on the Internet. If someone else refuses it, then they should stay home.

Is that OK?

 

[David_In_CA]

Once an effective vaccine is available, it seems like the socially responsible choices should be more:
get the vaccine
or
continue to behave in safe ways like now (masking, social distancing, etc.)

But a vaccine isn't foolproof. The powers that be would probably happily go with a vaccine that was 50% effective, since it would still push our herd immunity levels to much better places. (ETA, an approach I agree with). So just because someone gets a vaccine, it doesn't mean that they can safely go back to pre-pandemic life / habits until enough other people get the vaccine as well. It just means they're safer than they were before.

I count myself as somewhat cautious with these new vaccines, too. I'm not a big fan of novel medical techniques without very good, reasonably long, safety studies. So until I get a vaccine, I'll continue to mask up and social distance, and probably I'll keep doing that even after I get a vaccine until a sufficient percentage of the population has gotten the vaccine too.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

I will make my own decision. But no, I won't refuse it and then expect everyone else to take it to protect me. If I refuse it, I will continue to stay home.

My decision will be based on the facts and not some nonsense passed around on the Internet. If someone else refuses it, then they should stay home.

Is that OK?

One person's facts are another person's nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, you can do whatever you want, and so can those who elect not to stay home irrespective of whether they've taken a vaccine. It's when people expect their own decision making process to be followed by others - such as expecting certain others to stay home even when those others, and for that matter the government, judge that it's okay for those others to go out - that their expectations become not okay.

So until I get a vaccine, I'll continue to mask up and social distance, and probably I'll keep doing that even after I get a vaccine until a sufficient percentage of the population has gotten the vaccine too.

Unless the vaccine is close to 100% effective, it makes sense to continue to mask up whether or not one gets the vaccine, until herd immunity is achieved without masks. Of course, that just pushes the decision back one step, to a judgement of whether herd immunity has been achieved.

Everyone taking a 50% effective vaccine would achieve herd immunity in most areas. Unfortunately, I suspect a lot of people will be making their decisions on whether to take the vaccine on a political basis: they'll take a vaccine vouched for by a President from their own party, and avoid one vouched for by a President from the other party. That means getting to high compliance will not be easy.

 

[lucia_l]

I suspect that the access to the vaccine will initially be limited to "high priority" people and I won't make the list. By the time I can get it it will have not only gone through phase III trials, but have been given to a fair number of people. So any short terms side effects not revealed in phase III trials will have been detected. Like snapdancer I intend to read what's out there.

I anticipate I will be in line to get the vaccine as soon as I possibly can. I'd like to maximize my chances of being immune. I know that might not be 100%. But it's thought that even if it doesn't confer full immunity to everyone, it's likely to reduce severity of the disease. Failing getting full immunity, I'll be happy with partial immunity that merely lessons the symptoms of the disease. If the worst that happened with this disease was the equivalent of a very, very bad cold, I wouldn't worry about getting it.

Could I turn out to be one of the people for whom the vaccinne does absolutely nothing? Sure. But I think I'll be willing to live my life close to normally after getting a vaccine that is thought to help most people avoid the disease or at least get a mild version.

 

[Brummbaer]

Myself: while obviously not an anti-vaxxer, I am vaccine-cautious. I'll base my decision on reliable facts and not on propaganda.

I like the term 'vaccine-cautious', although it is a little ambiguous. I'm certainly not an anti-vaxxer, but I do want to know that the vaccine offered has been as thoroughly tested with satisfactory results, and acceptable side-effects, across as many ethnic groups and age ranges as possible. Like software upgrade, I'll wait for some others user experience before using unless I absolutely need that fix or need to test it myself. So I'm cautious about the safety of a politically-motivated vaccine. I'll wait unless there's an imminent risk. Selfishly I'm hoping others will take the initial risk.

For a vaccine I guess that depends, to some degree, on your location and trust in your government and drug testing regime. The problem is that politics and the personalities, irrespective of the social media conspiracies, have destroyed trust in those with authority - legality, truthfulness, fairness, doing-the-right-thing, morality, etc. have all been lost to political bluster, failed targets and fantasy - although some would doubtless disagree.

I guess that in some locations your political affiliations, any or none, have become or are becoming toxic to others. In the UK we have Brexit - a toxic subject best avoided within dance - and probably for many years to come. This has potentially been a reason for some to avoid a prospective dance partner. Other toxic topics will likely bubble to the top of this festering cauldron. These topics are all best avoided within a social environment - but I guess there are limits.

 

[snapdancer]

I will be looking to public health experts and not politicians to decide whether to take the vaccine. And whether or not I think the politicians twisted the arms of public health officials to rush the authorization to use it. But I expect I'll have time to evaluate this as I don't think I'll be in one of the priority groups to receive it.

What I won't be looking at are memes passed around on Facebook. Particularly if they advance some conspiracy theory such as the ones involving Bill Gates.

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

thread hijack

irrespective

This is a good word, except it leads some people to think that “irregardless” is also a good word. And IMO, people who use that word should self-quarantine with a dictionary and a couple books on grammar. And I stand by my opinion regardless of the fact that certain dictionaries are now accepting “irregardless” as a “nonstandard” but acceptable word.
end hijack

 

[lucia_l]

snapdancer, I'll also be looking to health experts. I will however also be watching news reports of possible side effects in individual and then reading what health officials say about those. I'm not going to be listening to conspiracy theories.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

I'll be reading the results of the trials, which will include statistics on effectiveness and data on side effects. I won't be paying attention to news reports, especially since journalists are terrible at understanding quantitative data.

I have in mind a vaccine that our pediatrician neither recommended nor recommended against because of news articles about certain side effects. Then our pediatrician recommended it for our next child because the issues had been "cleared up". I decided I'd better investigate, and it turned out that the side effects in the original news articles, while they had been reported in the test, had been reported at lower rates than for the placebo, so the news articles were basically misrepresenting the results.

 

[lucia_l]

Warren,
So, in the end, you did read the news reports.
I didn't say I'd read them and not investigate further.

 

[Rabbit]

I guess that in some locations your political affiliations, any or none, have become or are becoming toxic to others. In the UK we have Brexit - a toxic subject best avoided within dance - and probably for many years to come. This has potentially been a reason for some to avoid a prospective dance partner.

Over half the tango dancers in London are Europeans, and most of those that aren't travel to the continent frequently, which is probably why I haven't heard anyone say a positive word about Brexit in person. Anyone who's pro-Brexit is wisely keeping quiet about it