I got my shot. I got my shot. I got my shot.
I’ve been repeating that statement, often, ever since I, well, got my shot last week. I say it with a lot of gratitude, humility and no small amount of amazement. That latter part is fuelled mostly by the speed with which science – populated by some of the smartest, most learned science people on the planet – created my shot. Created many shots. Everyone’s shot. I’ve never doubted its safety, its effectiveness, its ability to help shepherd us out of all this. Not once.
Most of us, at some point, have had people offer us advice, the unsolicited kind, on how to do our jobs. It doesn’t matter what kind of job – blue collar, white collar, no collar. Their dubious understanding of our jobs is irrelevant.
They’ve got what they fervently believe is a better way to do our jobs, based on, at best, a cursory knowledge of what our jobs really are. It’s “advice” that’s as arrogant to offer as it is frustrating to hear. So, imagine what it’s like when someone, and thousands of their peers, have spent their life’s work in a field that ultimately created “the shot,” then has its efficacy challenged — or, worse, has their motives questioned – by someone whose expertise in that field is generated by Google searches.
I wasn’t concerned with any physical after effects of my shot. (For the record, it was the Astra Zeneca and I experienced none, though a few friends did admit to mild discomfort for about a day).
What I am bracing myself for, however, are those conversations I may well have in the coming months with people close to me who were eligible for the shot, but adamantly refused it. It will make that whole Habs versus Leafs debate trivial, which, of course, it is.
Not so trivial is that pro and con vaccine debate that will likely play out at BBQs, in dressing rooms and even workplaces.
It’s a looming scenario not lost on the CMHA’s Jack Veitch, who stresses he’s a big proponent of getting the shot. And he recognizes the difficulty it may be – for both camps – in getting past this tête-a-tête.
“When we engage these conversations from a position of conflict — starting arguments, trying to prove our points — not only is it ineffective, but it hurts both parties,” he explains in the most recent episode of The Advocate Podcast.
Veitch, instead, suggests finding a “common ground” on the issue, such as a mutual concern and caring for people’s well-being. That’s just some of the wisdom he offers during the interview – all of which are well worth heeding. Especially when you consider the number of years Veitch has dedicated to working in his field of expertise.
The Advocate Podcast: Stories from Kawartha Lakes is sponsored Ward Lawyers (wardlegal.ca). Stream, download and subscribe for free on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and at lindsayadvocate.ca