Highly charged lockdown rants can cause lasting damage
YOU might want to limit your social bubble to those with similar opinions on coronavirus or the picnicking this summer could turn into fullscale bickering. Or you could work on presenting your views without making enemies because, with lives in the mix, these discussions are going to be more complex and emotional than, say, the backstop.
With the fright of it all, nobody initially questioned the need to lock down; even if my parents from the start refused to stop their daily walks – but now the strain is taking its toll.
While a study from the University of Oxford shows that in the UK more than a fifth of people think the virus is a hoax, I have yet to hear that opinion directly expressed by anyone I know. Yet, having said that, with so much data, and many dissenting experts, it is easy to find evidence to back up differing views.
When a right-wing conspiracy video popped up in the family WhatsApp last weekend, my dad explained it was from his golf group, where it was doing the rounds to a receptive audience. Minutes later, I got sent the same YouTube video from a sensible friend which made me feel more divisive views were emerging.
Actually, I had already climbed into the ring when, on my book club Zoom call, I had gone off on a rant about schools not reopening.
If we had been sitting around a kitchen table, and I could see the whites of their eyes, I would have picked up the signal sooner that most disagreed, but I was so caught up in what I saw as the unfairness and high social costs of keeping children from school that I launched into a tirade.
When a friend finally interjected, saying I might want my kids packed off but there is no way she would send her children back anytime soon, as we do not know enough about this virus, I jumped down her throat with a clipped, ‘surely science is a mode of discovery and following on the scientific evidence should mean changing opinions when new evidence emerges that suggests very low risk – WHICH IT HAS’.
There was silence and I realised I had been shouting.
I struggled to rein in my emotions but I felt under attack – like their disagreeing somehow insinuated I did not care about lives lost.
A friend then privately messaged me saying all the talk was about the family unit but what about single people like herself living alone, or those in a relationship not living together, and how lonely it has been? She was finding the Government’s messaging bleak and lacking in hope and wished we could instead follow Sweden.
My head spinning, I then messaged a few people who hang out together to get their views.
A medical professional told me the pandemic was far better managed here than in the UK and the US, with medics and the HSE showing amazing strategy and that renting the private hospitals made sense at the time.
He said he was happy with not opening schools, as even though kids probably are not a problem, it would get a lot of people out and there is a risk of a second surge, so whatever it takes to limit that.
In comparison, an anxious restaurant owner told me the Government is being hyper-conservative – schools need to open now so people can get back to work, that the Government got completely fleeced in the private hospitals deal.
He referenced Nobel laureate scientist Michael Levitt, who said lockdown was a blunt option that caused immense social and economic damage.
Pre-corona, these two men would have broadly agreed on the issues of the day, but now their exchanges are heated.
Maybe all your friends and family agree, but if not, how do you navigate these discussions without falling out?
Social psychologist Cliódhna O’Connor says social identity is built from a sense that our values are shared within our group, and discovering a loved one holds a different opinion can feel like a signal they don’t share these.
“For example, individuals’ attitudes to the lockdown may be based on different weightings they place on the values of individual freedom vs collective safety.
“At other times people may share a common root value but differ in their opinions about the best way to promote it – for instance, one person who feels social contact is important for mental health, and another who feels social distancing is important for physical health, both have the same fundamental priority of protecting people’s well-being.”
She suggests if you acknowledge these shared root values this can remove some of the emotional potency of disputes and enable more productive debates.
So, I suppose, to keep firmly in mind where people are coming from and realise while this pandemic has seen the rug pulled from under all of us, there has been more devastation for some and circumstances are bound to shape opinions.
And if we are going to emerge in one piece it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree, because if this pandemic feels like it has gone on for ever the post-mortem is going to last a lot longer.
She was finding the Government’s messaging bleak and wished we could instead follow Sweden