I am vaccinated and still wear a mask indoors. I am aware of political and personal controversies around what seems to me to be a simple act of public safety. A little self-reflection of my decision resulted in nine factors leading to this seemingly “personal” decision. I list them here first, and then unpack each one a bit.

1. Care for others and honoring my community connection
2. Statistics of my environment
3. Understanding how viruses spread and mutate
4. Strengths and limitations of immune system
5. Risks of vaccines, as well as this virus
6. Influence of conflicts of interest (in research, in big pharma, in the anti-vax industry)
7. How science works
8. Propaganda engines, political forces, and role of media
9. Human behavior and its irrationalities

1. Care and Connection

I care deeply about the well-being of the people around me, and humanity in general. Thus, the first and foremost reason for my vax-and-mask behavior is care for my loved ones. I will do whatever I can to protect precious children and vulnerable elders from harm. A free vaccine and inexpensive mask are paltry prices to pay compared to the value of any reduction of potential harm to those I care about.

This care for my loved ones and communities is not an abstract idea but a motivation worthy of implementation for the sake of something beyond myself. Even as a vaccinated person I know that I could carry a viral load that might infect another, hence the mask.

This reason (care for others) prevails over all others. This Is not based on arguments, propaganda or having to prove anything but on the care for those I love. Data tells me what actions will allow me to fulfil this intent.

2. Environmental Awareness

I know what the statistics are of transmission in my county and the percentage of vaccinated individuals (and I know where to find credible data). In my area, every other person I encounter is likely to be unvaccinated and, therefore, more likely to be a carrier or vulnerable – whether they know it or not.

3. Viruses and their Mutations

This virus spreads primarily through the air, which is how it gets into the lungs. Specific behaviors facilitate its spread, and identifiable populations foster the variants. The longer the virus lives in any population, the more likely it is to develop mutations that may or may not be worse than the original.

4. The Immune System

I understand something of the immune system, some of its strengths and limitations, and how it responds to viruses and vaccines. Natural alternatives can boost immune functioning, to be sure. (I taught about this when I was a wellness coordinator for a school district.) The immune system learns from previous infection and vaccines to better prepare for the next viral intrusion – if it is similar enough to the last one, which makes variants so dangerous.

5. Risk Management

Everything has risks. All that we do or don’t do, all that we take into our bodies or reject, and all that we allow into our soil, air and water carries a risk relative to its benefit. I’ve always had a good response to vaccines with little discomfort. This is not true for everyone, of course. However, the odds of getting seriously ill from a vaccine is miniscule when compared to the rate of illness and death from COVID-19 and its variants. To me, it is a small risk in light of the protection I may provide for my loved ones.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Our modern capitalist free-market economic realities make profit margins a dominant factor for big pharma – and they use those market forces to their advantage. They created their empire like all large businesses – by lobbyists’ contributions and political manipulation. This is no different from any other corporate entity living out the capitalist’s dream. This is a social issue, not a medical one. That said, the critics of vaccines are subject to the same conflicts of interest, economic investments, and manipulative advertising to maximize their profits.They profit from sowing distrust.

For both big pharma and their alternatives, funding sources for research become part of the equation (as we’ve seen with propaganda around dismissing dangers of smoking, acid rain, and climate change). Funding bias can show up in the means of data collection, focus, data processing, hypothesis, and conclusion. This is why peer-reviewed, double-blind, control-group research is far superior to anyone’s “research” through YouTube and the opinions social media and the rumor mill.

7. Science

Educated as a psychologist, I realize how real science and research work in collecting and evaluating data, testing hypotheses, and coming to conclusions in order to build a defensible, testable, reality-based theory. This takes time, rigor, testing and retesting. What’s more, conclusions change as the evidence changes and data evolves. This is a scientific method, not an ideological stance. With a little thought, it’s easy to distinguish between actual research and bogus anecdotal claims not supported by anything other than opinion amplified by hysteria or social media attention.

What’s more, science is inherently conservative. It moves forward slowly, and it progresses gradually with evolving theories based on available data. In genuine science, we expect changing conclusions and recommendations because of data updates – not political policies or economic interests.

8. Propaganda, Political Stances, and Social Forces

What might be somewhat of a respectable discussion about effects, limitations, and risks has been poisoned by the politics of the Authoritarian Right (political and religious) that has a long history going back to the Dark Ages of being antagonistic to the findings of science because it threatens their authority, social control, and economic interests.

Media, of course, has had a significant role in all this. Those who thrive on distrust, anger, and fear have been keen to oppose the science and to foment rejection of public safety because sensationalism sells. As science changes to incorporate evolving data, disingenuous “news” media portray this evolution as dishonest – as if it were more honest to hold to a no-longer-valid conclusion from previous limited data. But there is profit in fomenting hysteria.

That said, it’s pretty easy to find stable, reality-based news sources, if one is willing to look beyond the need for affirmation of predetermined conclusions.

9. Human Behavior

This has been the most difficult section to write because there are so many rabbit holes into which we could jump. Perhaps it’s an occupational hazard but my interest is always peaked when I see irrationality, evidence of psycho-social dysfunction, or the dynamics of manufactured controversy. In writing this, I repeatedly fell into the temptation to follow symptoms toward various diagnoses in both establishment and anti-establishment positions and all the issues of loyalty and belonging, distrust and betrayal, ideology, denial, shame, authority issues, and various kinds of social trance resulting from a hyper-focus on a few variables that bely the larger perspective. “Personal choice” sounds noble and honorable, except when others pay the price.

At the moment, I think it best to keep my focus on my motivation and save psycho-social analyses for another time. Whatever other dynamics may be in play, it seems to come down to which authority one trusts, how accurate are the data of that authority, and who is applying the best analysis of that data.

I have nothing to prove, no one to please, and no social group to which I need to conform. I can make my decision based on items 1 through 8.

Conclusion (Maybe)

With nothing to prove or enemy to target, I make my choice for the protection of my family and loved ones. It’s not that I don’t want to be close to those who make other choices, nor do I like them less, but I will not allow their personal choices to endanger my loved ones.

Let me conclude by saying that I don’t expect to convince anyone by what I’ve written here. It was just an interesting self-reflection I thought I’d share. I’m hardly a “true believer” even in my own conclusions, but I’d need verifiable data from a credible source that meets my standards of analysis to consider abandoning my efforts to protect those whose welfare is important to me. If I am to err, it will be on the side of caution. Ignorance is not innocence.