Connect with us

COVID-19

How to interact with people in an uncertain world

Published

5 years ago

7 minute read

From the Facebook page of Paige Campbell Johns

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.
Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Alberta / 13 mins ago

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 6 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

COVID-19

Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards

Published on June 30, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Ontario resident George Katerberg has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for banning roadside billboards with social or political messages. Mr. Katerberg believes that the Ministry’s policies go too far and undermine the freedom of expression of all Ontarians.

This case goes back to March 2024, when Mr. Katerberg, a retired HVAC technician, rented a billboard on Highway 17 near Thessalon, Ontario, that featured images of public health officials and politicians alongside a message critical of their statements about vaccines.

After the Ministry rejected his proposed billboard several times on the grounds it promoted hatred, a constitutional challenge was launched with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. Mr. Katerberg’s lawyers argued that the Ministry’s position was unreasonable, and that it did not balance Charter rights with the purposes of relevant legislation.

The Ministry later admitted that the sign did not violate hate speech guidelines and agreed to reconsider erecting the billboard.

However, in April 2025, the Ministry quietly amended its policy manual to restrict signs along “bush highways” to those only promoting goods, services, or authorized community events.

The new guidelines are sweeping and comprehensive, barring any messaging that the Ministry claims could “demean, denigrate, or disparage one or more identifiable persons, groups of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services…”

Relying on this new policy, the Ministry once again denied Mr. Katerberg’s revised billboard.

Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explains, “By amending the Highway Corridor Management Manual to effectively prohibit signage that promotes political and social causes, the Ministry of Transportation has turned Mr. Katerberg’s fight to raise his sign into a fight on behalf of all Ontarians who wish to express support for a political or social cause.”

No date has yet been assigned for a hearing on this matter.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility

Published on June 25, 2025

By

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity

What was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” now has hard data behind it.

A new peer-reviewed study out of the Czech Republic has uncovered a disturbing trend: in 2022, women vaccinated against COVID-19 had 33% FEWER successful conceptions per 1,000 women compared to those who were unvaccinated.

A “successful conception” means a pregnancy that led to a live birth nine months later.

The study wasn’t small. It analyzed data from 1.3 million women aged 18 to 39.

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity.

First, let’s talk about the study.

It was published by Manniche and colleagues in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal respected for its focus on patient safety and pharmacovigilance.

The study was conducted from January 2021 to December 2023 and examined 1.3 million women aged 18–39. By the end of 2021, approximately 70% of them had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, with 96% of the vaccinated cohort having received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

By 2022, a stark difference was clear.

The vaccinated cohort averaged around 4 successful conceptions per 1,000 women per month.

That’s a staggering 33% LESS than the 6 per 1,000 seen in the unvaccinated group.

This means that for every 2 vaccinated women who successfully conceived and delivered a baby, 3 unvaccinated women did the same.

In 2022, unvaccinated women were 1.5 times MORE likely to have a successful conception.

Again, that’s a conception that led to a live birth nine months later.

The authors did not jump to the conclusion that their study proved causation. They cited that other factors may have played a role, such as self-selection bias

However, the researchers noted that self-selection bias does not explain the timing and scale of the observed drop in fertility.

Moreover, birth rates in the Czech Republic dropped from 1.83 per 1,000 women in 2021 to 1.37 in 2024, adding further evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines may be contributing to the decline in fertility.

That downward trend, the researchers argue, supports the hypothesis that something beyond individual decision-making may be affecting conception rates.

As such, they argue that the study’s results warrant a closer and more thorough examination of the impact of mass vaccination.

If this study holds true, and vaccinated women are really much less likely to have successful conceptions, the implications for humanity are massive.

Millions of babies could be missing each year as a result of COVID vaccination, and recent data from Europe and beyond already point to a deeply disturbing trend.

NOTE: Europe experienced a sharper decline in births than usual from 2021 to 2023.

Live births fell from 4.09 million in 2021 to 3.67 million in 2023, marking a 10.3% decline in just two years.

The new Czech study adds to growing evidence that COVID vaccines may be contributing to a dramatic decline in fertility, just as many feared all along.

As Elon Musk warns, “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”

Whether the shots are the cause or not, the trend is real—and it’s accelerating.

It’s time to stop dismissing the signals and start investigating the cause.

Thanks for reading. I hope this report gave you real value. This is a critically important topic that deserves attention.

If you appreciate my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

99% of readers get this content for free. But just $5/month from the 1% keeps it flowing for everyone else.

If this work matters to you, this is the best way to support it.

Be the 1% who makes it possible.

Catch the rest of today’s biggest headlines at VigilantFox.com.

See More Stories

Continue Reading

Trending

X