Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How to have a conversation about vaccines at your Thanksgiving table

Opinion

Thanksgiving turkey with family in the background
lisegagne/Getty Images
Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners, which equips people to live and work better together by building trust and understanding across differences.

In workplaces and living rooms across the country, people are having hard conversations about the Covid-19 vaccine. And with Thanksgiving around the corner, we'll soon be navigating these vaccination questions for family get-togethers and holiday gatherings. Talking about vaccination can arouse deep-seated anxieties related to safety, health and autonomy.

High-stakes conversations like these can unravel quickly. Wrong words or bad assumptions can thrust a relationship into repetitive cycles of defensiveness, mistrust and antagonism. If you've ever seen Thanksgiving dinner devolve into a shouting argument about politics, you know what this looks like — and you know how painful it can be, not only for the people involved but for a whole community.

The conversations we have in private are also microcosms of our public discourse, where some people bemoan "anti-vaxxers" who "don't believe in science" while unvaccinated people who are anxious about the government or the medical system might feel that their concerns aren't being heard at all. This dynamic serves no one. It generates even more mistrust and makes us no safer or healthier.

How do we do better? We can begin by drawing out the individual experiences that lie beneath a person's values and perspectives. The intricacy and subtlety of a person's own story can interrupt these toxic cycles — without asking anyone to compromise their core beliefs.

Let me offer two pairs of examples to help illuminate this idea.

I have a friend who got pregnant during Covid-19. Weighing the risks and benefits with her doctor, she chose not to get vaccinated. She and her partner had struggled with fertility for so long, they were terrified to complicate the pregnancy. Another friend, with the same basic background and the same information, got vaccinated the second she was eligible after getting pregnant. She was terrified of complicating an already high-risk pregnancy with Covid-19.

These two friends began, more or less, in the same place. They arrived at different decisions through a series of values-based choices. They made the best decisions they could at each step, trying to protect themselves and their pregnancies.

I have another friend who has a compromised immune system. After the vaccine was approved, she drove for 10 hours from Colorado to Kansas to get vaccinated — it was the closest available appointment. Yet another friend, with a congenital kidney disorder, has yet to get vaccinated. The doctor said that they truly could not predict the side effects of the vaccine, or its effectiveness, for people with the disease. Balancing the risks, they decided that it is safer to follow other precautions, like masking. Now my friend is worried that, at some point, they'll be mandated by their employer or by the government to get it anyway.

These and many, many other individual stories explode the public debate over vaccinations, which oversimplifies the decisions people face and villainizes those who disagree with you. Few people would enter honestly into a conversation where they expect to be demeaned. Those conversations are pre-determined to fail — they fail to persuade, they fail to make us all safer, they fail to sustain our relationships and communities.

As long as we're engaging in toxic, polarized, zero-sum debates about COVID-19 vaccinations, we're going to struggle to build effective policies and public trust, both of which are needed for public health.

We can begin to change the national conversation by having better conversations about vaccination in our private lives. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. If you want to engage in a deeper, more meaningful dialogue about vaccines, especially with someone who might disagree with you, here are three questions to ask yourself before you start the conversation:

  1. What is my goal for this conversation? Before you dive in, make sure you have a goal that the other person would sign up for. Instead of trying to change a person's opinion, try to learn more about the values or personal experiences behind their choice. Or enter with the goal of helping them feel heard and seen, especially if they're in the minority in your community. You may find that the conversation leaves you both changed in ways you couldn't predict.
  2. Where do I feel conflicted and where does my thinking defy expectations? Most people hold nuanced views about the issues that matter most to them, but rarely get to share those perspectives in all their complexity. Start by thinking about the areas where your own view is less clear or certain than people might assume. Decide what you're willing to share. Maybe you have mixed feelings about bodily autonomy and mandates, or you don't completely trust pharmaceutical companies, or you worry about spreading Covid unknowingly. Opening up about your own reflections, feelings and values will make it possible for other people to do the same.
  3. How can I ask a question that invites a personal story rather than an opinion? Questions can open people up or close them off. Try to ask questions that invite a personal story or experience, or to share what's at the heart of the matter in regards to their perspective. Ask questions like: "What do you wish people understood about your decision?" or "What in your decision most resonates with a value about how you want to live your life?"

People are always changed by what they hear in a deeper, truer conversation with someone else in their community — even if their view or choice remains the same as it was at the start. There is no way to know the outcome of a genuine, open, curious conversation until you actually have one.

But one thing is certain. Without better conversations, without interrupting the toxic cycles of polarization, we will not be able to meet the challenges that face our communities today. Better conversations are crucial if we are to live and work in community, to thrive in community and to survive as a democracy. If nothing else, the Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us all that our futures are intertwined.


Read More

Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.

(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.

It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
soldiers in truck

Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent

Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.

Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.

A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.

Keep ReadingShow less
Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion

House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., says the committee is committed to accountability for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

(Photo by Samantha Freeman, MNS)

Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion

WASHINGTON – Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moments before the full Ethics Committee convened to weigh expulsion for allegedly stealing millions of dollars and funneling some into her congressional campaign.

Cherfilus-McCormick was not present at the hearing. “After careful reflection and prayer, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my constituents and the institution that I step aside at this time,” her statement read.

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill, holding tulips and signs that read, "We can't afford another war" and "end the war on iran.'

Veterans, military family members, and supporters occupy the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill calling upon the Trump administration to end the war on Iran on April 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Leigh Vogel

Trump’s Iran “Victory” Echoes Iraq’s "Mission Accomplished"

It didn’t exactly end well the last time a president declared victory this quickly. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit, strutted across the deck for the cameras, then changed into a suit and tie, stood in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It was 43 days after the invasion began. Over the next eight years, as the conflict devolved into a protracted insurgency and sectarian war, more than 4,300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

On April 7, Trump—presumably not wearing a flight suit—declared in a telephone interview with AFP that the United States had achieved victory in Iran. “Total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it.” This was the day after the President threatened to destroy a “whole civilization,” hours after a two-week ceasefire was announced. It took six days for the whole thing to fall apart. By April 15, he was back on Fox Business: “We've beaten them militarily, totally. I think it’s close to over.”

Keep ReadingShow less