Like millions of Americans, I am grateful to doctors, nurses, and all other medical clinicians and researchers for their invaluable work during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Dr. Alessandra Hirsch’s op-ed “The problem with outrage over Fauci” (Aug. 16) misses the point about criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci. He tried to shut down debate about public policy and scientific evidence that differed from his views.
The Great Barrington Declaration, which argued for concentrating medical resources on the very young and old but letting the rest of the economy function normally, deserved more serious consideration. The same is true of the virus lab leak theory and criticism of gain-of-function research. Fauci did his best to discredit these views. Scientists who disagreed with him, even those from Harvard and Oxford universities, were considered quacks. Fauci thereby caused great harm to the credibility of science because open and free debate is vital for real understanding and progress.
The Royal Society in London began in 1660 with the purpose to advance excellence in science. It adopted the motto “nullius in verba” — “take nobody’s word for it.” That was sound advice 350 years ago and is equally appropriate today. Unfortunately, Fauci and some of his colleagues tried to engineer takedowns of those who disagreed with them.
Other views and opinions may have been right or wrong, but those voicing them deserved to be heard. Following the Royal Society’s motto, we should take nobody’s word for it, not even Fauci’s.
— James E. Ciecka, emeritus economics professor, Chicago
Trump’s pandemic approach
Bravo to Dr. Alessandra Hirsch for her spirited defense of Dr. Anthony Fauci, including her precise recollections of the horrid conditions early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, when Fauci and other experts had to make difficult recommendations with the limited knowledge available at the time and without the genius of hindsight.
Hirsch aptly recalls the refrigerated trucks outside hospitals in New York; here in Chicago, we addressed the overwhelming death rate with plans to repurpose McCormick Place into a hospital or, really, like the refrigerated trucks, a way station to the morgue.
President Donald Trump, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul and other MAGA folks routinely name-call Fauci but generally without citing specific policies he endorsed that proved harmful. The reality is that Fauci’s recommendations were mainstream, no different from those of Dr. Deborah Birx’s and other noted public health experts, and very much followed by almost every COVID-19-afflicted country in the world.
Importantly, as Hirsch notes, the COVID-19 vaccine, which Trump called (when it was useful to him to do so) “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” saved millions of lives in America and even more around the world (it was unanimously endorsed internationally.)
Actually, it was Trump’s approach to COVID-19 that was the odd and very harmful outlier.
Remember, it was Trump who said that COVID-19 would be gone in “two weeks” and, later on, that it was a Democratic “hoax” and that nobody would talk about it after the 2020 election. Was Trump’s rejection of Fauci, Birx and mainstream science based on informed analysis, or was it simply what he perceived in his own self-interest (including reelection), without regard for others?
Fauci mania keeps attention off Trump’s bizarre and harmful response to the pandemic. Perhaps, the real issue — lost in the craziness about Fauci — is how many people died needlessly because they acted on Trump’s disdain for actively avoiding COVID-19 and his indifference to vaccination. Some experts in the field estimate that death toll at over 100,000 Americans.
— Dr. Sheldon Hirsch, Wilmette
Scare tactics over healthcare
In his letter “‘Medicare for All’ is a folly” (Aug. 14) David N. Simon describes a scary scenario offered by “leftist democratic socialists,” which would “swamp demand for medical services,” resulting in long waits. It sounds almost as frightening as the death panels that Republicans told us were a part of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.
And he warns us that this would require major tax changes, as if major tax changes are ever a problem for Republicans (although they seem to prefer tax cuts for wealthy supporters).
Most high-income countries provide some version of universal healthcare, with better health outcomes and at much lower cost than in the U.S. The potential long wait times that Simon describes should be viewed as evidence that we as a nation are not adequately equipped to provide healthcare to all of our people. So, a change to any version of universal healthcare would hopefully include a transition, as we train more physicians and other healthcare providers, and develop appropriate facilities.
As Medicare was being debated in the early 1960s, Republicans warned us that it would be dangerous socialism. If you want to hear how preposterous this scare tactic really is, listen to Ronald Reagan’s 1961 speech on socialized medicine, available on YouTube.
— David J. Roberts, emeritus associate accountancy professor, Skokie
Health of public officials
I understand a person’s right to privacy and the laws that protect those rights. They are an important part of America’s constitutional heritage. However, I believe that right should not fully extend to public officials, elected or appointed, who are drawing paychecks and benefits from the taxpayer.
In that instance, the taxpayer is supporting their employee, the public official, and is thus the employer. That status gives citizens the right to an explanation for the long-term absences of elected and appointed taxpayer-paid leaders.
The nonprofit organization Network for Public Health Law reasons that public officials have a duty to keep taxpayers informed of their availability for work. Prevention of fraud, deception and public accountability are reasons given for this suggestion. However, individual dignity, the possible effect of hiding a chronic or fatal diagnosis and possible coercion of the public officials are reasons given to retain total Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) privacy for public officials.
In the end, the public should be aware of the severe medical problems of public officials unless doing so compromises national security or a legitimate law enforcement goal.
— Ira Schafer, Bourbonnais, Illinois
Note to readers
Construction on Chicago streets and bridges this summer has created headaches for many drivers. We’d like to hear from you about your frustrations with the delays and the city’s management of the closures and detours. Send a letter of no more than 400 words by Wednesday, Sept. 2 to [email protected]. Be sure to include your full name and city/town.
More Top Picks Best Shop Table Saws
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].