COVID guidance messages weren't 'conflicting,' they were scientifically driven
I would like to comment on the opinion piece written by Mr. Glenn Farkas and published by you on Aug. 19. My comments will address only a few of his misunderstandings about scientific research.
He stated that "health experts too often gave conflicting messages" about the spread of the COVID pandemic. What he failed to grasp is that the opinions and messages from the scientific communities were based on what was known and verifiable at the time the opinions were given. As circumstances changed for the worse, largely driven by people who refused to wear masks or to get vaccinated or to avoid large crowds, the opinions and recommendations also changed to reflect the changing patterns of infection.
The opinions, therefore, reflected what was happening at the time. The directives of the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, "vacillated" because circumstances vacillated, not because of any political motivation as Mr. Farkas suggested.
I have been a working physician for 50 years. Many medical journals have adopted the concept of "cost/benefit ratio" when discussing new medical treatments. Mr. Farkas stated that this ratio is "nebulous" when applied to the need for children to wear masks in school.
In fact, he said that Gov. Pritzker was using a "dictatorship-style" of governing with this mandate. The facts are that wearing a mask protects people from acquiring and spreading the virus.
This is protection for our children and grandchildren for whom the cost is incidental and the protection is significant.
William Blustein, M.D.