Blog

Jun 29, 2023

Opinion

Advertisement Supported by letters To the Editor: Re “‘Do Something’ Is Not Science,” by Bret Stephens (column, Feb. 22): Mr. Stephens says mask mandates made no difference in the pandemic. He cites a

Advertisement

Supported by

letters

To the Editor:

Re “‘Do Something’ Is Not Science,” by Bret Stephens (column, Feb. 22):

Mr. Stephens says mask mandates made no difference in the pandemic. He cites a recent study that compiles evidence from multiple randomized control trials (where groups instructed to wear masks are compared with control groups that do not).

He fails to mention a really important caveat, which the authors of the study themselves admit to: The study cannot draw definitive conclusions for a number of reasons, including that adherence among the study sample that was supposed to wear masks was low. If this group fails to wear masks regularly, they may be exposed to a viral infection and come down with similar rates of illness to the control group that was not supposed to wear masks.

For immunocompromised people, this type of reporting is irresponsible. If Mr. Stephens is going to lean heavily on this study, he should portray the limitations accurately.

Erin KelleyWashington

To the Editor:

I usually find Bret Stephens’s columns to be fair and well reasoned, but the one on mask mandates to decrease exposure to Covid was a glaring exception.

Based on a study done for a British nonprofit, Cochrane, his column states with assurance that masks, including N-95 respirators, made no difference in people contracting Covid and other respiratory diseases.

I read the Cochrane report, and it states in its conclusions: “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.”

Alan DynnerBoston

To the Editor:

Bret Stephens vilified and applauded the wrong people. Mr. Stephens’s conclusion, based on the Cochrane study, that “mask mandates were a bust” may be true. I don’t know. But I do know that the C.D.C. and other medical professionals recommending mask wearing were not acting out of incompetence, negligence or for any sinister reason. Based on the best available science these men and women were doing their best to protect the health and safety of the American people.

On the other hand, most of those opposing the mandates were not doing so based on an evaluation of the science, but rather on a misguided interpretation of American individualism rooted in right-wing ideology that was reinforced by Donald Trump and amplified on the internet.

Intent and motive matter. So, even if it turns out that masks are ineffective against the spread of Covid, before calling for an apology from the people who were on the front lines fighting the pandemic, as Mr. Stephens does, let’s remember who was working for the welfare of the country and who was objecting to the precautions for political, not health, reasons.

David YanesHuntington, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Let’s not confuse masks with mask mandates. Masks work very well indeed. Mask mandates don’t work because people don’t strictly observe them.

Would Bret Stephens advise drivers not to wear seatbelts because seatbelts don’t work when they’re not used?

Ben GivanSaratoga Springs, N.Y.

To the Editor:

Re “Helping My Child Navigate the Impossible,” by Sarah Wildman (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 19):

Ms. Wildman’s essay about her family’s experience facing her older daughter’s cancer is real, wrenching and wise. Our hearts go out to her as she deals with one of the hardest things a parent can confront.

We strongly agree that it is crucial to face even the harshest realities with our children by having open, honest and compassionate conversations. These conversations are daunting, yet we recommend them to the families confronting illness, death and loss that we meet with daily in our work as therapists and school consultants.

We have seen, time and again, that when parents withhold truths, in a well-intentioned attempt to prevent their children from experiencing emotional pain, they can actually engender more fear, confusion and isolation.

Then children are left emotionally alone to process frightening situations that they often sense or know about even when they haven’t been told. Ms. Wildman poignantly demonstrates that these conversations, though difficult, are immensely worth having.

We believe that there are honest ways to approach talking about painful circumstances and feelings that make it possible for our children to face the inevitable challenges that illness and other life experiences present. These conversations can bring a deep closeness to families as together they face terrifying possibilities.

Echoing Ms. Wildman, we believe that we all want to know that we have done all that we can to provide our children with solace and emotional support while we have the chance.

Elena ListerMichael SchwartzmanNew YorkDr. Lister is a psychiatrist, and Dr. Schwartzman a psychologist. They are the authors of “Giving Hope: Conversations With Children About Illness, Death and Loss.”

To the Editor:

Re “Fetterman Checks Into Hospital to Get Treatment for Depression” (front page, Feb. 17):

As someone who has also experienced clinical depression, I was very sad to read that Senator John Fetterman has been hospitalized for depression.

But the news also fills me with satisfaction, relief and hope. Satisfaction that decades of efforts to destigmatize and educate the public about mental illness, especially one as common as depression, are bearing fruit. Relief that an elected official and his family do not feel the need to hide his condition when they are already suffering so much. Hope that all Americans, including the senator’s constituents, will be inspired by his courage, and that those who are also suffering from mental illness will be inspired to seek the help they need and deserve.

Elizabeth Arend DuttaNew DelhiThe writer works in the behavioral health field at the Primary Care Coalition in Montgomery County, Md.

To the Editor:

Re “Would You Have Four Kids if It Meant Never Paying Taxes Again?,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, nytimes.com, Feb. 8):

I appreciate Ms. Grose’s important investigation into the poor effectiveness of financial incentives for childbearing. Many governments are fretting about declining birthrates, without considering that women may not want to have larger families, or that infinite population growth is incompatible with a finite planet.

Across the world, once women gain the power to manage their fertility and to pursue education and a career, they almost invariably choose to have fewer children. Sure, children are expensive, but they are also limiting in countless other ways, especially for women.

The combination of biological factors and social expectations means that motherhood becomes a woman’s primary role and commitment for 18 or more years, especially if she has a large family. Many women do not wish to make this enormous sacrifice.

Ending human population growth is key to fighting climate change, biodiversity loss and natural resource depletion, and is a prerequisite to achieving sustainability. Let’s embrace low fertility rates as the hugely positive development they represent.

Olivia NaterBoulder, Colo.The writer is the communications manager at Population Connection.

Advertisement