Opinion | The Anti-Vaxxers and Their Enablers

More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “‘Better Safe Than Sorry’: Los Angeles Reinstates Indoor Mask Mandate” (news article, July 19):

Mandating masks indoors for those who are fully vaccinated may put a damper on the vaccination movement. The attitude may now be: Why get vaccinated if we have to wear a mask anyway? Instead of encouraging vaccinations, Los Angeles County is discouraging them.

Many people fear the vaccine and need a good incentive to take it. The just reward of going mask-free has been unjustly snatched away.

JoAnn Lee Frank
Clearwater, Fla.

To the Editor:

Re “Where Few Got Covid Vaccine, Many Get Sick” (front page, July 18):

The Arkansas pulmonologist caring for patients who have flooded Covid-19 wards this summer has it backward. It isn’t selfish for Dr. Rebecca Martin to lament being unable to go home to have dinner with her kids. That label instead belongs to those in her community who refused a safe and effective vaccine for a life-threatening illness and now require her expertise.

Debbie Duncan
Stanford, Calif.

To the Editor:

Re “Vocal Chiropractors Split the Profession on Vaccines” (Business, July 16):

I read this article with great dismay but without surprise. I am a chiropractor from Missouri, a state with a low vaccination rate. I am surrounded professionally and personally by people whose delusions are promoting the spread of Covid, in all its terrifying forms. I was grateful to be vaccinated in January and signed up to volunteer in the vaccine clinics.

The chiropractor may offer a healthy alternative to traditional medical care. At our best, we can effectively manage the pain and dysfunction of musculoskeletal injuries without the use of drugs or surgery. At our worst we are dangerous and lead people astray with false claims.

The positions on vaccines expressed by some health professionals in this article are misinformed and irresponsible, and they should be penalized by our state boards.

Linda W. Smith
St. Louis

To the Editor:

Re “The Republican Path From Warp Speed Praise to Vaccine Opposition” (news analysis, July 19):

The position of many Republican politicians, at least publicly, is that the government should not dictate that our population receive vaccinations. You quote Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeting: “People have a choice, they don’t need your medical brown shirts showing up at their door ordering vaccinations. You can’t force people to be part of the human experiment.”

So let me get this straight: This is the same party that insists that the government has the right to force women to maintain pregnancies, whether they like it or not, and is doing everything it can to pass anti-abortion legislation. People have a choice?

Hinda Keller Farber
New Rochelle, N.Y.

Betty Rollin, on the Journalist Who Pursued the Jeffrey Epstein Story

To the Editor:

Re “Her Fight to Expose Epstein, and Earn a Living,” by Michelle Goldberg (column, July 18):

I suppose I worked hard as a journalist. I had a bit of trouble getting a book on breast cancer published in the 1970s when the subject was, as they say, hush-hush. There were even moments of danger — a prison riot or two — while I was at NBC.

But when I read Ms. Goldberg’s column about what Julie K. Brown went through trying to get the truth out about the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, I am humbled. She not only knocked herself out to get the story, but she also did it without any encouragement from her employers at The Miami Herald.

They allowed her to pursue the story, but cut her salary, which led to her thinking about what she calls her “waitressing chops from my early years in journalism.”

The Herald had nothing against Ms. Brown; it was just going through tough times and didn’t have the luxury of supporting a reporter’s talent and industry.

In view of that, it made no sense for her to push ahead. But she did. She felt that she had to. And now, her push is a book, “Perversion of Justice,” which I’ve just ordered.

Betty Rollin
New York
The writer is the author of “First, You Cry” and “Last Wish.”

We Need a Stronger Commitment to Renewable Energy

To the Editor:

Re “U.S. Confronts Critical Choices on Power Lines” (front page, July 12):

Pitting centralized wind and solar power against decentralized solutions misses the point.

Together, wind and solar supply about 11 percent of America’s electricity. That’s a tiny fraction of what’s needed if we are to achieve President Biden’s goal of supplying “100 percent carbon-pollution-free electricity” by 2035.

Capturing the huge wind power potential of rural states like Wyoming and the Dakotas has long been in the works, but transmission plans have been held up by funding hurdles and frictions between state and federal regulators. The infusion of funding for new transmission in the pending Infrastructure Framework is one critical step in the right direction. Empowering the proposed Grid Authority to break logjams on permits is another.

At the same time, we must make a major push to develop solar power at the local level. Extending the federal investment tax credit for residential solar beyond its planned phaseout at the end of 2023 is one key step. This must include a provision allowing low- and moderate-income households to convert the tax credit to an outright grant.

This is not a time to choose between going big and going local in our transition to renewables. We clearly need a vigorous commitment to both.

Philip Warburg
Newton, Mass.
The writer is a senior fellow at Boston University’s Institute for Sustainable Energy.

Source: Read Full Article