RUTHFULLY YOURS

Political leaders and health officials have often invoked “science” to justify decisions manifestly guided by their personal preferences. That costs them credibility. Restoring public confidence will require acknowledging their role in politicizing the pandemic, yielding to accommodations and sensible alternatives in the areas of greatest controversy, and focusing on the widely supported goal of not overwhelming hospitals, rather than less meaningful metrics such as increases in Covid-19 cases.

One of the earliest signs of politicization was the broad animus directed at protesters who objected to the lockdowns. In a country where liberty and free expression are as fundamental as air and water, it is remarkable how casually political leaders and health officials disparaged and banned their activities—and even targeted protesters for prosecution. Politics was also at play when New York Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered police in Brooklyn to break up a crowd of mourners who gathered for a Hasidic Jewish funeral, warning that their actions were “unacceptable” and threatening to arrest them.

Contrast this with the approach that many of the same political leaders and public-health experts took toward the protests catalyzed by George Floyd’s killing. These protesters were neither maligned nor targeted with fines and arrests based on social distancing or mask mandates. They were often joined in the streets by politicians such as Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy.

The double standard in treatment was political. All these public gatherings were led by people expressing sincerely held beliefs that they felt outweighed the risk of Covid-19 transmission. Protecting such expression, regardless of viewpoint, is fundamental to the integrity of a democracy. Instead, politicians played favorites with this core American tenet.

Medical experts have also lost the empathy that previously characterized their approach to public health. Many illnesses spread as a result of personal decisions and behavior. The contemporary consensus in the medical community has been to acknowledge—without judgment—that preferences and circumstances of individuals vary. This has been true even when individual decisions affect the health of others. This is why public-health experts advocate pre-exposure prophylaxis antiretrovirals for HIV prevention, needle-exchange programs for drug users, and, in the U.K., e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

But this wisdom hasn’t been afforded to the Covid-19 pandemic. There is little accommodation for people who avoid masks because of difficulty breathing, claustrophobia or the belief that one’s face shouldn’t be subject to public policing. Some medical ethicists have suggested that if ventilators are in short supply, patients who religiously used masks and adhered to social distancing should receive priority—rationing medical care to punish noncompliance.

Further corroding public trust was health officials’ reversal about wearing masks. In February, they discouraged their use and told the public there was no evidence they were effective. Yet when questioned by Rep. David McKinley (R., W.Va.) on June 23, Anthony Fauci claimed the initial guidance was motivated by concerns about medical supply shortages—not doubts about mask effectiveness. No wonder many Americans don’t trust the calls to wear masks.

If political leaders and health experts want to restore their credibility and the public’s confidence, they need to begin by acknowledging that politics rather than science has influenced important public-health decisions and by making accommodations for dissenting perspectives. Alternatives to masks, for instance, include physical distancing and using face shields while indoors.

And while there is more to learn about immunity, there has not been a single confirmed case of reinfection among the 10 million cases of Covid-19 world-wide, according to a May report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Until the data say otherwise, people who have recovered from Covid-19 should be exempt from restrictions.

The most important step political leaders and health officials can take is to base their decisions on hospital capacity, rather than case counts, which inevitably will continue to increase among low-risk young people. Policing of social distance and restrictions on personal, educational and business activities are fueling culture wars. Focusing on the goal of not overwhelming hospitals is sensible and less vulnerable to politicization—so long as the data are publicly available for independent analysis. Hospitals often run near capacity to maximize profits, so the promises made during shutdowns to increase capacity need to be fulfilled—or capacity will become a political weapon.

Since citizens are already opting out of high-risk activities they want to avoid, let them enter bars, enjoy the beach, exercise at the gym, and learn in school if they choose. The government should intervene with mandates and closures only if regional hospital capacity requires it, while being transparent about bed availability, illness severity of hospitalized patients, and efforts to increase treatment capacity, including the supply of promising medications such as remdesivir and dexamethasone.

These steps would make the struggle against Covid-19 more sustainable and less politicized. Less petty squabbling and wasting of resources would mean more attention for strategies to protect the most vulnerable Americans.

Dr. Ladapo is an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.