It is a mystery to me why the authors of the op-ed “The furtive messaging around monkeypox feels awfully familiar” (July 7) are obsessed with defining monkeypox as a sexually transmitted disease. Monkeypox is transmitted by contact with skin lesions or with objects that might harbor infectious virus, such as towels, sheets and clothing. Of course, sex involves skin-to-skin contact, but defining monkeypox as a sexually transmitted disease, one that right now is affecting gay men most heavily, sends the wrong public health message.
How does defining it as sexually transmitted help my patients in a monogamous relationship who might be exposed at a dance party surrounded by shirtless sweaty people? (No sex involved.) And how does it help the 70-year-old uncle of my patient with monkeypox, when that uncle has to be careful to not share towels and sterilize the shared toilet seat? Again, no sex.
If the authors have their way, real public health messages will get obscured. Erroneously calling this a sexually transmitted disease and saying it is mostly affecting gay men right now will lead to people mistakenly thinking that if they are not having gay sex, they are at no risk.
If there is anything we learned in fighting the HIV epidemic, this will only guarantee the spread of monkeypox to ever wider communities. Instead, I salute the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Chicago Department of Public Health, as well as major figures in the infectious disease community, for approaching this rapidly worsening health problem in a more rational and less judgmental way, grounded in good public health practices.
— Dr. Howard A. Grossman, HIV specialist, Howard Brown Health, Chicago
Heroism amid holiday tragedy
July Fourth began with such anticipation. I was looking forward to a quieter day, a chance to relax and enjoy a needed break. Around 10:15 that morning, I heard sirens screaming toward the north, and the shooting was announced in a text. Within a second, everything changed,
I thought of my former pastor and his new parish, in the center of where the shooting was. Were they OK? I felt immense relief that he and his parishioners were not on the parade route when the killings began, and amid that, heroism came through.
No one was a stranger that day: Children were gathered up, a woman in an apartment hid a family until it was safe to reemerge, employees in a store sheltered dozens of people, and my former pastor like any shepherd gathered people and placed them in the church as sanctuary. Some heroes from that day are known, and others aren’t, but the heroism was still the same: They all honored the sanctity of life and gave such a sense of hope.
Even amid such loss and tragedy, there was a showing of what we can be capable of, of where our hearts are in the saddest of times.
— Amanda May, Evanston
Tax gun owners for their ‘right’
While gun right advocates twist logic to try to explain why the Constitution isn’t about outfitting a militia; why killings are about metal health, which is rarely the case; and why more guns will reduce gun violence while the opposite is true, I want to understand why it’s only about their “right” to have the gun regardless of our rights to live without constraint.
I have to get to airports two hours early to go through metal detectors, I am searched and have to empty my pockets at events, and our school funding has to go to police and metal detectors. My tax dollars cover trauma therapy, additional police equipment including vests and shields, increased health care costs, increased court costs, etc.
When are my rights going to be considered?
Time to shame gun owners. They are responsible for this. They should shoulder these costs and restrictions to our liberties. Tax gun owners for this “right.”
— Terry Zelenka, Chicago
New declaration of independence
Given recent events, I can only hope that one day America will declare its independence from the National Rifle Association.
— Daniel Welch, Glen Ellyn
Give us solutions, City Hall
As a Chicagoan for the past six decades, I’ve heard politicians tell us the problems. We know the problems; we live in the city.
To City Hall: Don’t tell us the problems. Tell us the solutions. Do something. We are dying.
— Roberto Garcia, Chicago
Compromise between the two?
In his op-ed in the July 1 Tribune (“Our two failing parties need to be shaken up by independents”), Daniel Lipinski correctly states that the two major parties are becoming increasingly extreme and less willing to compromise. He offers himself as a candidate who is not extreme in either direction and therefore is willing to work out compromises between the two extremes.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose three individuals are running for office: Jesus, Satan and Lipinski. Who should you vote for: good, evil or a compromise between the two?
My point is that compromise is the best alternative only when the positions of both parties represent reprehensible extremes. At this point, the Republican positions on many issues do represent reprehensible extremes.
So rather than considering a compromise candidate, we must double and triple our work and donations nationwide to elect enough Democrats to overwhelm Republicans.
We are in a fight to the death — the death of democracy if we lose.
— Darold Barnum, Oak Park
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
