Talk:Monica Gandhi

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Remove paragraph in section 'Research and career': Gandhi was criticized by Mehdi Hasan during her appearance on his MSNBC talk show in February 2022 for her predictions during the pandemic and ending restrictions early.[19]

Comment has undue weight in section considering the viewpoint is an outlier in the topic of COVID endemicity, particularly when the US CDC, under the Biden Administration, lifted travel restrictions on November 8, 2021 , lifted masking mandates in certain settings on June 10, 2021 , and also revised isolation and quarantine restrictions on December 27, 2021 .

Dr. Gandhi's comments are in line with US COVID policy consensus and the Mehdi Hasan interview has too much weight in the article/should be removed as an outlier Wikiscientist578 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also please seek consensus - FlightTime (open channel) 18:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID predictions, criticism and undue weight

So anyway, still feels undue, because many doctors and clinicians had made predictions throughout the various COVID waves that didn't materialize. It depends what they said, how they said it, and so on. To that: that MSNBC player is not worky for me —hey DNC, the website for your news channel sucks (why can't it be like your other channel, CNNNNNNN?)— so, erm, for me, it's challenging to tell what that criticism is even about, specifically. How pertinent it is. Scope. Context. Et cetera etc.

Now, this isn't to say that IPs claiming to be the subject (unconfirmed) have approached this right. They did not. If they are her (not unlikely, but who really knows), you'd think that a doctor would know the most basic thing about defamation laws. Also, as far as undue material, this doesn't seem too major, but it is still subpar in my view in its current state. I think the best thing to do would be to remove that addition and place the WP:ONUS on reaching consensus for its inclusion on, uh, well, those who wish to see it included. El_C 10:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You realize this is an international forum and no one outside of America knows what the DNC is. How is any of this relevant to the sourcing of the article? Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the addition in question for the time being (diff). To reiterate: not an admin action (WP:COVIDDS or otherwise) on my part — am now WP:INVOLVED. Thx! El_C 11:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And I went ahead and reinstated the passage since the point of the protection was to stop people from removing it. COVID Collaborative is a front for the Walton family/other billionaires to spread their libertarian narrative throughout society. (Redacted) TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted your BLPvio, please don't do that. On the content side, is there any secondary coverage of the interview to show it's noteworthy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

While I'm concerned about the motives of the requester (Wikiscientist578 is a single purpose account), I do agree that the criticism of one media personality for her opinions that were not so far outside the mainstream thinking of the time, does not merit the weight it is given. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it for now until there is consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly looks entirely undue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

COVID Collaborative

What is it and should it be mentioned/used as a source in the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A good question. Needs explanation, and secondary sources, if it merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if there's some secondary coverage, it's probably worth inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on what the secondary sources say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if the secondary coverage is in The Daily Wire and talks about how she's a deep state plant for supporting mask usage, and the COVID Collaborative is just a front for ZOG, we should probably leave it out. To be more clear, we should look at what is available in secondary sources to see if it's noteworthy, and if there is enough detail to work up decent prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a libertarian think tank, but you're not going to see that revealed in any mainstream sources. The monied interests behind it are listed on the bottom of this webpage. They are: Allstate, Leona B. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, MCJ Amelior Foundation, Pure Edge, Skoll Foundation and Walton Family Foundation. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

And noted libertarian Deval Patrick and the far right Corporation for Public Broadcasting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

From Deval Patrick article - "Patrick is a managing director at Bain Capital". TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Decisions on appropriate Wikipedia content are based on what reliable sources say about the subject, not on assertions concerning things we're "not going to see... revealed in any mainstream sources". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So the question then becomes - what qualifies this doctor to speak about COVID-19 so frequently and be cited in worldwide news sources? It's not her research, which is unrelated. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask the 'worldwide news sources' that. Meanwhile, since said sources have cited her, you'll need to come up with an actual reason why we shouldn't report that fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

She was put into the media circuit by crypto-libertarian Regina Benjamin in order to recommend people wear face masks as part of a long term plan to make them so angry about wearing face masks they would overthrow the government and usher in a new libertarian utopia. Or it might be that she's a highly placed doctor who has a masters in public health with a focus on epidemiology and biostatistics. I'm pretty sure it's one of those two. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Liberals and conservatives play "no u" with each other despite the fact that both sides harbor corrupt Capitalists. The humor you are attempting just keeps this fallacy going. This pandemic isn't going to end because the wealthy would rather put bad-faith messaging into the media that the pandemic is over/improving instead of actually spending money to end the pandemic. TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what anything you've said in this section has to do with this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCALLTOMANTHEBARRICADESCOMRADES. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is some about-info, not independent though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

So find us neutral, third-party, non-mainstream media and add the items in question to the article. Science isn't right or wrong, it just is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent change to COVID-19 section doesn't seem to match sources

Issues with an unintended submission. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, can you say where in the sources you provided that Gandhi has attracted media attention for being a strong critic of imposing lockdowns, which she argues prevent those living with HIV from receiving optimum cure and care. comes from? In the first source I see only Ending the pandemic could ultimately come down to behavioral change, Gandhi said. Just like closing down bathhouses in San Francisco and telling people to be abstinent did not stop the AIDS epidemic, Gandhi noted that lockdowns are a “blunt instrument” to stop the spread of the COVID-19. “The behavior change was something that was an individual decision that needed to be made,” she said. In the 1980s, it was encouraging people to wear condoms. Today, it is telling people to wear masks. Second source is just "At this point, we are too far away from AIDS 2020 to have a definitive decision yet on whether it will be held in person or virtually until we can observe the course of containment over the next month or so," conference co-chair Dr. Monica Gandhi of UCSF and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital told the Bay Area Reporter. "We will make this decision thoughtfully and with plenty of time for people to arrange travel if needed." That is the only time her name is used in the article. Third source has Suddenly, he and other AIDS advocates, researchers, doctors and patients have a 40-year-old epidemic and a brand new pandemic to worry about. "The concern is that AIDS is already being set back by COVID-19," says Dr. Monica Gandhi, director of the University of California San Francisco Center for AIDS Research. At just about the time in January that Gandhi and other scientists, doctors and patient advocates were submitting abstracts for the AIDS conference, ominous reports were coming out of Wuhan, China, that a cluster of pneumonia cases were caused by a novel coronavirus. The disease triggered by the virus became known as COVID-19. Within weeks, it began spreading around the world and just as quickly dominated the world's attention... Experts are also worried that fears of catching the coronavirus are stopping people from getting tested for HIV. "In San Francisco, we're down 90% in HIV testing since COVID," says Gandhi. "The message to come in early and get tested for HIV has changed. Now, people are told to stay away," says Gandhi. HIV screening tests were also down in Boston by 85%, according to a study done at the Fenway Institute in March and April 2020 and presented at the AIDS conference. I'm going to revert, the change does not appear to be supported by the sources cited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Unintended submission - I saw this post after my latest edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Issues with TB's version

She has also highlighted how lockdowns have prevented those living with HIV from receiving optimum cure and care, leading to preventable fatalities.

This line is summarized from this article:

In the weeks after the 2020 order to shelter in place, Gandhi kept a close eye on her patients. What she was seeing only confirmed her worst fears about closing Ward 86. “There was a lot of depression — depression, anxiety, substance abuse, overdose — the number of overdose deaths that we had, I can’t even name how many people we’ve had die in our clinic.”

Viral loads were on the rise, too — a cornerstone of HIV/AIDS medicine is reducing a patient’s viral load, to get it as close to undetectable as possible. Now the pandemic was threatening years of progress. “I saw the (HIV) viral load suppression rate dropping in our clinic. ... That’s when I changed.”

By early June 2020, she was confident she could open the clinic safely. It was clear to her the lack of outpatient care was more destructive than the risk of the novel coronavirus if proper measures were put in place. Meanwhile, patient data supported Gandhi’s approach. She’s working on a paper now that shows reopening Ward 86 reversed the climbing viral rates among her patients.

How is my line lacking in context? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with the addition of the material regarding COVID lockdowns and their effects on HIV patients. But that does not justify the removal of the rest of the COVID material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Material that is appended with a fv tag?

Or do you like the long quotes? [In case it is news to you, we write an encyclopedia in a summary-style.]

We cannot source content from her own columns in the (patently ridiculous) format of, For instance, she commented ... Her comments from various columns become important enough to merit inclusion iff they have been discussed by other sources; otherwise, there is a factor of UNDUE at play.

I do neither see how her membership of an insignificant body (Google brings me 7 results for "COVID Collaborative coalition" including our article) is important. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the COVID collaborative stuff, as I said above it would need secondary sourcing. For the mention of being cited by media sources, the wording is bad, but clearly she is because we're using media sources citing her as our own sources. Also, from the sfchronicle piece, Gandhi’s first brush with criticism came when she co-wrote several studies about the benefits of masking and ventilation... She wrote about the topic for the Atlantic... And that week, she published three additional essays in three media outlets. There's good secondary sourcing for her writing on COVID-19 being published in the media. I'm fine with cutting down the quotes. My primary concern is saying that she's a strong critic of lockdowns or shelter in place, as that is unsupported by anything, and is treading into BLPvio territory. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is additional context found in the other sources you had cited, for instance, Researchers at Fenway Health, a Boston community health center, examined electronic records of its patients in March and April of 2020 and found a drop in the number of people refilling prescriptions for preventive drugs, called PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis. And 72% fewer than expected new patients started PrEP during those two months, probably because people are afraid to go to health care centers, says Gandhi... Experts are also worried that fears of catching the coronavirus are stopping people from getting tested for HIV. "In San Francisco, we're down 90% in HIV testing since COVID," says Gandhi... Suddenly, he and other AIDS advocates, researchers, doctors and patients have a 40-year-old epidemic and a brand new pandemic to worry about. "The concern is that AIDS is already being set back by COVID-19," says Dr. Monica Gandhi, director of the University of California San Francisco Center for AIDS Research.[1] To sum that up entirely as a lockdown/shelter in place issue loses the fullness of what is being reported in RS.

I'm also very concerned about Gandhi has attracted media attention for being a strong critic of imposing lockdowns which is not supported by sources. The source you're citing makes it clear that it is public and social media based criticism, not media criticsm, The public criticism, much of it on social media, is another thing entirely; it can be vicious and unforgiving. There is also no support for the reason she's been attracting attention in the media being her views on lockdowns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what additional context the source provides except a fear factor. Add it but how does that make my line inaccurate? Did Gandhi not suggest what I wrote explicitly? Did I misrepresent sources?

On the locus of media-attention, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to say that she highlighted how the lockdowns have prevented care, then including something about what she says is probably the cause, probably because people are afraid to go to health care centers, says Gandhi, is reasonable. The section is about coverage about her and COVID-19, not specifically about her views on lockdowns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have used her profile by Ryan Kost to draft the sentence. If you feel I have misrepresented Kost, please point it out.

But if you feel that other sources can be used to better my drafting and introduce more nuance (or whatever), please do. That is how editors collaborate in this project and improve our articles incrementally. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This was the first time — but hardly the last — that Gandhi found herself questioning San Francisco’s conservative approach to the pandemic [read, lockdowns]. She’d spend the next year and a half living in an uncomfortable gray space, advocating for a harm-reduction approach to the COVID-19 pandemic that sometimes ran counter to a far more cautious approach held by many in San Francisco and other liberal enclaves. This [Gandhi's part. brand of advocacy] would earn her fans and tens of thousands of followers on Twitter. It would also lead to some stinging backlash and a reputation as one of San Francisco’s most controversial infectious disease experts.

This reputation is not on Twitter (and tbh, neither atrributable to media as I did). But there was nothing to be very concerned about when I wrote that Gandhi has attracted attention due to her critique of lockdowns. A cursory rewording would have solved the issue.

Btw, SFR, you take responsibility of all content that you restore. Please respond to my objections to the current content. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

questioning San Francisco’s conservative approach to the pandemic... sometimes ran counter to a far more cautious approach held by many in San Francisco and other liberal enclaves Does any of that say, or even imply, "strong criticism?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What is your opinion after reading this interview esp. the factoid about her coining the neologism "lockdownists" or her treating them as the other? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"We won’t be able to know the exact percentage it drove, but I would say closing outdoor dining certainly did not help and likely hindered efforts to avoid a surge," she said. "It shut down in early December, and things did not get better from there; things actually got worse. Restrictions should be about understanding the human condition and keeping places that are safe open. Those of us who argue for a harm reduction approach have the same goal as the lockdownists: We want to reduce transmission, but we understand the human condition and the need to be with people."

It seems that we decided early on that there's only one way to respond, and any dissent from standard messaging was met with dismay and criticism. For example, in terms of the winter lockdown in California, I was dismayed by the degree of profound shutdowns for outdoor playgrounds, outdoor dining and also this idea that no one from two households could see each other. It was those three things that concerned me, since we knew outdoor spaces were safe, and going into holiday season, loneliness and the desire to see loved ones is a real phenomenon.

I would say that San Francisco did extremely well in controlling the severity of illness, and I'm not even sure it’s all the Department of Public Health's doing. We have the natural advantage of ventilation by virtue of our geography, so we had ventilation, mask wearing and lots of lockdowns, which gave us a fantastically low death rate.

I don't think "strong critic" is a fit after reading this. And I don't think applying a label like that, that apparently hasn't been used in any source, is the right way forward. Saying that some parts of the lockdown concerned you because you knew they would be ineffective is much different than being a strong critic of lockdowns in general. There is a lot more nuance going on, and assigned a label that no RS has isn't going to capture that nuance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Another good one here, "When the new lockdown came down, a friend of mine said we've basically been under lockdown in San Francisco since March," Gandhi said. "So I think the dance of opening and closing elsewhere was a necessary dance, since it allowed people economic relief and social relief in between waves. But in California, the system was quite strict and didn't allow that release. And it wasn't just the state; counties like San Francisco didn’t even allow what the state was allowing to reopen. San Francisco was even more strict." ... "In Pennsylvania, every time they announced a new lockdown, they announced in the same breath new widely available grants," she said. "I know we’re broke and it’s really hard to find money, but I think if economic rewards were mentioned in same breath as business closures, they may have been more palatable."[2] Disagreeing with the exact way something is being done isn't the same as flatly being a critic of it. On the plus side, I'm finding a lot more sources for the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

because you knew - Meh. The issue with Gandhi's contrarian posturing is that she is sometimes right but mostly, flat wrong. An example among many others.

In any case, for the umpteenth time, you are free to reword my content rather than blanket-revert. Though I am damn sure that a high-quality source exists that characterized her as a "strong critic"; let me locate it. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I propose my line to be reworded as: Gandhi has attracted attention for her criticism of certain aspects of lockdowns imposed in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. But, this sounds a tad weird. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How's this?

Gandhi is a proponent of risk reduction as a response to COVID-19, and taking human behavior into account when forming policy. She has been a strong supporter of mask mandates and universal masking to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. She has been critical of some aspects of COVID-19 lockdowns, especially those in the San Francisco Bay area, which she argues are blunt measures that do not account for individual behavioral choices, desire to be with people, and their effect on outpatient care and mental health. She has also highlighted how fear of COVID-19 and stay at home orders have prevented those living with HIV from receiving optimum cure and care, leading to preventable fatalities. Gandhi has advocated for resumption of on-campus classes and loosening of holiday gathering guidelines while advocating for risk mitigation such as social distancing, masking and gathering outdoors.

She gained social media fame after joining Twitter in April 2020, writing about COVID-19 and harm reduction. She also co-wrote several studies, and had pieces published in The Atlantic and other media. Some of these writings spurred public criticism, much of it on social media, both for her pro-mask views, and her views on opening schools and easing lockdowns.

It's just a rough draft, but I think it may address your concerns, and mine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree but will incorporate some changes. Btw, she seem to have changed her stances on masks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think There is a growing consensus that cloth masks do very little to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus from spreading. Even surgical masks are probably only marginally effective. Although N95 and KN95 masks have shown some effectiveness for preventing infection when worn by vulnerable individuals, these higher-quality devices only work provided the mask is worn correctly — a particularly challenging task for younger children, who remove and reapply their masks throughout the day. is the consensus now?

The argument that children must wear masks to protect vulnerable adults is also unjustified, particularly now that highly effective vaccines for older children and adults, post-exposure prophylaxis for vulnerable persons and more effective treatments are available. Continuing to require masks in schools (or airplanes, for that matter) simply makes no sense. Such restrictions defy the guidance of the WHO, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and other global organizations.

I'm not seeing anything untrue or wrong. Consensus on things like this has been changing steadily throughout the pandemic, so I wouldn't really say that she changed her stance on masks, when they were one of the only tools to mitigate risk and now there is universally available vaccine and near universally available treatments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I will draft a response, tomorrow. Check my edit and feel free to introduce minor tweaks etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded a touch and done some copy editing, and I'm happy with the current prose. I'd like to see what others think of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The editorial comments on the interview has a strategic choice of prepositions and words:

While the vast majority of experts in her field call for the most stringent business closures and other mitigation measures, Gandhi — a professor of medicine at UCSF — has called for a "harm reduction" approach that also considers other risks beyond COVID-19 infection when making public policy.

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Health is not just the absence of disease. The US "healthcare" system has long been criticized as a "disease care" system. There isn't an equivalent term to criticize heavyhanded public health COVID restrictions used and abused by politicians that in some ways have been proven to be more harmful than the disease itself. Shame on anyone for trying to malign Dr. Gandhi for her stances on these issues by editing her Wiki page with an agenda. She's widely quoted and hasn't been ideological on these things. Her critics (on Twitter particularly, you know who you are) absolutely are ideological. Take your agendas off of Wikipedia--they're irrelevant, they'll waste your and others' time, and could backfire on you, because if you're dumb enough to edit with an agenda, you probably are dumb enough to reveal yourself in the process. None of Gandhi's positions are fringe unless deceptively taken out of context from what was a constantly evolving pandemic situation. The only person I know of that died in the pandemic died of suicide. I had great disdain for blue state pandemic responses (I live in one of these so called blue states, for now) long before I had a tragic personal anecdote to justify my view. Gandhi's perspectives are completely mainstream and not fringe. Harm reduction has more to do with a respiratory disease. Get your agendas out of here. 2600:1012:B05E:328E:6DD7:2486:B29B:41C9 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is for an international audience, if you can't clarify what a blue state is, we can't discuss it here. The article is about the doctor. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a thing.

Just saying. WP:3RR is a thing. It might be wise for one or two contributors here to read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not a bureaucracy etc. but I won't revert anymore. So, feel free to use Twinkle's "restore this version" button. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)