Dear Amy! Since the day we met, over 40 years ago, my wife and I have been social drinkers.

Gatherings at weddings, holidays, concerts, sporting events, etc. have always been accompanied by alcohol.

While I can drink a couple of glasses and stop, as for the wife – not very much.

She will order drinks until 2 am. And while it was sometimes stupidly funny when we were younger, the end results were often embarrassing as we got older.

I was very worried about my wife’s drinking and her health.

One night when she went crazy, I filmed her, sent the video to her, and told her I didn’t want to be part of that lifestyle anymore.

I poured out all the alcohol in the house, and neither of us has drunk since.

I hardly miss him, and she also quit smoking without any problems, but mentally it was a very difficult test for her.

Alcohol was her social lubricant. Alcohol is what allowed her to overcome social anxiety and self-esteem issues.

Now she either doesn’t go to events at all, or sometimes we leave early because she’s so unhappy.

How can I make her see that she can still enjoy these experiences without using alcohol as a crutch?

— sober husband

Dear Sober! Your wife managed to stop drinking alcohol, but she failed to cope with the main reasons for which she used alcohol.

In recovery circles and the 12 steps, her problems can be called “dry drunk syndrome.” Her crutch is gone, and now she’s limping around trying to get by without it.

Even though your wife quickly quit drinking, prompted by the shame video of what her alcohol abuse did to her (and supported by your subsequent sober support), she would still benefit from seeing a drug specialist, therapist, and/or attending meetings. with other people in the recovery process.

Regular contact with other people who have also struggled to “whiten their joints” on and through recovery can help her understand her anxious reactions and feel less alone.

I hope you will be patient and support your wife in her life changing recovery.

Dear Amy: My partner and I broke up, I was overwhelmed.

I thought he was happy with me even though he struggled with depression and undiagnosed (but obvious) ADHD.

I have adjusted my expectations and behavior to accommodate him on many occasions because I also have depression so I understand the need for flexibility.

I never harassed him because he didn’t want to go out and would have gone alone.

We had a lot in common and a healthy intimate relationship.

When he said that he wanted to break up, I was upset and confused, cried and asked why he was doing this.

He replied that I was selfish if I wanted him to stay with me as a couple. He said he felt trapped. I didn’t expect to hear that either.

I have always considered myself a generous, loving person. I never thought that anyone would ever call me selfish. It was almost as painful as breaking up.

I told him that I would not stay where they did not want me, and made arrangements to move out.

Can loving someone be a selfish act?

– suddenly lonely

Dear Suddenly Lonely: People say hurtful things when they push their partner away.

The way I interpret your ex’s “selfish” statement goes back to the old adage, “If you love something, let it go.”

Your ex says that he feels trapped in the relationship and that (in his opinion) it would be selfish of you to convince him to stay in a relationship he no longer wants to be in.

And… he’s right. In this context, forcing someone to stay in a relationship can be a selfish act.

This does not mean that you are a selfish person.

You are on the unfortunate receiving side of a depressed person who may be spiraling. As much as it hurts you, it would be kinder to part amicably and offer to leave the door open for friendship.

Dear Amy! “Time Is Running Out” wanted to lie and cheat on her longtime partner, and you pushed her to do it!

I can’t believe you would be so heartless.

– Disorder

Dear Frustrated! I didn’t urge her to leave; I encouraged her to be honest and understand the consequences of her choice.

(You can write to Amy Dickinson at askamy@amydickinson.com or send an email to Ask Amy, PO Box 194, Freeville, NY 13068. You can also follow her on Twitter. @askingamy or facebook.)

© 2023 Amy Dickinson. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

All products shown on Charm independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

HOURBecause I was part of the team that developed the leading COVID-19 vaccine, I am often invited to speak or write about the successes of our work, the work that led to the fastest vaccine development in history.

But after more than three years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and with the end of America’s public health emergency on May 11, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this moment is not only an opportunity to reflect on successes, but to grapple with the setbacks, pitfalls, and setbacks that determined our response to COVID-19.

Read more: Don’t walk away from COVID-19. Learn from him

I think the responsibility for improving our response to future global health crises lies in correcting our imperfect actions. There are countless opportunities to adjust, redo or completely overhaul our response to the pandemic, but when I look at our fight against the virus, especially on the front lines, three courses of action stand out.

First, the federal government needs to change the paradigm that defines our federal research focus to be more proactive than reactive.

There are 23 families of viruses associated with human infections, and the research status of each of these families varies considerably. In my specialty of coronaviruses, we made significant progress before the pandemic hit. The success we have had was not due to some extraordinary stream of funding, but simply because we were interested in closing gaps in scientific understanding, especially in light of the recent threats posed by SARS-1 and MERS in previous years, which have demonstrated potential pandemic coronaviruses.

It is often considered “miraculous” that our COVID-19 vaccine passed Phase 1 clinical trials in just 66 days, but I believe that the vaccine development process could have been even more efficient if our technology had passed Phase 1 clinical trials before the pandemic. . Such a transition from our 2017 manuscript to a clinic would require more financial investment and intellectual resources, but we might be in a better position to move even faster when COVID-19 hits.

Read more: How America Lost the War on COVID-19

Rejoicing in our successes is also acknowledging that we are lucky; the response to the pandemic could have been much worse. Our understanding of many of these virus families lags far behind our understanding of coronaviruses. If a pathogen from one of these families ever breaks out, we will have to wait 600 days for trial, not 66. The damage done, both economically and in terms of lost clinical lives, will be devastating.

I would like us to invest in each of the 23 virus families that infect humans. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) must set milestones: key scientific milestones that we need to pass for each family of viruses so that we are ready to act quickly if a pathogen emerges and starts to spread. The investment will be significant, to be sure. But the total cost will be much less than the estimated $16 trillion impact of COVID-19 on the American economy and the massive loss of life.

Second, public health practitioners must recognize that our research is only as strong as our communication. Even our most compelling, peer-reviewed, evidence-based results will not have their full impact if we cannot communicate them clearly and effectively to the public.

Unfortunately, effectively disseminating complex information is now more difficult than ever before. Public health communicators must demonstrate both their humanity and their expertise, which can be challenging, especially in a highly polarized political environment that undermines public trust. Clarity, conciseness, honesty and empathy go a long way for the public, especially in times of uncertainty.

Public health leaders must also recognize that sometimes the messenger is just as important as the message. Instead of relying heavily on DC leadership, we must use trusted voices in communities across the country, from doctors to healthcare workers to pharmacists. With the appropriate credentials, these community leaders have achieved great results during the pandemic.

Imagine my surprise and embarrassment when I announced to America on CNN in April 2020 that we had a vaccine in development backed by years of research, only to find that almost no one had ever heard of the research. How did we allow the gap between our publications and public knowledge to become so wide? Repairing this gap is an ongoing feat.

I would like us to build a strong network that will allow White House and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials to quickly share relevant health information with local leaders—on a regular basis, not just in times of crisis. In turn, these trusted voices should be encouraged to share these updates regularly with their communities, which will help them build their credibility.

We must also fund ongoing training so that these local leaders can stay up to date with best communication practices as well as the best platforms — it didn’t take federal officials that long to start using Instagram and TikTok, for example. to reach younger populations with COVID-19 messages. By the time the White House introduced me to Snapchat, my 15-year-old niece exclaimed that no one even uses Snapchat anymore. We did not meet people where they were because we did not go with them to these places before the pandemic. It would be sad to see us return to the status quo only to catch up again in the next crisis.

We also need to recognize the value of training different groups of public health leaders. As one of the few black researchers involved in the development of a COVID vaccine, I have seen my words resonate with communities of color, and I also just know how often the deck is stacked against young scientists from marginalized communities, making life difficult for them. break into our field. To create more credible ambassadors, we must create a stream of scientists and public health leaders. We cannot afford to leave them behind.

Finally, we must understand that health leaders cannot solve these crises alone; we must work in partnership with the public. As a result, we must intensify our efforts to teach critical thinking in schools and at work so that people can come to reasonable conclusions by doing their own research.

This problem has become more complex in recent years with the flow of social media content. Some of this information is correct, but much of it is misinformed, and some is malicious and deliberately false. We must help people learn to distinguish fact from fiction. This will help us defeat snake oil vendors who use confusion to spread disinformation.

These changes are not easy; on the contrary, each of them would be expensive, time-consuming and difficult to implement.

But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done.

We have seen the consequences of the pandemic under the status quo, and we cannot afford to revert to this misguided approach. It is vital that we learn the lessons and make the difficult choices that will save lives and strengthen our communities in the face of future crises. Investment today will pay off tomorrow, but if we choose to do nothing, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes over and over again.

connect with us emails@time.com.