Tp the Editor:

I found Dr. Snyderman’s so-called apology, reprinted in last Wednesday’s Town Topics [“Snyderman Apologizes for Quarantine Breach,” Oct. 15, page one], to be interesting double-speak worthy of an entry in “The Greatest Hits of Spin” — if there were such a thing.

Here’s what she said:

“While under voluntary quarantine guidelines, which called for our team to avoid public contact for 21 days, members of our group violated those guidelines and understand that our quarantine is now mandatory until 21 days have passed,” the statement read. “We remain healthy and our temperatures are normal. As a health professional I know that we have no symptoms and pose no risk to the public, but I am deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused.”

Members of our group? I wasn’t aware that any group member — other than Dr. Nancy — violated the voluntary quarantine. She did a selfish thing. The subject pronoun should be “I” not “we”. Even worse, Dr. Nancy accepted all of the accolades for her voluntary quarantine, but didn’t have the willpower to follow through.

As a health official, Dr. Nancy “knows” she has no symptoms and that she “poses no risk to the public.” But during the incubation period, there are no symptoms. That’s the whole point! Moreover, if Dr. Nancy knows she poses no risk, then why go into quarantine? An exercise in brand building?

And my favorite, Dr. Nancy is “deeply sorry” that her behavior caused concerns among the public. Not sorry that she broke a commitment she made to the public. But, sorry that the public is so misinformed and concerned about something it knows nothing about.

This is the problem with many of the elites today. They think they know better than the rest of us. They think they can publish something that is called an apology, but really isn’t.

Robert Cohen

Clover Lane

To the Editor:

I saw the front page headline on your October 15, 2014 edition which stated “Snyderman Apologizes for Quarantine Breach” yet upon reading the story more than once, I did not see any such apology from her or NBC, her employer.

My understanding of what an apology should state could be antiquated, but in my experience it usually combines an admission of error or poor judgment accompanied by an expression of regret.

While she said “I am deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused,” we did not hear anything that said, “I apologize for the poor judgment I made in not following the voluntary quarantine guidelines which called for me (and my team) to avoid public contact for 21 days.” We did not hear “As a physician, I especially am sorry for any concerns I raised with the public whom my colleagues and I came in contact with during our trip to the Peasant Grill in Hopewell that day.”

That is how a prominent leader in such a field should own up for a mistake in judgment. We live in a time when few people seem willing to take responsibility for their actions. While I realize the most important aspect of this situation is that apparently no one in her group (including Dr. Synderman) has been infected with this terrible disease, I also think that in times of crisis, our community and our society need to see what strong leadership is all about; but in this case an opportunity was lost.

Mark Larsen

Hun Road