A diary played an unusual role in a – musings from Dr. Anthony Fauci, a scientist who became a leading voice in the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, for years has accused Fauci, the longtime top at the National Institutes of Health, of lying about the origins of the coronavirus. In previous hearings, the now-retired Fauci denied the accusation, On Wednesday, he in declining to answer more questions.

But Paul drew public attention to the latest proceeding by releasing more than 1,000 pages of a long-running diary that Fauci kept – entries that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Fox News his agency extracted from government computers and provided to the GOP-led committee.

Paul drew on selected excerpts to argue that Fauci’s “private record tells a different story” than what he told the country.

Some of the entries already were reflected in Fauci’s 2024 memoir and in interviews at the time – including the uncertainty that he and other scientists faced as they tried to understand a never-before-seen virus and how best to fight it. Here are some takeaways from the diaries, including quotes that have been edited to remove typos:

Did Fauci say one thing privately and another thing publicly?

Diary entry from January 26, 2020, about whether infections were connected to a market in China where animals were sold:

“It now appears using epi data and genomic data that the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market. The infections spread among people weeks before the Chinese reported that they were dealing with a new infection and that gave the virus time to establish itself in multigenerational (sustained) spread. Remember, early on the Chinese were saying that there is no human to human transmission and all the original 27 cases were from the market. Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”

Fauci publicly used almost the same wording a few weeks later in an interview with USA Today: “Almost certainly, somewhere, somehow a bat infected an intermediate host who infected a human. What epidemiologists feel is that the market was an amplifier of something that was already going on. So it didn’t necessarily start in the market, but when people congregated in the market they got infected from each other as opposed to all of them getting infected from whatever animal there was in the market.”

Those comments were discussing the very beginning of frantic efforts to figure out the origins of the virus. In other diary entries, Fauci discussed bringing together government and non-government scientists who wondered about whether it could have been a lab leak, a theory Paul champions.

Today but many scientists believe the virus most likely emerged in nature and jumped from animals to people – and that the market was an early source of spread. Fauci has long said that he was open to both theories but that there’s more evidence supporting COVID-19’s natural origins, like with its cousin SARS.

Fauci’s frustration with Trump

Fauci’s back-and-forth relationship with President Donald Trump – who initially praised the scientist but eventually derided him – drew lots of press attention. Fauci recorded his perspective of good and bad days in multiple entries.

Diary entry March 11, 2020:

“We went in and presented to the POTUS and he asked good questions, many of them to me. He agreed and was clearly concerned more about the health of the American people than he was about the economy, which he said would recover.”

Diary entry Aug. 4, 2020, Fauci describes a White House meeting with Trump and other administration officials where Trump was angry with multiple participants including him:

“He started raving that we are seeing more cases only because we are doing more testing,” Fauci wrote, continuing that he told the president, “Increased testing does not cause cases. When you increase testing you will of course pick up asymptomatics whom you might otherwise not notice. However, when you have increased percent positives and increased hospitalization, and increased deaths, that means that there are truly more cases.”

Fauci reflected on his media attention

The diary is full of entries that start with a lengthy recounting of each day’s events and then move on to Fauci’s increasing media and celebrity attention.

Diary entry May 13, 2020:

“Had a wonderful Instagram discussion organized by the ONE Campaign with Julia Roberts. She was absolutely fabulous. She embarrassed me somewhat when I sat down in the chair and appeared on the screen through Zoom, she put her hands in front of her mouth and said ‘Oh my God. It����ap Dr. Fauci, he is here.’ Then she went on to say that I was her personal hero and how happy she was to have this conversation with me. We discussed COVID-19 and its potential impact on the developing world. I told her that we have a moral responsibility to help and also we have enlightened self-interest in that if the outbreak continues in the developing world, it will always be a threat to the rest of the world. Also, we discussed the importance of including the developing world in the vaccine trials.”

Fauci chronicled Trump’s bout with COVID-19

Fauci recounted a call from Trump’s then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows when Trump was sick in an entry that used “sxs” for “symptoms” and included details about Trump’s temperature, his oxygen level, which had dropped to worrying levels, and the decision to give the president an antiviral medication.

Diary entry October 4, 2020:

“Mark Meadows called my cell while I was walking on the C & O Canal at around 8:30 AM to ask my advice about when the POTUS could go out publicly again. I mentioned that the CDC guidelines say 10 days from the onset of sxs. His sxs started Thursday, Oct. 1 and so 10 days would be Saturday, Oct. 10. Mark told me that on Friday his temp was 103 and his O2 sat was in the 80s. That triggered the Remdesivir. Today (Sunday) he is up and about in his room and is afebrile. O2 sat is improved and he feels much better. I told Mark to send the POTUS my best wishes.”

McNeill grew up in New York City and loved his career directing legislation and local elections for the National Rifle Association. He’s been in and out of seven nursing homes in nine years, due to a condition that causes him to collapse into unconsciousness, and ranks his current stay at as one of the best.

Once, after he pressed his call button, nobody arrived for 21 minutes, McNeill said, but nurses typically arrive in under 10 minutes.

“These places all have the same toys. They have wheelchairs. They have oxygen. They have beds that go up and down to make it easy to get in and out. It’s the staff that makes the difference,” he said. “If I collapse here, there’s somebody who can take care of me. I feel safe.”

But the conditions in nursing homes and assisted living centers around Colorado, where residents often receive as little as two hours of direct care each day, are deteriorating. Chronic understaffing has led to severe deficiencies at these facilities, more than in most states, with rising numbers of .

In 2025, 40% of nursing homes in Colorado had severe deficiencies, defined as problems that can threaten residents’ lives, according to data. The state’s number went up from 14% in 2019.

The only states with higher nursing home deficiency rates were Illinois (61%), South Dakota (53%), Delaware (45%) and Rhode Island (45%).

Meanwhile, the rules governing care, such as the federal requirement that nursing homes keep a registered nurse on-site 24/7, have been relaxed. Long-term care industry leaders say caregivers with the necessary skills cannot be retained for the wages companies are willing to pay. This is happening as a demographic shift to an older, grayer population slams Colorado.

The estimated 38,069 residents in Colorado’s 210 nursing homes and 675 assisted living centers are filing formal complaints at the rate of 20 a day, and the annual total hit 7,426 in the 2025 fiscal year, up from 6,778 in 2024 and 6,342 in 2023, records show.

That equates to a complaint for about one in five residents of these facilities.

‘Residents are suffering’

The complaints include “disturbing numbers” alleging “abuse and neglect,” said Leah McMahon, director of program, which deploys 64 trained inspectors to investigate and try to solve problems affecting residents.

Being in a nursing home no longer guarantees frequent daily contact with licensed nurses, and conditions often lead to “loss and grief, no joy, no animation, no engagement in life, and complete loss of hope that somebody is going to help residents feel better, take their pain away,” McMahon said. “Their dignity is lost. Their respect is lost. It����ap like being the number on the wall outside the door of your room. It����ap not like being a person. Residents are suffering.”

�ճ����, which licenses nursing homes and assisted living facilities, reported 175 investigations in progress in June, including 89 in nursing homes and 86 at assisted living facilities. Since 2023, state regulators have issued 6,928 citations, including 140 for abuse and neglect by staff, 254 for accident hazards, and 257 for failing to control infections, according to state records.

Among inspectors’ findings:

• An insufficient staffing citation issued to a Lakewood nursing home in 2025 alleged that nurse aides “failed to ensure residents received their showers as scheduled and incontinence care in a timely manner,” and complained to residents about being short-staffed. An employee told a state inspector that two nurse aides were assigned to 50 residents, the report said.
• At a Pueblo nursing home in 2024, a state inspector heard from a man who waited more than 30 minutes for assistance getting to a bathroom and “reported extreme pain and discomfort and was afraid to leave his room due to fear of falling again.”
• This year, a man in a Longmont nursing home cited for insufficient staffing told an inspector that “he had pushed his call light button before because he was having a hard time breathing and had to wait over an hour.”
• At a nursing home in Craig, a state inspector in 2024 noted that “some of the residents have resorted to checking on one another when they have noticed call lights were on.”
• For a citation issued to a Glenwood Springs nursing home in 2025, a state inspector wrote that a resident “said he sometimes called for assistance before he actually needed it because he knew he would have to wait for a long time.”

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of elder care in Colorado, based on unannounced visits at 20 facilities in 2022, concluded that inadequate oversight by state regulators and nursing home managers, along with high staffing turnover, led to 556 deficiencies. Those included 165 deficiencies related to life safety requirements, 210 related to emergency preparedness and 181 related to infection control.

Seniors and families turn to assisted living and nursing facilities to ensure needs are met and count on the caregivers. Pushing a call button to summon help often is done reluctantly, according to state ombudsmen.

And when nobody responds, “you feel helpless,” said Sherrie Jarrett, 79, recalling her experience in a Parker assisted living center where she and her late husband lived.

The center initially offered “mystery trips,” frozen yogurt gatherings and pottery to combat isolation. But then Jarrett fell, breaking her hip. Staffing decreased.

“We didn’t have an activities director for almost five years” and “at the tail end it was depressing,” she said. Jarrett moved to a nursing home where the staffing is sufficient to ensure swift responses, she said. “That’s who your day-to-day contact is with, the staff.”

Around Colorado, state health department citations have led to at least 317 fines for violations since 2023, the earliest date in recent The average nursing home fine in 2025 was $20,563, and assisted living center fines average around $2,000, according to industry records. Colorado holds money from the fines collected each year in a nursing home penalties account, which this year had a balance of nearly $20 million.

The administrators of facilities — 83% of them for-profit, up from 76% a decade ago, than in most other states — must pay fines from their operating budgets.

“Low profit margins” constrain companies from paying higher wages, and “it’s difficult to compete with other parts of the healthcare system for nurses,” said Doug Farmer, president of the , which represents the for-profit long-term care companies.

“Fines are an outdated compliance tool,” Farmer said. “I don’t see the rationale in citing a care center for inadequate staff and then taking money from them as a punishment. If they need more staff or to increase staff training, taking money from them is contrary to that goal.”

Industry blames nurse shortage

Long-term care industry leaders blame workforce challenges, saying companies are hard-pressed to recruit and retain enough certified caregivers.

The annual turnover rate in Colorado facilities is 47%, and nursing home companies’ annual profits average around 2%, said Jenny Albertson, the Colorado Health Care Association’s director of quality and regulatory affairs, who previously ran nursing homes for 16 years.

Cuts in Medicaid funding will exacerbate pressures, reducing the $288 daily per-resident rate paid to facilities in Colorado by 2% starting July 1.

Colorado’s overall nursing shortage has intensified, with the federal projecting the state will be short 7,100 licensed practical nurses and 6,090 registered nurses by 2034.

Running a nursing home with nearly one in two nurses leaving each year “is a struggle,” Albertson said. “You lose that brain trust that knows what it means to give patient-centered care. It brings chaos. It sucks away resources from the actual act of caregiving,” she said.

“We’re seeing workforce pressures reaching a critical mass,” she said. “Nursing homes have to right-size to the care they can provide by closing their doors to new admissions. We’re seeing a need to cap the care we can provide in order to do it well.”

Meanwhile, state ombudsmen blame commercial profit priorities and low wages — nurse aides typically earn less than $20 a hour — that force many facility caregivers to work second jobs, even after heavy 12-hour shifts. The ombudsmen point to impossible care burdens that cause burnout, irregular schedules, lack of training and the difficulty of taking care of seniors who, in previous decades, would have qualified for hospital care.

“When we’re looking at private-equity-owned facilities, we see a systemwide stripping down of the quality of life. The food goes down. The care goes down. Staff leaves. It’s a revolving door,” McMahon said. “…The bottom line is the dollar, not people care.”

Two hours of care per day

A Colorado rule requires companies to ensure at least two hours of nursing care per resident per day. This year, state officials and the industry are

At the federal level, Trump administration officials on Dec. 2 a proposed 3.48 hours-of-care requirement, replacing it with a looser standard that “sufficient” care is acceptable. On Dec. 3, Trump officials also repealed a federal rule requiring 24/7 on-site registered nursing service.

Colorado still has a state-level registered nurse requirement on the books, but since 2021, health overseers have been waiving that requirement at all nursing homes if a registered nurse is on call, a licensed practical nurse is present and medications are carefully managed.

State health officials don’t know how many nursing homes keep a registered nurse on-site 24/7, Department of Public Health and Environment spokeswoman Alexandrea Kallin said.

Colorado regulators who recently began a formal rulemaking process had suggested a state-level minimum of three hours of nursing care per resident. The Colorado Health Care Association objected, favoring alignment with the Trump administration.

“We have allegations of people literally not being seen for days,” said Shannon Gimbel, manager of the ombudsman investigations across an eight-county metro Denver area. “Understaffing is significant in any complaint we get. It is usually the underlying cause, and if companies are only required to provide two hours of care, that’s what they are going to provide.”

Gimbel worked in nursing homes for two decades and is participating in the rulemaking discussions.

“The industry will scream that facilities are not going to be able to afford to stay open. Elder-care advocates will argue that the burdens on staff are too great and that companies should pay better wages and provide a better work-life balance… The system is failing, and the staffing in the facilities is dismal,” she said.

Colorado’s aging population

The demand for elder care in nursing and assisted living facilities is projected to increase ������Colorado’s population ages.

While the state’s average age of 38 remains slightly younger than the national average, residents who are over 60 now outnumber those under 18 for the first time in state history. The population most likely to use nursing and assisted living facilities, those who are 75 and over, is the fastest-growing segment, according to the .

The number of Colorado residents over 80, estimated by state demographers at 201,806, is projected to increase by 75% and reach 353,452 before 2034. That would be 5.4% of the state’s population, or one in 20 residents.

More will need care in facilities, requiring 59,340 registered nurses and 12,970 licensed practical nurses by 2034, according to industry projections. Colorado nursing and assisted living facilities hold a total of about 46,000 beds, with a nursing home occupancy rate around 80%, according to industry data.

By 2034, industry officials estimated Colorado would need 50 additional nursing homes and 40 more assisted living centers.

While growing numbers of older people rely on in-home care, it becomes more costly than care in facilities when they need 24/7 attention, said Deborah Lively, chief executive for , which represents non-profit facilities.

The workforce challenges have intensified as corporate owners of nursing homes and assisted living facilities focus on “trying to do more with less,” Lively said.

“It’s scary to think about it. There are all these aging people, and there are not enough workers to take care of them,” she said. “I don’t know how it is going to be addressed.”

State enforcement

Officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment say they are enforcing state and federal rules aggressively.

However, the federal rule that previously required 24/7 onsite registered nurse service, reduced by Trump officials effective Feb. 2, now only requires that a nurse be “on duty or present for at least eight consecutive hours each day.”

Colorado’s rules still say facilities must keep a registered nurse on-site 24/7, but under the waiver, facilities get by with a registered nurse or physician on-call, a licensed practical nurse present and a clear policy for managing medications

“We are concerned anytime a facility’s systems break down in ways that put residents at risk. Residents rely on facilities to provide safe, appropriate care, and CDPHE’s oversight is focused on ensuring facilities meet those responsibilities,” said Elaine McManis, the state health department’s director of health facilities and emergency medical services. “Our concern increases when problems are repeated, systemic, or not corrected.”

State health officials will decide in February about a state-level standard for hours of care per resident, said Dr. Ned Calonge, Colorado’s chief medical officer. State rules require “the level of care and service that each resident needs, regardless of the hours set in the minimum standard,” Calonge said.

“We’re having discussions with stakeholders about the standards we want to see for the industry. Is two hours enough? Or three hours? Have we set the floor at the right level? That����ap what we’re talking about,” he said. “On the side of the patients and their families, they want more contact with licensed professional nurses. And from the industry side, it is: ‘What cost does that translate to?’ ”

Since January 2023, 10 nursing homes in Colorado have shut down, a loss of 418 beds, along with 66 assisted living facilities, where 1,391 more beds were lost, according to the state. Health officials declined to identify the facilities or to specify reasons, other than saying that the long-term care industry opens facilities and increases or decreases beds based on business factors.

This year, one nursing home reported failing to meet the two-hour care standard, and 10 facilities didn’t provide data. State officials also declined to identify those facilities.

“CDPHE’s goal is not to close facilities. Our goal is safe resident care. We use a range of tools depending on the severity of the issue, including directed plans of correction, temporary management, conditional licenses, denial of license renewal, revocations, and closure when necessary,” McManis said.

‘This is my home now’

Inside the , southwest of Denver, administrator Sara Dent last month had beds for 115 residents, along with an additional 35 seniors sent by hospitals to the facility for short-term rehabilitation.

The center’s nurse and support staff numbered 195, and Dent said residents receive 3.97 hours a day of nurse care. The facility is one of more than 200 in 27 states run by Tennessee-based .

Dent knows the residents by name. She knows the caregivers, including a 75-year-old Spanish-speaking dishwasher who said she hoped to retire and become a resident of the facility where she’s worked for two decades.

Most staffers work second jobs to make ends meet, Dent said. She pays the nurse aides $19.29 an hour, the minimum wage in Denver, more than the state-required $15.16 that applies in Littleton.

Dent works to instill a culture of swift response anytime a light outside a room door flashes on. “Our patients have to come first,” she said.

Residents said they were mostly comfortable and pleased with the facility.

“I miss my yard at home. I miss my dog,” said William Reitz, 94, a retired engineer, sitting in a wheelchair by his bed, across from a framed photo of his departed spouse.

“I think I still have it mentally,” Reitz said. He discussed with Dent the plan to upgrade his wheelchair to a motorized version so that he could roll around the building and grounds independently, as long as his insurance would cover the cost.

“Then I won’t be pestering people to push me,” he said, noting he’d still be attending daily exercise sessions. “I’ll be able to do it on my own… This is my home now.”

For artist Terry Dunlap, 81, the main priority is “to be able to paint,” following head injuries in 2025 that necessitated a move from her family home in Conifer. She sat surrounded by scores of her abstract paintings, a Cat Stevens song playing as she worked in a two-room suite she’s converted to a studio.

“I wish there were more staff here at night. I’d like to walk. You have to have a CNA (certified nursing assistant) with you. So I get a bit frustrated,” Dunlap said, though she assessed the overall conditions positively. “Just a couple more” staffers would help, she said.

Like other nursing home administrators, Dent said she regularly sees state health inspectors. Each time they arrive at the facility, “they are hunting” for any deficiency, such as a rug positioned by the front entrance that could be deemed a tripping hazard, she said.

Some residents are reluctant to file complaints with state ombudsmen, fearing retaliation or even involuntary discharge, said Jayla Sanchez-Warren, director of the .

Earlier this year, Sanchez-Warren visited a relative in her 80s with dementia inside a facility.

“She was hungry. She did not know when she last had a shower,” Sanchez-Warren said, adding that she couldn’t find anybody on the facility’s staff with the authority to help.

She asked her relative whether she wanted her to press a complaint.

“She said, ‘No, don’t you make it harder for me,’ ” Sanchez-Warren said. “She was fearing retaliation. Once you leave, they are still there. They have to deal with it if you cause problems. She was adamant. ‘Don’t you cause me problems.’ ”

“You don’t make any money doing any of that stuff,” Peter Bayer said with a laugh.

His heart and hope lie inside a grey warehouse a few miles from Highway 34 in Weld County, his heaven a canvas of black netting and neon-green paint. A symphony of popping balls and pinging bats alternate solos while a low, angry chorus of whirring fans wage a losing battle against a 94-degree afternoon.

“These bigger names, they all focus on the college-and-above market,” Bayer, a former Regis Jesuit baseball standout, explained. “What I want to bring is this amazing big space as an oasis to take 13- and 14-year-old kids and build them up, to just have an awesome space to have access to all these things.”

Head 7 miles east of the Scheels in Johnstown, turn right in the middle of nowhere, and you’ll eventually run into the , a 22,000-square-foot indoor training facility that opened Saturday to more than 200 curious kids, parents, coaches, and patrons in its first 90 minutes.

The place puts the “art” in state-of-the-art. It’s wired with Trackman technology, the same kind used at Major League stadiums across North America, including Coors Field. Two new HitTrax machines are on the way. The bulk of the complex is taken up by six long batting cages, at least four extendable pitching mounds and a 100-feet-by-30-feet practice field.

“If I was 12 years old, what would I want to do?” “And that’s what I’m trying to do here.”

“Do the parents of those 12-year-olds know?” I wondered, “that it’s run by a guy on Major League Baseball’s ineligible list?”

“I get it every so often,” Bayer said. “It’s obviously less now than it was before … it’s not like I’m out there lying to kids about what I did. At least this way, I can be a positive role model.”

***

Bayer turned 31 in March. The way he sees it, the baseball gods put him on the scenic route to his life’s calling: Teaching. Kids. Paying it forward.

He grew up in Parker, under the shadow of Ponderosa High School. He grew into a 6-foot-4 fireballer, a righty who helped anchor Regis Jesuit’s state title winners in 2011. Atlanta Braves manager Walt Weiss was a family friend and mentor.

His college chapter started at Richmond and ended at Cal Poly Pomona. He discovered Driveline, one of the country’s cutting-edge baseball labs. His fastball velo max went from 88 mph before Driveline to 95 mph after. Tampa Bay selected him in the ninth round of the 2016 MLB amateur draft.

“‘OG,’ that’s what the kids call me,” Bayer chuckled. “‘You’re like a Driveline OG.'”

The Rays traded him to the Athletics in 2018. Two years later, COVID-19 shut down the minor-league season entirely. A $400 stipend wasn’t cutting it. Bayer delivered for DoorDash. He wasn’t just looking for a quick buck. He was looking for any buck. He took up online betting. He went to online forums. He found betting experts. It became a short-term, competitive fix.

“You get your sport taken away from you, so you resort to something else to fulfill a competitive thing in your mind,” Bayer says. “This was something I could do. I was sitting at home and going crazy because I couldn’t play my sport.”

MLB’s investigation found he had conducted 100 baseball-related wagers from May-August 2020. It accused him of placing at least 25 wagers worth $1,000 or more, and at least a dozen involving the A’s, his organization at the time.

Bayer doesn’t deny the action. He denies the volume and specifics of MLB’s report.

“I think I had a stupid mindset,” he said. “(It was), ‘I have nothing left to lose. I can’t play.'”

In February 2021, Major League Baseball launched an investigation into the pitcher and placed him on administrative leave. In April 2022, he was moved to the ineligible list.

A spokesperson for Major League Baseball emailed the following statement to The Post: “After a thorough investigation, it was determined that Mr. Bayer repeatedly bet on baseball in violation of Major League Rule 21 and MLB’s Policy on Sports Betting and engaged in other misconduct that was not in the best interests of baseball. Therefore, he was placed on the ineligible list, where he remains.”

Rule 21 (d) (1) says that any “player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.”

Bayer applies for reinstatement every November. Kids he’s worked with shot video testimonials pleading on his behalf. Former teammates did, too. , now with the University of St. Thomas, has worked with Bayer since 2019 and was so moved that he emailed MLB commissioner Rob Manfred directly last fall to ask for clemency.

“He’d be great as a college coach,” Phillips says. “The decision (MLB) made to not even let him be a coach, it was tragic. He could still be a player, even. He’s really special.”

Initially, he was told it would be a one-year suspension. Only that one year keeps marching into perpetuity.

“The thing that was unfortunate, to be honest with you, was that my mental health got really (expletived),” Bayer said.

“Anybody in my shoes, it’s like, ‘Oh, man.’ You’re just holding onto hope. It was a lot. So ultimately, it was like, I don’t know. I had to move on.”

He played independent ball. Mexico. The Rocky Mountain Vibes in Colorado Springs. Dancing around the periphery, staying sharp in case a window opened up. It never did.

“The insane thing is, if I try to go to Coors Field and say, ‘Hey, I want to work for the Rockies as a sales rep,’ and sell tickets, I can’t do that,” he says. “I literally can’t be involved.”

Friends and former confidants on college baseball staffs still went out of their way to recommend him. He’d inquired about becoming a coach at a collegiate program at least three times since 2022.

“The (athletic department) would say, ‘With his background, we don’t want to risk it,'” Bayer said.

“And I’m not saying that this isn’t justified. Or isn’t fair. But there are so many MLB players out there that did horrible things and they’re just, ‘Oh, whatever, that’s fine.’ As bad as the thing is, there are still a lot of people in my corner, a lot of friends who know the type of person I am.  And that I am a good person. I just get to now build this (facility) out, so now that’s where my focus is.”

***
Bayer can still bring the heat. Quietly. He was at Coors Field a couple weeks ago and took a turn at the speed-pitch booth, just for giggles.

BAMI

Ninety-six. No warm-up.

“I know, 100%, I could still play professional baseball,” Bayer says. “That’s the crazy part of it.

“It’s been a whirlwind of life. A whirlwind of a 10 years. A lot of people would’ve lost their mind or would go off the deep end. I obviously did that in 2020 for a little bit. But I think (I’m) slowly but surely picking up the pieces. I’m doing the right things.”

With the right people. Pete got the coaching bug early. He worked with 40-45 players last year as an independent contractor. His clientele included two players from greater Loveland who were driving all the way to Centennial for workouts. One of them was the son of Endless Garage owner and entrepreneur Justin Summers, who knew of a warehouse in southwest Greeley already set up for softball training.

“(Summers said), ‘There’s this amazing facility up here, we think you’d be the perfect guy to run this,'” Bayer recalled.

“It’s kind of how it was supposed to happen. In a crazy, weird, stupid way, maybe this was all kind of happened for a … I don’t know.”

“For a reason?” I asked. “For a purpose?”

“I can’t obviously change the past. But I can make the best out of every day and build the future. That’s what this is about.”

With that, a staffer in glasses closes in, just behind Bayer’s right shoulder, and hovers. Question for the boss.

“Sorry to interrupt,” he said. “But do you know where the microphones are?”

Bayer points to a far wall. Then he cocks his head back wearily and smiles, the grin of a man who bet on himself. And won.

More than three-quarters of American adults didn’t get a COVID shot last season, a figure that health care experts warn could rise this year amid new U.S. government recommendations.

The COVID vaccine was initially popular. About 75% of Americans had received of the first versions of the vaccine by early 2022, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows. But only about 23% of American adults got a COVID shot during the 2024-25 virus season, well below the 47% of American adults who got a flu shot. The vaccination rates for , and tetanus are also going down.

Yet COVID remains a serious, potentially deadly health risk, listed as the primary cause of death on roughly 31,400 death certificates last year. By comparison, flu killed people and pneumonia, a common complication of the flu, killed , .

As millions of Americans decide whether to get a COVID shot this season, public health researchers worry vaccination rates will slide further, especially because Hispanic and Black Americans and those under 30 have lower rates, exposing them to serious complications such as long COVID. Under the Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the federal government has narrowed its recommendations on the COVID vaccine, leading to a hodgepodge of rules on pharmacy access, with Americans living in Republican states often facing more barriers to getting a shot.

“A lot of misinformation is going around regarding COVID,” said , an assistant professor of health, society, and behavior at the University of California-Irvine. “Vaccine hesitancy is going to increase.”

In August, the FDA for COVID vaccines to those 65 or older and to adults and children with at least one underlying condition that puts them at high risk for serious complications from COVID.

A month later, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices “shared clinical decision-making” on the vaccine, pulling back from advising all adults to get vaccinated. The committee advised doctors to emphasize to adults under 65 and children that the benefits of the vaccine are greatest for those with underlying health conditions.

The guidance is rebutted by infectious disease experts who say most adults and children should get both the flu and COVID vaccines, which are safe, effective, and prevent serious illness. Several independent medical organizations like the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics have reiterated their support for broad adoption of COVID vaccines.

More than two dozen states have taken steps to ensure most people can get a COVID shot at the pharmacy without a prescription, with many states tying their policies to the advice given by medical organizations. And many of those states require insurers to cover vaccines at no cost, according to . In several other states, predominantly Republican-led, pharmacy access to vaccines may require a prescription.

Among the most commonly cited reasons for COVID vaccine hesitation are fears about side effects, long-term health consequences, and the effectiveness of the vaccine, and mistrust of pharmaceutical corporations and government officials, according to of multiple studies, published in the journal Vaccines.

COVID vaccine hesitancy in the 2024-25 virus season was higher among Latinos, African Americans, men, uninsured people, and people living in Republican-leaning states, CDC data shows.

Latino adults were significantly less likely than adults from most other racial and ethnic groups to get a COVID shot last season, with a vaccination rate around 15%.

Some of that may be due to age: A of Latinos are young. But public policy actions may also be a factor. The first Trump administration, for example, tied Medicaid to “public charge,” a rule allowing the federal government to deny an immigrant a green card or visa based on their dependence on taxpayer-funded programs. Some Latinos may be afraid to sign up for social services even after the Biden administration reversed those first-term Trump actions.

Haro-Ramos co-authored published in 2024 that found many Latinos were hesitant to get vaccinated because of fears about their immigration status, and that experiencing health discrimination, like care denials or delays, increased their vaccine hesitancy.

“Do you trust the health care system, broadly speaking? Do you want to provide your information — your name, your address?” Haro-Ramos said. “Trust is critical.”

Haro-Ramos said the problem has likely worsened since her study was published. The Trump administration that it would give the personal information of Medicaid enrollees to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many Latinos are to head off possible confrontation with immigration enforcement officials.

“People are avoiding leaving their homes at all costs,” Haro-Ramos said.

, an associate professor at the University of Georgia College of Public Health, recently of COVID vaccination among nearly 1,500 African Americans living in south Georgia. The study found that participants were more likely to listen to their health care providers than faith leaders or co-workers when seeking advice on getting vaccinated.

More than 90% of those studied had received at least one dose of the vaccine, but those who were unvaccinated were more likely to agree with false statements that tied vaccines to miscarriages, to components’ remaining in the body for a long time, or even to the conspiracy that they implant a computer chip in the body.

“It����ap the clinicians who can take the messages about vaccination — that these are myths,” Rajbhandari-Thapa said.

Even though COVID hospitalization and death rates have fallen dramatically since the worst days of the pandemic, fatal complications related to COVID remain most common among older people. of U.S. COVID deaths last year were among people 65 and older, compared with of flu and pneumonia deaths.

As the pandemic falls into the rearview, young people have developed a sense of invincibility. Only 11% of Americans ages 18 to 29 received a vaccine during the 2024-25 virus season, the lowest vaccination rate among adult age groups. That����ap far below the who got at least one dose of the initial COVID vaccines by November 2023.

While many people get COVID after receiving a COVID shot, because the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection wears off pretty fast, some misunderstand the purpose of the shot, said , an infectious disease specialist at UCLA Health.

“They think, ‘Well, the vaccine didn’t prevent me from getting COVID, so the vaccine didn’t work,’” Yang said. “And what they’re not seeing is that the vaccine prevented them from getting severely ill, which is ultimately the most important thing.”

And the vaccine can help prevent long COVID, which is a problem for all ages, Yang said. A recent Northwestern University study younger adults suffer worse symptoms of long COVID than older adults.

Ultimately, Yang said, it is not a consistent choice to get a flu vaccine but forgo a COVID vaccine, since both are safe, effective, and prevent serious illness. It is clear, he added, that people with compromised immune systems and those at higher risk should get a COVID shot. The decision is “a little bit less clear” for others, but “probably most adults should be getting vaccinated, just like it����ap recommended for the flu vaccine, as well as most children.”

Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The didn’t publicly announce the departure of Scott Bookman, one of the agency’s top-ranking officials.

An from July 17 listed him as senior director for public health readiness and response, one of nine core officials working under Executive Director Jill Hunsaker Ryan. The page in that role.

A letter that the state health department provided to The Denver Post under a request showed Ryan informed Bookman that he had been placed on paid administrative leave July 23 pending completion of an investigation.

The health department redacted a portion of the letter that placed Bookman on leave, obscuring any explanation of what officials were investigating.

Bookman resigned July 25, with a four-sentence email to Ryan saying he needed to focus on unspecified challenges facing his family.

“It has been an absolute honor to work for the Polis administration and I’m incredibly proud of the work that we did throughout the pandemic,” he wrote.

When asked on what grounds they redacted that information, the health department officials cited an exemption in the state’s open records law that allows agencies to withhold complaints and investigations related to sexual harassment.

The public records staff confirmed they intended to use that exemption, which doesn’t apply to situations that don’t include an allegation of sexual misconduct.

The department’s records unit also confirmed that the state had completed the investigation, but declined to release any information about the allegations or whether the probe found any wrongdoing. Officials haven’t commented on Bookman’s departure, describing it as a personnel matter.

“We are committed to a safe, respectful workplace, and we take all concerns seriously, reviewing them and then acting under our policies and applicable state law,” Department of Public Health and Environment spokeswoman Gabi Johnston said in a statement.

Bookman, who had worked at the health department for six years, didn’t respond to a message left on a phone number listed as his or a note left at his residence. No one answered a message to his former state email address, which didn’t yield a bounceback or information about other ways to contact him.

In a in May 2023, Bookman said he had worked as a paramedic in Denver before earning a master’s degree in emergency management from  and briefly running a federally qualified health center in the southwest corner of the state.

He joined the state government in mid-2019 as director of the public health lab and became COVID-19 incident commander in January 2020, he told the ethics forum. The state government’s first online mention of him in that role was in .

The incident commander was one of the public faces of the state’s COVID-19 response, with responsibilities that included setting up testing early in the pandemic and monitoring hospital capacity during surges. Bookman regularly appeared at media briefings alongside Gov. Jared Polis and other top public health officials.

NEW YORK (AP) — Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new vaccine advisory committee meets this week, with votes expected on whether to change recommendations on shots against COVID-19, hepatitis B and chickenpox.

The exact questions to be voted on Thursday and Friday in Atlanta are unclear. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to questions seeking details to a newly posted .

But some public health experts are worried that the votes will — at a minimum — raise unwarranted new questions about vaccines in the minds of parents.

Perhaps even more consequential would be a vote that restricts a government program from paying for vaccines for low-income families.

“I’m tightening my seat belt,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccines expert.

The panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, makes recommendations to the director of the on how already-approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors have almost always accepted those recommendations, which are widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs.

Kennedy, a leading antivaccine activist before becoming the nation’s top health official, the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.

Here’s a look at the three vaccines being discussed:

COVID-19

Before Kennedy was health secretary, ACIP would typically vote in June to reaffirm recommendations for shots against respiratory viruses that sicken millions of Americans each fall and winter.

This past June, Kennedy’s ACIP voted to for Americans but was silent on COVID-19 shots.

Before that meeting, Kennedy he was removing COVID-19 shots from the CDC’s recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. The move was heavily criticized by doctors’ groups and public health organizations, and prompted a by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other groups.

Days after Kennedy’s announcement, families could still get the 2024-2025 version of COVID-19 shots for their kids in consultation with their doctors. That clarification meant shots would still be covered by the federal government����ap Vaccines For Children program, which pays for shots for families who lack money or adequate health insurance coverage. It����ap now responsible for roughly half of childhood vaccinations in the U.S. each year.

As with flu shots, however, there are new COVID-19 formulations each fall, to account for changes in which strains are circulating. The committee has not yet voted on whether to recommend this season’s COVID-19 shots or whether those shots should be covered by the VFC program.

Further complicating the picture: When the FDA last month this fall’s COVID-19 shots, the agency took the unusual step of narrowing their use for healthy younger adults and .

If the ACIP simply follows that, and if there is no additional clarifying language from the CDC, then “that would take away access for roughly half of America’s kids,” said Dr. Sean O’Leary of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The pediatricians group urges that vaccinations continue for all children ages 6 months to 2 years.

Hepatitis B

Hepatitis B can cause serious liver infections. In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during use injection-drug use.

But the virus also can be passed to a baby from an infected mother, and as many as 90% of infected infants go on to have chronic infections.

A hepatitis B vaccine was first licensed in the U.S. in 1981. In 1991, the ACIP recommended a dose within 24 hours of birth for all medically stable infants who weigh at least 4.4 pounds.

Infant vaccinations are stressed for women who have hepatitis B or, crucially, who have not been tested for it. The infant shots are 85% to 95% effective in preventing chronic hepatitis B infections, studies have shown.

Newborn hepatitis B vaccinations are considered a success, and no recent peer-reviewed research shows any safety problem with giving kids the shots on their first day of life, Schaffner said.

But Kennedy’s ACIP members suggested in June they wanted to revisit the guidance.

Schaffner noted that health officials used to rely on screening mothers before birth but that many cases were missed.

“There were lots of failures,” he said. “And so there were continuing transmissions from mother to child.”

MMRV

Chickenpox was once a common childhood annoyance, causing an itchy skin rash and fever.

But the highly contagious virus can also lead to complications such as skin infections, swelling of the brain and pneumonia. Severe cases are more common among teens and adults who get it for the first time. The virus — called varicella — also can reactivate later in life and cause the painful illness called shingles.

The government first recommended that all children get a chickenpox vaccine in 1995, leading to a dramatic drop in cases and deaths.

In 2006, a combination MMRV shot — measles, mumps, rubella and varicella — was licensed. The CDC initially recommended that doctors and parents use the combo shot over separate MMR and varicella injections.

But within a few years, studies showed children who got the combo shot more often developed a rash, fever and — in rare instances — seizures after vaccination compared with children who got separate shots.

In 2009, the ACIP , removing the preferential language and saying either the combination shot or separate shots were acceptable for the first dose.

Today, most pediatricians suggest separate doses for the first shot, but give the combined shot for the second dose, pediatrics experts say.

Again, there’s no new evidence about harms from MMRV shots, said O’Leary, of AAP.

Why revisit it now?

“This version of the ACIP is an orchestrated effort to sow distrust in vaccines,” O’Leary said.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Initially, pharmacies couldn’t administer the updated shots in Colorado unless a patient had a prescription. The state allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee, but not other shots.

Dr. Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the state health department, responded by issuing a standing order — essentially, a prescription for every resident – allowing them to get vaccinated at retail pharmacies.

But that order doesn’t guarantee insurance will cover the shots or that pharmacies will choose to stock them. Last year, fewer than half of people over 65 nationwide received an updated COVID-19 shot, with uptake dropping further in younger age groups, raising questions about whether health care providers will believe demand is high enough to justify buying the vaccine.

“The standing order provides accessibility. It doesn’t necessarily provide availability,” Calonge said Tuesday.

The last week that would require state-regulated plans to cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for people of any age, assuming the division passes it as written. Insurance cards from state-regulated plans typically have CO-DOI printed in the lower left corner.

The state’s rule doesn’t apply to federally regulated plans, which account for about 30% of employer-sponsored insurance plans in Colorado, Calonge said. Typically, however, those plans try to offer competitive benefits, since they mostly serve large employers, he said.

“My hope would be they would want to keep up with other insurers,” he said.

This isn’t the first time that people on state-regulated plans have had benefits not guaranteed for people with federally regulated insurance.

Colorado capped the cost of insulin and epinephrine shots to treat severe allergic reactions in state plans, but couldn’t require the same for plans the state doesn’t oversee. In those cases, it offered an “affordability program” requiring manufacturers to supply the medication at a lower cost for people who aren’t covered by the state caps, Medicare or Medicaid.

At least two Colorado insurers surveyed by The Denver Post said all of their plans will cover COVID-19 vaccines, while others hedged.

Select Health, which sells Medicare and individual marketplace plans in Colorado, said its plans currently cover COVID-19 vaccines without out-of-pocket costs for everyone. Kaiser Permanente Colorado said in a message to members that it will pay for the shot for anyone 6 months or older.

Donna Lynne, CEO of Denver Health, said the health system’s insurance arm is waiting on clarification about when it should cover the vaccines. Denver Health Medical Plan offers multiple plan types, some state-regulated and some under federal rules, she said.

“It’s less of a decision on our part than understanding what the health department and the insurance department are saying,” she said. “You can’t have one insurance company saying they are doing it and one saying they aren’t doing it.”

Anthem said it considers immunizations “medically necessary” if the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians or the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee has recommended them, but didn’t specify whether it would charge out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary vaccines.

If those bodies stated that certain people could get a particular vaccine — but not that they should — Anthem would decide about coverage “on an individual basis,” . The other groups have recommended the shots for people over 18 or under 2, with the option for healthy children in between to get a booster if their parents wish.

The state’s Medicaid program is still waiting for guidance from federal authorities about whose vaccines it can cover, according to the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, and .

For most of the COVID-19 vaccines’ relatively brief existence, they were free and recommended for everyone 6 months and older. In 2024, the federal government stopped paying for them, which meant uninsured people no longer could be sure they could get the shot without paying.

Almost all insurance plans still were required to pay for the shots, though, because the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended them.

In previous years, the committee recommended updated shots within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them. In late August, the increasing their risk of severe disease, including asthma, obesity and diabetes.

Doctors still could prescribe the vaccine “off-label” to healthy people, in the same way that they prescribe adult medications for children when an alternative specifically approved for kids isn’t available.

This year, however, , and may not recommend the shots when it does. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed all of the committee’s members earlier this year and replaced them with new appointees, most of whom oppose COVID-19 vaccines.

The committee’s decision also will determine whether the Vaccines for Children program can supply the shots for children who are uninsured, covered by Medicaid or are members of American Indian tribes, Calonge said. If the committee decides not to recommend the vaccines, those children likely won’t have another option to get the shots, he said.

When states and the federal government passed laws linking coverage to the committee’s recommendations, they did so expecting that it would also remain an apolitical arbiter of the evidence for vaccinating the population or specific subgroups, said Cathy Bradley, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health.

Now, that premise is in doubt, and states are looking for other ways to ensure access, she said.

Allowing anyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccine to get one from the provider of their choice is an important first step for Colorado, because the vaccines remain effective in preventing severe illness, Bradley said. As the situation develops, the state will likely need to come up with other partial solutions to preserve access, she said.

“It’s a different path for everyone, depending on what your coverage is,” she said.

Dr. Ned Calonge, chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, issued a allowing anyone 6 months or older to receive the updated COVID-19 vaccines at a pharmacy starting Friday.

A standing order essentially is a prescription to the entire area under a public health department����ap jurisdiction; cities and counties used them to before it became available over the counter.

The Colorado State Board of Pharmacy will meet Friday for an emergency rulemaking session to ensure pharmacies and their employees are protected as they administer shots under the standing order. The order doesn’t require pharmacies to offer the vaccines.

CVS and Walgreens announced last week that their Colorado locations would only provide COVID-19 vaccines to people who presented a prescription. The state allows pharmacists to give vaccines only when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s immunization advisory committee recommends them. Fifteen other states .

In previous years, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended the updated COVID-19 shots within days of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approving them.

The FDA approved updated vaccines last week, but the committee hasn’t taken action and isn’t scheduled to meet until mid-September — and even then, may not vote to recommend them, since multiple new members have publicly stated their opposition to COVID-19 vaccines or, in some cases, to all vaccines.

“Colorado is committed to empowering individuals to make choices to protect their own health and safety, and I will not allow ridiculous and costly red tape or decisions made far away in Washington to keep Coloradans from accessing vaccines,” Gov. Jared Polis said in a statement.

This year, the FDA approved the COVID-19 vaccines for anyone 65 or older, and for younger people with . Before, anyone who was 6 months or older could get the shot annually, assuming they hadn’t had the virus in the previous two months.

Doctors can prescribe the vaccine “off-label” to healthy people who want extra protection before the fall respiratory season, though . Off-label prescribing is relatively common; for example, women undergoing fertility treatment sometimes take a repurposed breast cancer drug.

Most health insurance companies in Colorado didn’t immediately respond Wednesday to questions about whether they would cover the updated shot without out-of-pocket costs for all their members.

Kaiser Permanente said it would review the CDC’s guidance when it arrives, but is “committed to making the 2025-26 COVID vaccine available at no cost to children and adults for protection from severe illness.”

Jill Hunsaker Ryan, executive director of the state health department, directing it to work with the state agencies overseeing Medicaid, private insurance plans and the regulation of pharmacies to remove barriers to vaccines for anyone who wants one.

“Since October 1, 2024, more than 4,500 Coloradans have been hospitalized due to COVID-19,” she said in a news release. “This order ensures that Colorado takes every step possible to prevent hospitalizations, protect frontline health care workers and preserve critical health care resources. Equitable vaccine access is a cornerstone of protecting the public’s health.”

State law allows pharmacists to administer vaccines recommended by the , a group that counsels the director of the about who will benefit from which shots.

In previous years, the committee recommended updated COVID-19 vaccines within days of the approving them. This year, the committee doesn’t have any meetings scheduled until late September, and may not recommend the shot when it does meet, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appointed multiple members with anti-vaccine views after removing all prior appointees in June.

The lack of a recommendation also means that insurance companies aren’t legally required to pay for the COVID-19 vaccine without out-of-pocket costs. Most private insurers will cover the updated shots this year, though that could change in 2026, .

Initially, CVS said it couldn’t give the COVID-19 vaccine to anyone in Colorado or 15 other states, because of their ACIP-approval requirement. As of Friday morning, its pharmacies can offer the shots to eligible people who have a prescription, spokeswoman Amy Thibault said.

As of about 10 a.m. Friday, CVS’s website wouldn’t allow visitors to schedule COVID-19 shots in Colorado.

Walgreens didn’t respond to questions about its COVID-19 vaccine policy, but its website said patients need a prescription in Colorado. A New York Times reporter .

The FDA this week recommended the updated shots that puts them at risk for severe disease.

The listed conditions include:

• Asthma and other lung diseases
• Cancer
• History of stroke or disease in the brain’s blood vessels
• Chronic kidney disease
• Liver disease
• Cystic fibrosis
• Diabetes (all types)
• Developmental disabilities, such as Down syndrome
• Heart problems
• Mental health conditions, including depression and schizophrenia
• Dementia
• Parkinson’s disease
• Obesity
• Physical inactivity
• Current or recent pregnancy
• Diseases or medications that impair the immune system
• Smoking

Healthy people technically still can get the vaccine, but would have to ask a health care provider to prescribe it off-label. An off-label prescription refers to one given for a condition the drug isn’t approved to treat, such as a blood-pressure drug prescribed to prevent migraines.

Not everyone has a regular health care provider or the inclination to take time out of their day for an office visit, though. Insurers also vary in their willingness to cover off-label prescriptions.

Customers of West Side Books in Denver’s Highland neighborhood know that feeling. Longtime visitors to the store at 3434 W. 32nd Ave. talk about owner Lois Harvey and the staff as friends who are ready to recommend new titles and guide them through the overflowing shelves of new and old books that one person likened to a treasure hunt. The store also sells rare books.

The yellow arrows on the floor pointing the way to the exit are handy.

“I look around and I go, ‘Oh, there’s a book I didn’t realize that I needed,’ ” said Michael Hester, who lives one block west of the store.

“It’s been my home bookstore for years,” said Jody Georgeson, who lives farther north. “Lois is always more than happy to talk about what we’ve been reading and what we like and what we didn’t. It feels like home.”

But the future is uncertain for the bookstore that has been a mainstay in a neighborhood that has changed significantly in recent years. Harvey, 72, plans to retire on Jan. 1. She started working in bookstores in Denver in the late 1970s and opened Capitol Hill Books on Colfax Avenue in January 1980. She sold it in 1995.

Matt Aragon-Shafi, the manager, wants to carry on Harvey’s work. The 36-year-old has been a fan of West Side Books since browsing its shelves when he attended nearby North High School. He has worked at the store for eight years.

“He’s the heir. He gets to take it and run,” Harvey said as she and Aragon-Shafi sat in a little nook at the front of the store. “Matt showed interest, enthusiasm, ability, intelligence and the ability to work hard. He’s very strong. He has a supportive husband.”

Harvey and her staff built up the online services to keep going during the height of the coronavirus pandemic when people stayed out of most stores. Customers can now roam through the narrow aisles to look for books or order them online. Aragon-Shafi has helped boost the store’s social media presence.

Harvey, however, acknowledged that keeping the doors open will likely mean downsizing and might require selling off parts of the business, such as the used-book collection. West Side Books’ rent recently more than doubled.

“Landlords can get Cherry Creek rents now, or property taxes are such that landlords have to push those limits because of what their costs are,” Harvey said. “If it weren’t for an anonymous donor, we wouldn’t even be able to say we could be here through the end of the year. That����ap big. If you’re in retail and you don’t have those last four months of the year, you’ve just lost a lot of money.”

The building’s owners have said they want West Side Books to stay, but also have plans to develop the property, Harvey said. What portion of the current 3,200-square-foot space would be available for the store is unclear. A restaurant sits on part of the property.

Harvey said Aragon-Shafi faces the challenge of figuring out “how to keep it together.”

“He’s smart, he’s good. He will figure it out,” she added.

Is Aragon-Shafi ready for the challenge? “I’m as ready as I can be,” he said.

A neighborhood mainstay

Aragon-Shafi, who started in retail when he was 18, said he’s learned a lot about the book business from Harvey. He has learned to be more reflective, to think before acting and to reach out when he needs something.

And he’s learned about relating to customers in what is often a more close relationship than in other retail businesses. He’s optimistic about being able to stay in the store’s longtime home.

“We may have to downsize, curtail our inventory, see what the neighborhood wants of us,” Aragon-Shafi said.

West Side Books first opened in 1997 in a different spot on West 32nd Avenue. Harvey and her brother, Jim Harvey, ran West Side Books & Curios together until moving to the current location in 1999. Her brother, who became a silent partner, owned the building, once a vehicle transmission shop, until 2022.

The store, with its purple, salmon and yellow exterior, has been an anchor “for our little commercial area here,” Hester said. “Lois brings in authors to speak about their books. She has occasional meetings of community groups there. She hosts various events that really bring people in.”

Hester has volunteered to help with the sound system for some of the events. He also contributes to the inside decor that includes posters, pictures and sculptures. He donated an acoustic guitar that was hung in the music section.

The area has changed dramatically since Hester moved to Highland in 1989. He recalled hearing gunfire at times. There was a meth lab operating in the neighborhood.

“Now, of course, it����ap totally gentrified. The house next door to me sold two years ago for $1.2 million,” Hester said.

Losing West Side Books is one change that Georgeson doesn’t want to see in the area. “Of course that����ap always a concern. I think that they have enough support that maybe the neighborhood won’t let that happen.”

Georgeson said that having independent book stores is a key to maintaining an educated public.

“When you get the big monopolies, all you get are the best sellers. You don’t get a well-rounded body of things to browse through and consider,” Georgeson said. “I think it’s also important as a gathering place for a neighborhood, a place people go to feel that sense of a community.”

When she retires, Harvey said she’ll still try to help Aragon-Shafi with whatever he needs. She also plans to spend time with her husband’s grandchildren and her daughter and her daughter’s cats.

Harvey, who grew up in New Mexico, figured she would pursue a medical career. Her mother was a nurse and her best friend was going to medical school. Then she got the bug for the book business. She started dating a man who had a small book and comics store on Colfax Avenue.

“I loved the books. I loved the variety. I loved having a chance to exercise my curiosity and to help people find things to exercise their curiosity,” Harvey said. “I think curiosity is really one of our best features as human beings.”