Netlets: More thoughts on the H1N1 vaccine

Prioritizing the H1N1 vaccine

Like most people, I'm concerned about how the H1N1 virus will affect our communities. People with a high risk of contracting the virus should be given top priority in vaccination. However, the medical community has wrongly left teachers out of this "high-risk" group.

Coming from a family of teachers, I've seen the effects that widespread viruses have on them.

With so many kids sharing their germs, teachers are in constant danger of getting sick and missing work. Many times a teacher will return after he or she recovers, only to be infected again by students who have since contracted an illness.

Educators are at an extremely high risk for H1N1. They deserve to receive the vaccine first, along with medical professionals and people with precarious health. For all they do and risk for our kids, we owe them that at least.

MANDI CHERICO, ST. PAUL

•••

Minnesota weather adds another wrench to the H1N1 drama when it comes to emergency backup plans: What happens if snowplow crews get hit with the virus? Who will plow the streets?

I hope these employees were the first to receive the vaccination; otherwise, life as we know it would come to a screeching halt once those winter storms move in.

LISA JOHNSON, EDEN PRAIRIE

Here's the bottom line on the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in the news recently because of TVs removed from the Moose Lake treatment facility:

1. All of the patients have been convicted of multiple sex offenses.

2. All have completed their prison sentences.

3. If these men were not committed to and held at MSOP, they would be on the streets.

4. For the state to legitimately hold them, they must be provided sex offender treatment. Treatment at MSOP is state-of-the-art, but is lengthy because of the problems being addressed. Treatment is designed to significantly reduce the risk of reoffending, however long that takes.

5. Without treatment, it would just be detention, which would violate double jeopardy. This also means that they must be treated as patients, not as prisoners.

6. The choice of taxpayers is to either provide treatment (which is expensive) or let the 566 worst and untreated sex offenders loose.

7. Take your pick, but please quit whining.

E.G. WIDSETH, EDINA

It's sad Anne Dykstra lost all her money ("Minnesota investors caught up in a 'shell game,' " Nov. 3). It's sad for most of the battered investors in the growing number of Ponzi schemes that are coming to light. Of course, the scammers should be prosecuted. However in a tremendous number of these cases, the bilked need to take some level of responsibility for their own willingness to "score big" outside of more traditional investments.

In Dykstra's case, the investment "guaranteed 6 to 10 percent," which would keep coming no matter what the occupancy of the building was. It doesn't take much investment savvy to know that buildings without tenants don't generate income.

When traditional investments are paying 1 to 3 percent, for example, someone promising double or triple returns is either offering a legitimate, but highly risky investment (which you should be prepared to lose) OR it's a scam. The long-establish Risk vs. Reward paradigm still rules. There is no free lunch -- never has been, never will be.

JANET BATES, EAGAN

Following most elections, the media recite regrets at the low voter participation, the argument made that a higher turnout would improve our democracy. But would it? Is there evidence to support that conclusion?

Wouldn't it be better that the turnout be limited to informed voters, knowledgeable both on the candidates and the issues? How convenient should it be to get the uninformed and disinterested to go to the polls? Are lawn signs, candidate platitudes or Scandinavian names appropriate criteria to make a choice? Isn't democracy enhanced by the potential voter spending some time and effort to become educated?

International electoral experiences do not guarantee democracy. The Soviet Union mandated citizen voting. The electoral choice was simple -- a single candidate, hardly contributing to democracy.

Hapless Zimbabwe, with a perennial tyrannical leader, conducts elections of a sort. Is Zimbabwe improved by sham elections? Is Afghanistan enhanced by the recent flawed election? Does the recent questionable Iranian election protect its citizens from theocratic tyranny?

Perhaps we should reconsider the value of high electoral turnout.

Perhaps some form of educational requirement, at least a simple current events test, would contribute to the voters' knowledge of the issues and candidates' positions, contributing to a higher level of democracy. Or is this recommendation just another elitist protest, objecting to have the uninformed vote equivalent to mine?

SEYMOUR HANDLER, EDINA