To the author of "Big Pharma saved us all" (Readers Write, Dec. 22): No, no, no, not so. It wasn't just good old-fashioned capitalism that created the effective COVID vaccines. It was government also. And it isn't necessary that we pay so much for drugs.

The United States government removed the risks in scientific failures, failures to demonstrate safety and efficacy and manufacturing risks, and also eliminated market risks through advance purchase commitments as COVID vaccines were being developed.

Publicly funded research often has a role in the creation of most pharmaceuticals that Big Pharma takes credit for and then punitively overcharges consumers, which they excuse as necessary for them to research and develop new drugs. For some drugs, some of us are in the position of choosing between our health and our homes because of high costs.

These people are not all about saving our lives, either. All pharmaceuticals spend immense sums on lobbying and political giving, which they then use to sell drugs, including OxyContin. Though it proved deadly, Purdue Pharma overmarketed that drug for profits. Nearly 500,000 died of an opioid overdose between 1999 and 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I'm not saying that capitalism has no role in pharmaceuticals. I'm saying that government already is playing a role, could play a greater role, and senators not afraid to take on Big Pharma like Amy Klobuchar are needed to rein in and control them in order for us to live with our homes, our health and a government not controlled by corporate industries.

Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis

•••

If we are to have a fighting chance against the next crisis or variations of this one, we need to encourage Congress to increase investment in developing the deep stores of science we will need. Taxpayers of the United States enabled members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to support investment in basic science for 50 years. If more pharmaceutical profits were returned to us, we could invest it in the next tools we (and they) will need. This includes investment in biology, chemistry, climatology, computer sciences, ecosystems, enzymology, gene expression, immunology, microbiomes, molecular biology, pathology, pharmacology, virology and other sciences. Big Pharma, little pharma or everyday scientists can only use the tools we have to save lives. We do not know what scientific armaments we will need to fight the next battle.

John A. Downing, Duluth

In my 87th year, I'm tired of my cohort being known as the Silent Generation, technically defined as those born between 1928 through 1945. Not part of the Roaring Twenties nor part of the baby boom, we are the children of the depression of the 1930s and young kids and teens during World War II. We were also young adults during the McCarthy Era, not the best time to speak out. Even the Korean War is rather hidden from full sight. As a group we never rose in unified protest. We believed in following the rules. We produced only one U.S. president.

We are not known for much. It was a time of lowered birthrates during the '30s and the horrors of WWII, which we learned about through radio and the news reels. We learned of patriotism, of the growing role of the U.S. in the events of the world. In my elementary school years we played war against the Japanese, never the Germans. Then came the Cold War years when we learned to fear Communism and its leaders, especially Stalin. But we learned that the United States was a country to be honored, to be respected, and to be proud of.

Things have changed. Now I call for our Silent Generation to speak out in support of the goodness that is still part of the United States, the values of respect and loyalty, the willingness to look at things needing to be changed and then have the gumption to help effect these changes.

Oh, my silent friends, now mostly in our 80s, where can we influence the direction of our beloved nation, our church, our communities, our lives? May we be silent no longer.

Gretchen Fogo, Minnetonka

Wait, what? In justifying University of Minnesota President Joan Gabel's increase in compensation, the university's Board of Regents cited an increase in four-year graduation rates ("Amid criticism, U regents OK raise for Gabel," Dec, 18). Look, I'm no math genius, but I do have two degrees from the University of Minnesota and I am 127% sure that someone who has only been in a position for two and a half years cannot be credited for an increase in four-year graduation rates. Let's not confuse correlation with causation.

Jerry Johnson, Eden Prairie

The article "Changes could mark permanent shifts in shopping patterns" (Dec. 14) quotes a woman who can't go to the mall this year as her child is too young to be vaccinated, so she is holiday shopping online.

Bonus of shopping local? Unique products. Shopkeepers who know my name. A greater percentage of my purchase dollars staying in the community.

Susan Fahning, Coon Rapids