While it is important to look at issues from a broad perspective, the three state senators writing an open letter to Gov. Tim Walz and Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm took issue with the definitions of "essential" and "nonessential" businesses in Minnesota related to the coronavirus problem ("Thoughtful rules could spare us loss and suffering," Opinion Exchange, March 31). Their concern was that "winners and losers are unnecessarily and arbitrarily being determined."
Their suggestion that "safe" vs. "unsafe" sites be used instead of "essential" vs. "nonessential" ones merely changes who the winners and losers are. They would still be determined using necessary and arbitrary factors. It is mainly a process to determine relative risk to the health of the population as a whole, which would have a long-term impact on society and its economic condition. Determining the degree of safe or unsafe that is tolerable should be the basis for defining what actions are acceptable, and it still would be open to disagreement by those who consider themselves the "losers."
Keith Behnke, Eagan
• • •
The piece by three Minnesota legislators was shocking in its naiveté and dangerous in its simplistic solutions. These men claim that allowing a solo hairdresser, for one, to stay in business during a pandemic will help the economy. Exactly how many heads of hair will she cut before she succumbs to the virus, and how long before her customers start to fall ill? The very thing that exposes us to the virus, proximity, is what a hairdresser has to live with in order to do the job.
As for their other example of allowing golfers to golf — ever been in a golf cart? That is not social distancing, and the number of people able to walk a course is probably too small to make a course viable during this pandemic. The cabinet makers, of course, can spread out in a cavernous space, and surely they will be able to do so again soon. But bringing out the blather about "Minnesotans don't want ... handouts" and "winners and losers are ... being determined" as if this scramble to save our lives is some government overreach is just unbelievable. I suppose next they will be calling Walz a tax-and-spend Democrat.
Our elected state leaders have done a fabulous job in clearly stating the facts they have at the time, the policies they have chosen to address those facts and that these are terribly disruptive changes to all of our lives. They are temporary, and if we just use our brains and realize that we will recover, more of us will be alive to celebrate the end of this terrible illness. Including the solo hairdresser.
Cheryl Bailey, St. Paul
STAY AT HOME
Reopening is now a partisan debate
As the coronavirus first reached Minnesota, Gov. Tim Walz took quick and decisive action, with limited public discussion, to close almost everything. A week or so later, President Donald Trump followed the lead of our and other governors. We will never know, and can never know, the wisdom of these decisive actions. But fortunately, these decisions were, mostly, nonpartisan.
Now we are entering the early stages of what will clearly be a longer, more public, and, unfortunately, much more partisan debate over when and how to reopen our society — the latter because we have the most polarizing president since Abraham Lincoln. And whether we are discussing reopening on May 1, Sept. 1 or Jan. 1, the debate will be predictable; Trump and those who love him will argue for reopening immediately, and those who hate him will insist on waiting.
This partisanship will prevent healthy debate around the risks and rewards of various timetables and will significantly hinder good decisionmaking. And that will be our loss.