It was encouraging to see that the University of Wisconsin health system plans to study COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in children under 12 ("UW Health to study COVID vaccine effects in children," Aug. 12).

In the meantime, with the surge involving children and schools reopening, parents of children under age 12 are wondering whether their pediatricians or other primary caregivers can prescribe COVID-19 vaccinations "off-label" now, as opposed to waiting for the Food and Drug Administration's decision regarding vaccinations for these youngsters, which is expected in late 2021.

Off-label use is legal and fairly common for fully approved FDA-regulated products, but not products approved only under an emergency use authorization. Full FDA vaccination approval for adults is expected next month.

I believe the FDA should consider full approval of vaccinations for adults immediately. If full FDA approval for adults is granted, parents can then — based on guidance from and the judgment of their pediatricians and other experts (and hopefully without unfairness related to inequities in access to care or coverage) — make an informed decision as to whether they wish for their under-12 child to receive a COVID-19 vaccination off-label, rather than waiting many months for this important FDA decision.

Steven Sorscher, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The writer is a physician.

•••

Since March 2020, the volunteer-led Project N95 has worked to get highly protective, vetted personal protective equipment (PPE) to people who need it. It's frustrating to see that despite the herculean efforts by teams of volunteers around the country that there are still gaps in access.

Because access is still uneven, and has been since the early days of the pandemic, our organization works to help ensure (through our shop and by donating PPE) that everyone who needs them can get vetted, high-quality masks. Masks matter, but not all masks are equal. Highly protective masks that fit well are among the most important mitigation tools we have to contain this pandemic.

Access matters. Masks should be readily available to everyone at no or low cost. Businesses and government agencies alike can do their part to provide highly protective masks from trusted sources so no one, including schoolchildren, lacks the protection they need.

Marilyn Levi-Baumgarten, St. Louis Park

The writer is a volunteer with Project N95.

Dennis Dietzel, Roseville

•••

Why sign your own death warrant?

The most powerful nation on earth states your country will fall to your enemy in 18 months. Your enemy is known to hunt down and kill the people, and sometimes their families, who have helped that powerful nation.

Would you fight that enemy knowing that if you weren't killed in battle, you, and possibly your family, will be killed by that enemy in a few months? The rational answer is no!

How in the world did this administration think the Taliban was serious about peace negotiations when the Taliban kept acquiring territory by force? The Taliban was using the peace negotiations as a delaying tactic while they continued their conquests.

Do not say that former President Donald Trump's agreement with the Taliban left no alternative. Trump had no problem exiting both the nuclear agreement with Iran and the Paris Climate Accords. Precedent was set.

Now the Taliban, and its terrorist companions in battle, are in control. Once the West is no longer focused on Afghanistan, their revenge will begin. We have abandoned our Afghan allies and created fear among the other educated people. Afghanistan will become a pariah state — but why would the Taliban care?

If (when) we need to do battle against terrorists that are again harbored in Afghanistan, who will help us? No one. Better start training our military in Pashto and Dari. How about some other country harboring terrorists? Who will risk helping us there?

Do not blame the Afghan government for this catastrophe. The blame belongs to this administration. It did not use common sense!

Grace Bartels, Minneapolis

I take exception to Alicia Eler's review of the "Immersive Van Gogh" exhibit ("Should you Gogh or stay home?" Aug. 18). My wife and I attended yesterday with a couple of friends, art appreciators all. And we loved it. I found it stimulating, my wife found it mesmerizing and calming, and our friend the mathematician was intrigued by the subtle and clever animation. We managed to find seats after a few minutes; that was important. (If you're old, as we are, I encourage you to arrange for a chair or rent a pillow.) But the younger folks around us — and there were many, including lots of kids — seemed to be as rapt as we were.

Eler says art lovers should spend their money to go to museums rather than on "this sad excuse for art." I think she's got it all wrong. This exhibit isn't at all comparable to a museum show. Would she complain about Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton" by saying it's not true to "Alexander Hamilton," the Ron Chernow book upon which the musical was based? A staged musical gave Miranda different ways to tell the same story. "Immersive Van Gogh" is a different way to deliver Van Gogh's compelling images. It's a sound and light show, and it's spectacular.

Bill Campbell, Hudson, Wis.

•••

Norman J. Olson, Maplewood

•••

Here's why "Should you Gogh or stay home?" is a laughable critique. The reviewer loses all credibility with: "This show is not about experiencing the artist's thick use of paints, his struggles with mental health, or his expressive and vivid post-Impressionist masterpieces. It's about creating a spectacle out of his art ... ."

Well, no kidding! This show was never meant to be an educational experience that delves into the artist's motivations and techniques. It's obvious that she has not been paying attention the last several years as this show, and its competitive variations, has toured the world presenting, to raves and cheers, the fun spectacle that it is intended to be! I can't wait to see it in three weeks.

Amy Rosenthal, Minneapolis