Minnesota's rollout of vaccinations got way more complicated Thursday when the state Health Department rolled out the chart to tell us when we can expect to get vaccinated ("New vaccine timetable lays out who's next," front page, Feb. 26).
I applaud the state's effort to prioritize health care workers, teachers, front-line workers, and those with cancer, transplants and immune-suppressed treatments, as well as the elderly. But in its effort to prioritize risk, it is creating a complicated set of competing communities.
How the state delivers vaccines is crucial, and this plan guarantees confusion and stress for those waiting. As one reporter said yesterday following the governor's rollout of a timeline, "The devil is in the details." When the state allows vaccinations for multigenerational families, does that include those of us doing day care for our grandchildren so our children can keep working? One third of Minnesotans qualify as obese; who will determine who is obese enough? Over 340,000 Minnesotans have been diagnosed with diabetes; who will determine if their diabetes is serious enough?
Those of us in the 55-to-64 age group are more likely than those younger to be hospitalized due to COVID, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chart, and many of us from all communities — Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Somali — are providing infrastructure to our families, supporting parents in their 80s and 90s and taking care of grandchildren so our children can continue to work. Nevertheless, we are third to last in the chain of risk, depending on whether we have one risk factor that qualifies.
And which underlying illnesses qualify? Asthma? A missing spleen? Graves' disease? Is a neurological illness a risk factor?
In Connecticut, the governor just declared he would continue giving vaccinations according to age group because simplicity will expedite the vaccinations, and given the state's record so far, it is proving true. Complexity isn't reassuring; it's anxiety-producing. The new chart does little to appease anxiety; it actually makes me wonder how such a complicated process can possibly achieve its goals.
Carol Dines, Minneapolis
U.S. STRIKE IN SYRIA
Another president, another abuse of war powers
A month into his administration, President Joe Biden has returned us to hot war with an aerial attack in Syria ("U.S. hits Syrian sites tied to Iran militias," Feb. 26). Congress has not authorized war in Syria. It's hard to argue against defending our troops. It's also well past time to ask what our troops are doing in Iraq. President Donald Trump's "America First" motto did not make U.S. goals clear. Trump declared we were only there to defeat ISIS, but now U.S. troops are not directly involved in that fighting. Iranian-backed militias played a large role in taking back territory from ISIS. Most U.S. troops have left Iraq. After the U.S. air attack killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and nine others on a Baghdad airport road in January 2020, the Iraqi assembly passed a resolution that all U.S. troops should leave. The resolution was "nonbinding," because the Iraqi presence of U.S. troops is based on an agreement with the Iraqi prime minister.
The U.S. Congress has ceded authority over war to the president through the open-ended Authorizations for Use of Military Force of 2001 and 2002. It is time for Congress, including both liberals and conservatives, to take back that authority and tell us why our troops continue to serve in harm's way.