So the state's GOP leadership wants to vanquish COVID-19 control measures, saying that "we trust the people of Minnesota to keep safe and keep others safe" ("GOP pledges to open up state," Oct. 20). With that stream of logic, why do we have — for example — drunken driving or speed-limit laws? Let's just trust people to do the right thing, OK?
Tom Baumann, Isanti, Minn.
• • •
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka trusts the people to keep each other safe and wants health and safety protocols to be voluntary. Really? Many folks are not wearing masks, socially distancing or limiting numbers at events and the infection rates are rising with mandates in place. Are those people going to be smarter and more respectful without a rule? Probably not, and community spread is what determines school safety.
Karen Karls, Grand Rapids, Minn.
• • •
State Republican leaders are pushing to "open up Minnesota" even as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are surging. We all want to safely reopen. I can't wait to worship with my friends, volunteer, teach in person, hear live music and dine inside at our neighborhood restaurant. But we can't yet, in large part because some Minnesotans are not making responsible choices about preventing COVID spread. Republican leaders say Minnesotans will make smart decisions, but it still isn't happening enough, and they need to lead their supporters. They need to follow the facts and promote what has been proven to work.
If we want to get back to normal, we have to show that we care about one another. The message is simple: Mask up to open up.
Rod Christensen, Northfield, Minn.
• • •
I was disappointed in the response given to a caller in the Oct. 19 Minnesota Public Radio program featuring Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm and MDH infectious disease director Kris Ehresmann addressing the surge in COVID-19 cases in Minnesota.
The caller objected to protective measures such as wearing a mask and limiting the size of gatherings and proposed instead that vulnerable people take personal responsibility for themselves by avoiding contacts, allowing all others to work and socialize freely. I wonder why the commissioner or director did not point out that "vulnerable people" would include a large percentage of our state's population, i.e., people with heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes and other ailments — not to mention those over age 65. This could include half of our state's adults. The caller's proposal is simply unworkable. With half of us sheltering in place and the other half freely associating and spreading the virus, the economy would be shut down and the number ill and dying would be much higher.
We need to point out to the caller and others holding his view that we cannot separate the state into those with a COVID-19 problem and those without it. We are all in the same problem as potential spreaders of the virus or victims of infection and illness. As the caller pointed out, we will all die — but to hazard illness and death needlessly or heedlessly is a denial of our interdependence and an affront to human dignity.
Our public officials need to be much more direct in addressing objections and proposals such as this. These are not merely differences of opinion and should not be treated as such. They are threats to well-being by delaying and detracting from containment of this virus.