Commentary writer David Arundel calls for a middle path between "shut it all down" and "eat, drink and be merry" for addressing the pandemic, suggesting that we need a plan that gets people working again while protecting the most vulnerable from COVID-19 ("Lives are being recklessly sacrificed under this plan," Opinion Exchange, April 13). Yes, that's reasonable — and Gov. Tim Walz is doing that. His administration is carefully considering which businesses can be reopened while maintaining social distancing. For now, that is the best way to buy time in the fight against this virus so that we can open up again without overwhelming our health care system and endangering people's lives.
This temporary shutdown is painful, not only for people who are losing jobs and businesses, but for so many people who are living on the edge: the homeless, people who depend on low-wage or temporary jobs and take public transportation, and hardworking immigrants who face impossible choices between taking public assistance and gaining citizenship, among others.
So what should we do? Immediately go back to business as usual and just tell people in medically vulnerable groups to stay home? Unfortunately, the virus has killed people who were young and healthy, and until we have widespread and accurate testing, we will not know who needs to be quarantined. This crisis calls for government support to ease the financial pain as well as individual generosity and sacrifice to help the community as a whole. Protecting others is the best way to protect ourselves.
Arundel assumes that people who disagree with him are haters, but I think we can all agree that the last thing we need at this moment is hate. This is a time to remember the poet W.H. Auden's words: "We must love one another or die."
Susan Ranney, Plymouth
• • •
Arundel provided a well-reasoned argument from his heart for a more focused response effort to minimize the spread of the coronavirus and its related death toll; nothing to hate there. The so-called scientific predictions-of-death "models" have predicted from under 1,000 to some 50,000 deaths in Minnesota under current restrictions; they don't really have a clue throwing out this random disparate range of numbers.
Our government leaders will be judged as heroes winning the fight when final numbers come in low relative to some worst-case scenario of relaxing current restrictions, but at such a severe cost, as Arundel so thoroughly explains. The $2.2 trillion stimulus plan and paying the unemployed as much as $5,000 per month for not working will drag on the economy for some time.
I agree, social distance older folks and those with critical health issues, and let's restore business to "almost as usual."
Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis
• • •
Arundel implies that we Minnesotans are overreacting to the coronavirus pandemic. After all, as of his writing, "only" 57 out of 5.5 million Minnesotans had been killed by it. I wonder how those 57 people would feel about the virus that killed them being likened to a bothersome little mosquito.