Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I'm no scientist, but my reading of Bret Stephens' commentary "Truth unmasked, at last" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 24) disregards the fact that maybe, just maybe, the number of people contracting COVID might have been far greater if no one had worn a mask. Because there were so many unknowns during the pandemic, the use of masks was a legitimate effort to stem the tide of the virus. So many people, including Stephens, seem to be "experts" after the fact. When he writes that "states with mask mandates fared no better against COVID than those without," one has to wonder what those numbers might have been had no one worn a mask. A number of the things that seem to have motivated Stephens to write this article appear at its end — the first motive being a chance to attack and discredit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the second motive being that the anti-mask people should be seen as courageous.

George Larson, Brooklyn Park

•••

The Feb. 24 Star Tribune ("Truth unmasked, at last") has done your readers a terrible disservice by failing to investigate this article about the Cochrane study. That study was horribly conducted and not worth the paper it was printed on, according to a Real Clear Science article, "Masks reduce the risk of spreading of COVID, despite a Cochrane review saying they don't," by C. Raina MacIntyre, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, David Fisman and Trish Greenhalgh.

Even the Cochrane study authors concluded as follows: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. ... There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect." In other words, the authors are even uncertain about their own conclusions.

The Real Clear Science article concluded: "There is strong and consistent evidence for the effectiveness of masks and (even more so) respirators in protecting against respiratory infections. Masks are an important protection against serious infections. Current COVID vaccines protect against death and hospitalization, but do not prevent infection well due to waning vaccine immunity and substantial immune escape from new variants. A systematic review is only as good as the rigor it employs in combining similar studies of similar interventions, with similar measurement of outcomes. When very different studies of different interventions are combined, the results are not informative."

Lucyan Mech, Lauderdale

We take serious issue with the Feb. 17 editorial, "Provide school meals to those in need," that calls for continuing the current practice of means testing to determine which of our school families are deserving of free or reduced meals in our schools. At this time, all schools in our state are responsible for getting families to fill out the onerous "Application for Educational Benefits" or verifying their participation in other public assistance programs in order to provide free or reduced-price meals to families. The primary effort and cost in determining which students qualify each month is borne by school districts, but federal and state agencies also bear a cost. Whether these administrative costs are outweighed by meal savings is up for debate. It might actually be cheaper to just feed every student.

In addition to the simple truth that no child in Minnesota should ever be hungry, there are a significant number of families that barely exceed the ridiculously low eligibility limit for free and reduced-price lunch (currently between $36,000 and $51,000 annually for a family of four). Is it any wonder that food insecurity is an issue when the cutoff for assistance is so low? We know there are many students whose families neither qualify for free nor reduced meals, nor have the money to pay for food.

There is also the case of families who will not fill out the necessary forms because of the stigma that they may endure in their community as a result. One school district superintendent in rural Minnesota estimated that approximately 10% of district students qualified for free and reduced lunch, but their parents did not or would not fill out the required forms.

Studies have shown that there is a correlation between student nutrition and academic achievement. Putting the onus on school districts and parents to prove that their students are deserving of free school meals is detrimental to our students' academic success. We urge passage of HF 5 so that every student in Minnesota can receive two meals a day, regardless of family income.

This letter was signed by Hopkins Legislative Coalition members Michele Pasko, Steve Adams, Shannon Andreson, Rachel Hartland and Catherine Callahan.

•••

I think it's safe to say we all want to see children properly fed. But why should the state (well, taxpayers, really) pay to feed children whose parents can afford it? Certainly the money could be better spent. It makes sense that we would fund desks and books — it doesn't seem practical to bring your own desk to school. And not all students receive free transportation to school. Those in walk areas in most districts must walk or pay for transportation.

How about increasing the number of students eligible for paid lunch to cover those truly in need and using that extra money to help fund some of the many unfunded mandates school districts must pay for. Even better, let's use some of that extra money to help families maintain their housing so that their kids are not disrupted in their education by being homeless. This would actually save money for most districts by not having to transport kids back to their home school from all over the metro area.

James Engstrom, Burnsville

•••

Count me in as supporting free meals for all students. I agree that any tiered schedule will let some students with real need fall through cracks.

My additional idea is to give the parents who could pay for their child's lunch encouragement to donate some or all of their savings to the school. Special education can use extra funds; classrooms/teachers need supplies. There are many opportunities.

I currently give money monthly toward school lunch debt and yearly as a special gift that can go to a specific program as needed.

Supporting all students is never a waste.

Laurie Brooks, Fridley

Like many Minnesota residents, I was thrilled when the state Legislature passed the Protect Reproductive Options Act earlier this year. This is an incredibly important first step toward enshrining reproductive rights in our state's code of laws, but there is still more work to do.

Anti-abortion activists have spent the last few decades helping pass a series of harmful and unconstitutional laws intended to restrict access to abortion care, and it's time to get those laws off the books once and for all.

The Reproductive Freedom Codification Act would remove the unconstitutional restrictions that have been preventing Minnesotans from accessing the care they need. It would end state-mandated anti-abortion propaganda, allow licensed health care providers to offer abortion care if desired, and eliminate the current law requiring that minors seeking abortion care notify both their parents — regardless of whether they have relationships with their parents or not. Perhaps most important, it would prevent anti-abortion activists from accessing private medical information.

Everyone deserves the right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health care needs without interference from the government. That's why it is critical that our state legislators act quickly to pass the Reproductive Freedom Codification Act.

Ellen Rozek, St. Paul