Readers Write: Conservatism and liberalism, COVID vaccine distribution, health workers, crime

Two summers ago, in an article appearing in the Economist magazine, philosopher Michael Oakeshott was quoted defining conservatism: To be conservative "is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant." What I like about this definition is that it is an elegant, insightful, admirable and positive description of conservatism, devoid of the usual negative, partisan connotations.

Furthering Mr. Oakeshott's logic, liberalism would therefore prefer the unknown, the untried, the mystery, the unbounded and the distant. There is much truth to this. I wistfully and wishfully ponder the possibilities of greatness we can achieve if we could all summon the wisdom and the courage to elect a new generation of political leaders who on the right embrace Mr. Oakeshott's brand of conservatism and on the left embrace, by extension, the aforementioned liberal alternative.

Think about all that can be accomplished if wiser heads prevailed by marrying the liberal propensity for "what if" with the conservative propensity for "what is," producing in its wake "what can be."

If only wishing made it so.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the first phase of COVID vaccine administration should be targeted to protect health care workers, first responders and the vulnerable elderly in nursing homes. Some have suggested that the second phase should target healthy seniors or minorities, while others suggest essential workers should receive priority.

This 74-year-old relatively healthy man strongly supports the second phase of COVID vaccine rollout being targeted toward essential workers to facilitate a more rapid economic recovery. This would put some of us elderly at risk, but if we have made it this far, we can persevere for a few more months. I can continue to follow CDC guidelines by wearing a mask, social distancing and minimizing my exposure to public gatherings — reasonable precautions that should protect me. Economic recovery must be the focus of the second phase of vaccine distribution.

When it comes to standing in line for the COVID vaccine, I will follow the advice of many of my friends. When the scientist Mike Osterholm gets his shot, I will be ready.

"First doses in Minn. by next week" (front page, Dec. 9): Thank you, Donald Trump!

Ethics schmethics. Who gets the vaccine first should be determined solely on who is most likely to overwhelm our ICU beds. My three-person family, with its carefully planned weekly grocery trip and home-based employment, should be in the last 10%, even with our serious comorbidities. Those who don't believe in wearing a mask, or think the virus is a hoax, or who willfully socially gather in large, dense groups of strangers should go first. Those who put our communities at greatest risk should go first. State Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka: Let me know when it's my turn.

There are many who are more deserving to be vaccinated before politicians. The front-line first responders, medical personnel and elderly, certainly, but just as important are all the essential workers like clerks and cashiers in groceries and pharmacies and the like. These are the people who are keeping us (and the politicians) alive and the economy from completely going under. Teachers should be next so we can open our schools and working parents can be relieved of day care duties and return to jobs (if they have one). Politicians, most of whom are well-off and can work remotely, should be among the last to be vaccinated, as they do little materially to further progress and keep our shelves stocked, teach our children, fix our automobiles and actually keep us alive throughout the pandemic.

"Too few workers to care for elders as virus rages" (front page, Dec. 5) reinforces how essential health care workers are to provide care to older adults. Yet why do we still not treat them as such? Direct care workers need more than praise for their honorable work; they need to be paid a livable wage. A recent study showed that about 1 in 6 direct care workers are living below the poverty line because of low hourly wages. It is no wonder the industry was struggling with staffing before the pandemic with a high percentage of workers leaving the field annually. This is a scary thought when you put in perspective that by 2030 it is estimated that there will be millions of long-term care staff needed to care for the aging baby boomers.

The industry needs a new payment model in order to pay their workers a decent wage and remain in business. Currently Medicaid makes up a large portion of their income, and historically reimbursement rates have left little room to increase wages.

The workers are not the only ones that would benefit. Better pay would sustain and attract workers to the field but also improve the quality of care given to those they serve.

What will it take for real action to address this problem? If there is one thing we need to learn from this pandemic, action speaks louder than words.

One way to resolve the staffing crisis in long-term care facilities is to allow immigrant health care workers to arrive on an H-2A visa.

This system has existed in several areas of agriculture and could be adapted to nursing homes and other long-term facilities. I would think that immigrants with some experience would be preferable to members of the National Guard who have not been trained for this type of mission.

It doesn't make any sense to blame a crime wave that has been going on for months on a judicial sentence on a statue toppling that was given this past week ("The problem: Small consequences," Readers Write, Dec. 9). But to the letter writer's apparent point that illegality follows where the judicial system fails to provide consistent legal expectations and treatment, I agree. Consistent legal treatment has to be applied through all aspects of law and society, or problems will follow.

The George Floyd killing unveiled how much the police system is failing to provide consistent and humane treatment to people of color that is afforded white people. The rioting that followed Floyd's killing was a pressure release from centuries of systemically racist mistreatment by police. Racism, and its sibling, poverty, always causes a negative reaction. More likely the crime wave is happening because of the rise in poverty caused by COVID times and the racial and economic inequality that has already been endemic to our nation.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.