A crowd of socially proximate protesters gathered to denounce masks and vaccines at the State Capitol on Saturday ("Crowd rallies against mask, vaccine mandates," Aug. 29). This may blow their minds, but the reason we're still talking about masks and vaccines is because they refuse, against all rational thought and evidence, to get vaccinated and put an end to COVID.

You want to be done with all of this? Me too! But you know what that takes? Getting vaccinated.

If you think it was developed too quickly, please show your master's degree in molecular biology and explain the history of vaccine development. There's a microchip that'll track you? Your smartphone has been doing that since 2007. It'll alter your DNA? If so, hopefully the alterations occur in the area of the brain responsible for critical thought.

And please, oh lord, please stop talking about your freedom. Read about Lenin's Russia, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Idi Amin's Uganda, or the Taliban's Afghanistan if you'd like to know what a true loss of freedom looks like. A nation's medical experts gently urging you to act in the best interest of your community, in a country so wealthy and privileged that we have a surplus of free vaccines that most of the world is desperate for? Your freedom will survive. Plus, I'm sure there are thousands of other protestations you can find to damage your own health without endangering everyone around you.

Look, everyone wants to be done with this. Can we agree on that? No one enjoys these restrictions (it's true, not even liberals!). So maybe think of the sweet old lady who lives on your block. Do it for her. Consider it an act of service instead of a loss of freedom. Two little Pfizer needle pokes, and I'm feeling as free as ever.

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

Now what are the odds we'll see those very same protesters hoisting those very same signs in a rally for women's reproductive rights?

M.A. Weninger, Orono

•••

The freedom-keepers were hard at work at the State Capitol protesting against masks and vaccine mandates. Brave speeches were given, and Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, declared that "only you know what's best for your health."

Really, Mary? Does the average patient know how to treat stage 4 colon cancer and or choose the right medication for high blood pressure? Why is the advice from the medical and scientific community dismissed on how to address the COVID-19 pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 630,000 Americans and filled intensive care units to overflowing from people refusing to get vaccinated? Do anti-vaxxers also get to choose which emergency room they go to when they're on death's door from this deadly virus, and do they get to choose where the payment for their three-week stay in intensive care that costs thousands of dollars comes from?

Mike Menzel, Edina

•••

State Sen. Jim Abeler is not a medical doctor and should stay in his lane. His statement at Saturday's rally that Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm should be removed from office should hold no more weight than anyone else's — that is, zero. Can you imagine the disruption to the COVID public health response if Malcolm is removed? As senior citizens, we have been impressed with the information and guidance designed to keep us safe and healthy. We know there have been around 7,900 deaths from COVID in Minnesota, and a quick check tells us that nationwide, a very small number of vaccinated people have died after they received a vaccine, but it does not mean the vaccine caused the deaths. Mr. Abeler, we are very disappointed in your statement. We support Commissioner Malcolm.

Bill and Sandra Trudeau, Circle Pines

I agree with much of Katherine Kersten's Aug. 29 critique of woke "equity" education in public schools, but it's remarkable how many of her points can be applied to conservatives in the era of Donald Trump ("When schools teach 'equity,' kids learn fear and anger," Opinion Exchange). White rural or working-class Americans have developed a very strong sense of tribalism, are quick to play the victim in response to "micro-aggressions," and see life as a battle between good and evil. And hostile-attribution bias drives the right's interpretation of every situation. The surge of refugees at the southern border is not the unintended consequence of the Biden administration's promise to treat these folks more humanely; no, they're deliberately "bringing them in" — Afghans, too — as part of an evil scheme to destroy America, or at least create millions of new Democratic voters. And the effort to mitigate COVID-19 is part of a bid to create a tyrannical regime, as is the effort to curb gun violence — the list goes on. I wouldn't say that they are "well intentioned," though.

•••

Kersten in the Aug. 29 Star Tribune urged Minnesota to not teach a factual history of race relations. At the heart of the argument she asserted that doing so causes "anxiety, depression, lack of initiative and a sure route to permanent social conflict." Essentially, given the choice between teaching accurate history and teaching what feels good, always choose the latter. Implied in that argument is that she knows that there is much in American history that is disturbing, shameful and depressing. That much she seems to understand.

She proposes to protect impressionable children rather than trusting them to comprehend complex history for themselves. Of course, Kersten expresses no concern for the anxiety and depression felt by minority children when schools are teaching a history that is grossly at variance with what they themselves experience. The truth matters.

Chris James Sullivan, Minnetonka

Lee Schafer's Aug. 29 column insightfully points to research by academic economists reflecting the often-overlooked economic inequities and other negative consequences of the use by businesses of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) to resolve legal disputes, especially employment claims ("Do NDAs protect bad employers?").

Employers use NDAs in large part because a driving force to settle claims is to prevent or minimize public gaze upon their alleged or actual wrongdoing. Their desire for confidentiality often outweighs other considerations, including costs, uncertainties and other vicissitudes of litigation.

This does, as Schafer astutely points out, have anti-social effects, but their use is not solely favorable to malefactor employers. It is the claimants who also "benefit" from NDAs because, without them, employers — good and bad ones — would be less inclined to settle claims, aggrieved employees and their attorneys would be less likely to receive compensation, and courts would be clogged with even more litigation.

So, while they may unduly benefit "bad" employers, NDAs serve other important functions and are here to stay. Economists might not like them, but judges, lawyers and their clients find them invaluable.

Marshall H. Tanick, Minneapolis

The writer is an employment law attorney.