Thinking flawed in fight to return kids to classrooms
This letter provides additional information and perspective to the letter to the editor by Charles Stone published on Aug. 2 regarding Naperville schools returning to in-person learning for the upcoming school year.
The CDC guidelines Mr. Stone cites supporting in-person learning also state the transmission rates from school reopenings “have been mixed” and that low transmission rates are necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19. Illinois rates are increasing.
The understanding of the effect and transmissibility of COVID-19 is evolving and people who contract COVID-19 and who are not hospitalized still have debilitating health issues that will last a lifetime.
Mr. Stone summarized that deaths due to the flu for children 15 and younger average 15 in a year in the United States compared with 30 so far from COVID-19. This comparison is apples and oranges: 1. Schools were closed for three months because of the coronavirus, which is not the case for the flu; closure greatly reduced the transmission opportunities of the virus; 2. There is a flu vaccine.
Beyond that, are 15 children’s lives not important?
Mr. Stone summarized that school attendance mitigates depression, suicidal thoughts and abuse. I agree. Are these worse than a preventable death of a student’s friend or loved one from COVID-19? How will the student feel in this circumstance?
Teachers are often a punching bag of conservative lawmakers and voters. It’s ironic that now, when it suits their interests, these folks now acknowledge the vital role teachers play.
Mr. Stone said distance learning disadvantages low-income families. I agree. And given that we live in one of the most affluent parts of a wealthy country, outfitting these students with the necessary technology to participate fully in online learning should not be a stretch.
Steven E. Shamrock, Naperville
Trump’s removal of provision improves fair housing
This is in response to Ted Slowik’s column, “Restrictive covenant hits home decades later.”
AFFH, or Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, is a provision of the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
President Barack Obama adopted language requiring agencies receiving federal money for housing to examine whether there were barriers to fair housing and, if so, to create plans to address them.
However, Obama put a test program in force in Westchester, N.Y., pressing them to do all sorts of actions on housing that would abolish their laws with federal takeover. Single-family homes are targeted and so is local government control. If a suburb does not obey, they will not receive any HUD grants. If they do not fill out forms for HUD grants, they will not receive any road repair or transportation grants. The government compels compliance.
Trump suspended enforcement of the AFFH. The media has been very quiet about it. It is worth your while to start paying attention to this. It will be complete a rezoning of the suburban areas. There will be people out there who would dearly love to sugarcoat this issue, but suspending the AFFH is in your best interest.
We are all aware of the discrepancies between low-income housing and plush neighborhoods. Society can achieve the fair housing goal more readily with better jobs, education, family ties and faith – not with government edicts.
This country was founded on the principles that all are created equal with equal opportunities. Only Marxists and Communist principles promote equality of income.
Pat Stover, Naperville
A plea to our community: please wear a mask
More Top Picks Best Nail Dryers
As we begin to see another uptick in the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, I believe it is important to share some of what we’ve learned at Edward-Elmhurst Health during the past six months.
Most people who contract the coronavirus — 85% — have no symptoms or mild-moderate symptoms.
Some people have more severe symptoms and need to be hospitalized. They are more likely to be older, immunocompromised, or have chronic conditions such as diabetes, respiratory disease, heart conditions or obesity. But not always.
Whether hospitalized patients die or are discharged, the disease is devastating. Patients are extremely sick, often requiring mechanical ventilation, intensive care and weeks in the hospital. The suffering they and their families have experienced has been immeasurable and has had a profound and unforgettable impact on our healthcare workers.
COVID-19 is very contagious. Why? Because it is “novel” or new. This means our bodies have no means to fight it.
We do know, however, how to reduce the spread and your likelihood of contracting the virus: Wear a mask; wash your hands and avoid touching your face; practice physical distancing of at least six feet.
This past week the CDC published a report on two hair stylists who were positive for COVID-19. Between them, they serviced 139 clients. Not one of the exposed individuals became infected. Why? Because the salon insisted the stylists and their clients wear masks. That’s it. Quite simple, isn’t it?
The way you can protect yourself and those around you is simple, but not always easy to practice – especially at a gathering where those around you are not wearing masks. I get it. But there is simply no denying that wearing a mask is the most effective means we have for preventing the spread of coronavirus. It is the responsible thing to do.
Mary Lou Mastro
System CEO, Edward-Elmhurst Health
Slavery and incarceration are two different issues
In reference to Denise Crosby’s column, “Documentary ’13th’ an eye-opener to connection between slavery and mass incarceration,” I am totally unaware of any dictionary that defines “slavery” as “law and order.”
I also am unaware of any community that doesn’t want crime and criminals to be removed from their area. To decry programs that are successful in that goal is nuts. Why would anyone do so unless they teach, tolerate and engage in criminal behavior?
If that’s the case, then civilized people believe it’s deserved that your community is affected. Perhaps your community should rethink its values and behavior that discourage cooperation with law enforcement and dismiss low cost/free programs that offer educational and vocational learning opportunities so people to obtain skills to support themselves.
I am unaware of any such programs that have been overwhelmed by applicants. I’m sure there will continue to be much written to explain how such groups aren’t personally responsible for their bad choices, propaganda movies not withstanding.
Bill Voda, Warrenville
Share your views
Submit letters to the editor via email to [email protected]. Please include your name and town of residence for publication. Please include phone number and email address for confirmation. Letters should be no more than 250 to 300 words.