Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 15
Homeless camps are a growing problem in the Twin Cities
Ramsey and Hennepin counties need more resources to help stop the spread of COVID-19.
With more outdoor tent camps cropping up around the metro, the already difficult problem of homelessness has grown worse during the coronavirus pandemic.
Over the past few weeks, a once small encampment in south Minneapolis has grown to about 100 homeless people near Hiawatha Avenue. And officials report that there are now more than 80 encampments in St. Paul - including one that is also growing near the Minnesota History Center grounds.
Between Ramsey and Hennepin counties, officials estimate that several hundred people are living in outdoor encampments - some because they feel safer and less likely to catch the virus than they would at a shelter where physical distancing is almost impossible. Others prefer being outside because of the freedom from shelter rules.
But, sadly, the spread of the camps can contribute to the spread of the virus. So current efforts to clear the encampments and find appropriate indoor shelter for the homeless must be supported and expanded. Conditions in the camps make them ripe to become hot spots.
To address those issues, commissioners from Ramsey and Hennepin counties, along with the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul, have asked the state for COVID-19-related funding and personnel to mount a regional response. They’ve also been working with nonprofits and businesses to reduce the populations of existing shelters to promote social distancing.
Both counties have moved several hundred homeless people from shelters and are supporting them in hotels. And they have set up isolation sites for those who have either displayed symptoms or tested positive for the virus.
But those efforts have primarily reached people in shelters. They need to be extended to those in tent camps.
Ramsey County Commissioner Trista MatasCastillo, who is leading a homelessness work group made up of public officials, told an editorial writer that the pandemic has exacerbated an already difficult problem. The pandemic has reduced the number of places for the homeless to go, she said. More physical space and staffing is needed to oversee scattered sites that now include hotels.
And Tim Marx, president and CEO Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis (which operates Dorothy Day and other shelters) likened existing shelters to “field hospitals” providing health care for the poor. He said that consideration should be given to using some of the public spaces that are now empty because of the pandemic.
Looking to the post-COVID future, Marx said, the region should not go back to the “bad old days” of cramming too many people into shelters and “making them more unhealthy again.”
For now camps are a critical focus because they pose a health threat not only for the occupants but also the wider community.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, May 17
COVID-19: Let’s live up to lessened restrictions
Why it matters: Gov. Tim Walz’s “stay at home” order expires Sunday night, but Minnesota’s battle with the coronavirus is far from over.
Too soon? Too late?
On Monday many of Minnesota’s retailers will get to reopen their doors for the first time in weeks. Gov. Tim Walz hasn’t fully reopened the economy - restaurants remain on a take-out basis only; bars, theaters and salons remain shuttered; even the stores that do reopen are to restrict occupancy and take other protective measures.
So Minnesota is not taking anywhere as aggressive an approach as some states. But the governor’s “turning the dial” metaphor is an appropriate description of his appropriate approach to the next step of Minnesota’s battle against the novel coronavirus.
Michael Osterholm - a familiar name in these parts from his role as state epidemiologist during Mankato’s meningitis outbreak 25 years ago - is involved in this medical struggle as well, this time as director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. He made several intriguing points this week in a lengthy Q-and-A published by USA Today, points he has presumably made to the governor, and one of them was this:
“Four weeks ago, we had everybody agreeing that we’re going to reopen (once we) have 14 days of reduced occurrence of illness. Then, when it got another couple of weeks along and that wasn’t happening, we just threw all that out the window without ever saying we did.”
Osterholm is absolutely right on that, nationally and at home. Minnesota is not seeing cases fall off, is not seeing deaths fall off, is not seeing hospitalizations or intensive care commitments fall off. We’re still seeing about two dozen people a day die with COVID-19. The day after Walz announced that he would allow the stay-at-home order to expire Sunday night, the state said it is only meeting one of its reopening criteria.
And yet Osterholm conceded earlier in the Q-and-A: “We can’t lock down for 18 months or more to whatever it might take.” And in another answer: “This shouldn’t be dollars or lives. This should be, how do we integrate both and bring them together?”
Walz’s stated purpose when he first issued the stay-at-home order was to buy time to prepare Minnesota’s health care system for the coming surge. That feared peak has not hit, yet, and the state says it has stockpiled the gear and emergency hospital space it needs for when it does come. In that sense, it was time to ease the restrictions and gradually free up movement.
Minnesotans have put up with weeks of closed stores and limited movement. Patience has worn thin with many, and there are signs that people are beginning to disregard the stay-at-home order. The economic damage done by the shutdown is genuine and perhaps lasting.
But there should be no doubt that even the limited reopening of business will increase transmission of the virus. Walz is trusting Minnesotans to behave sensibly in the coming days and weeks and give him reason to further turn the dial to open. Let’s live up to that trust.
___
St. Cloud Times, May 15
COVID-19 redefines the challenges businesses face
Starting Monday, businesses across Minnesota could well be judged by a whole new set of factors - all of which go beyond “did you find everything you were looking for?”
Think:
- Is the business clean?
- Are the required hand-sanitizing stations in place, accessible and filled?
- Are face masks required? Not just suggested, but required?
Welcome to in-person shopping in the era (and likely still early stages) of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Put more simply, one question reflects the new standard: Is patronizing this business in person worth risking my health?
The reality is that with more than 1.4 million adults in Minnesota facing serious health risks if they contract COVID-19, it’s a fair question for consumers to ask.
The highly contagious novel coronavirus - which poses serious health risks to about 92.6 million adults nationwide if contracted - already is reshaping behaviors.
Expect more of the same Monday as small and main street businesses statewide reopen. And if Minnesota bars, restaurants, salons, gyms and even more businesses open June 1 as proposed, there is no doubt this paradigm shift will continue.
To be clear, the question of consumer safety is not in opposition to Gov. Tim Walz’s decision to allow more businesses to reopen and to let his stay-at-home order expire Monday.
Walz is doing an admirable job trying to protect public health while getting Minnesota on track toward its new normal. Witness his administration’s detailed expectations (and suggestions) for helping businesses reopen.
Expecting businesses to craft their own COVID-19 Preparedness Plans (built on a template from the state) essentially forces them to realize how easily - and unintentionally - they could be putting customers at risk.
And it also creates a starting point from which businesses will be judged by consumers on whether the products they offer on site are worth the risks consumers may face upon entering businesses.
Businesses - especially in the retail sector- have long had to properly balance product, price, ambiance, convenience and, to a degree, cleanliness to survive. The coronavirus, though, redefines that challenge.
New standards of cleanliness are now mandated. Whether and to what degree businesses meet and exceed those standards could easily determine not just whether they survive, but if they thrive.
And making that collective decision starting Monday will be scores of Minnesotans - all of whom have different health statuses, varying income levels and a myriad of needs and expectations for shopping in-person during a COVID-19 pandemic.
Amid all that, we wish the best of luck to all businesses reopening Monday. After two months of closure, it would be nice to see every one of them succeed. But free market principles dictate that won’t happen. Instead, it will be consumers who decide which businesses have the right balance of products, prices, convenience and - now - COVID-19 protections.
As always - and as it should be - their votes will be seen in their behaviors and their spending habits.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.