Editorial Roundup: New England

Recent editorials of regional and national interest from New England’s newspapers:

CONNECTICUT:

Mask-wearing in schools for greater public good

The Connecticut Post

Sept. 30

The public has the right to sue the government for actions they may consider inappropriate. That doesn’t mean it is always a good idea.

The lawsuit brought by four Connecticut mothers against the requirement that children wear masks while in public school pits what they say is a right to an education against general public health.

The protection of public health cannot be ignored.

The families - from Manchester, East Lyme, Marlborough and Farmington with 10 children from ages 5 to 15 - say in the suit they oppose the state Department of Education requirement that children “wear face coverings, masks, face shields, or any other attire or apparatus on their persons in order to receive their fundamental right to an education.”

The requirement, following federal health guidelines, is for the safety of teachers, other students, and family members during the coronavirus epidemic. Though cumbersome and perhaps uncomfortable, masks are a prudent way to try to thwart the spread of the contagion.

However, the lawsuit filed through the Ridgefield-based CT Freedom Alliance, which petitioned earlier to re-open the region, charges that wearing masks all day is “dangerous and damaging to the Children’s health, safety and emotional well-being.”

This week a Superior Court judge ruled that two doctors who the group wanted to testify about psychological and physical damage to children were unqualified. One of them, a New York psychiatrist, was rejected by the judge as an expert because he believes COVID-19 is a hoax, vaccines are poison and viruses do not exist.

“The court will not accept as an expert advisor to it on a matter of life and death a man who defies science so firmly established as beyond rational dispute,” Judge Thomas Moukawsher said. The other, an ophthalmologist from Oklahoma who markets vitamin sales as an alternative to masks, lacks the appropriate professional background, the judge said.

Further, the lawsuit charges that masks do not “prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.” Scientific evidence and federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines are to the contrary.

Connecticut parents have options. If they don’t want their children to wear masks in school, then they can seek individual exemptions in the district or the students can learn remotely from home. But the lawsuit maintains distance learning “does not provide children with a constitutionally adequate education.”

Connecticut has a low positivity rate of coronavirus infection, though it is rising slightly, because most take seriously the need to wear masks, observe social distancing and follow other measures. It makes little sense to expose entire schools - and families - because a few parents find masks too uncomfortable for their children.

On a related note, we find it troubling that one of the lawyers representing the families holds state office. Craig Fishbein is a two-term Republican state representative for the 90th District, which covers part of Wallingford and Cheshire. Though legal, it is questionable for an elected official to be suing the state he helps govern.

Online: https://bit.ly/2GcVA8l

___

MASSACHUSETTS

Time to unveil plan addressing evictions

The Newburyport Daily News

Oct. 2

We are assuming Gov. Charlie Baker had a solution in mind when he indicated late last month that he would let the state’s COVID-19 eviction ban lapse on Oct. 17.

With that date a little more than two weeks away, now would be the time to unveil that plan to the public. Tenants and landlords both deserve clarity heading into a fall and winter that will still be dominated by high unemployment, a sluggish economy and widespread coronavirus restrictions.

On Sept. 24, Baker said he was working with the state Housing Court on a plan to help those at risk of losing their homes, but offered no details, other than to say he wants a system that protects both renters and landlords.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are working on their own plan, but there’s little hope of passing legislation by Oct. 17.

The moratorium, enacted by Baker during the state of emergency that began in March, is credited with preventing thousands of evictions. Early last month, the federal government implemented its own ban, which is set to expire at the end of the year. Both face court challenges.

“Obviously, the public health emergency is still here and winter is coming,” House Housing Committee co-Chairman Kevin Honan told State House News Service. “We continue to explore common ground with stakeholders, understanding that everyone is impacted by the pandemic, so there is a lot of work that remains to be done on this.”

The stakes are enormous. Housing advocates estimate the end of the moratorium could lead to between 20,000 and 80,000 evictions.

Baker appears to be leaning toward a mix of modified court rules and additional rental assistance, but he hasn’t made his intentions clear. Meanwhile, the bill before the House would bar evictions for missed rent payments and ban rent increases for a year after the state of emergency is lifted. It would also set up an aid fund for landlords with fewer than 15 units and let them move their missed mortgage payments to the end of their loan.

We’re hopeful state leaders can come up with a workable solution. But they must move quickly, however, with a transparency and clarity that helps renters and landlords prepare for the next several months. Not doing so would be an enormous failure during a time of crisis.

Online: https://bit.ly/30re3EO

___

MAINE

Welcome back, Massachusetts

Kennebec Journal/Morning Sentinel/CentralMaine.com

Sept. 27

Welcome back, Massachusetts. Your friends in Maine are ready to see you again.

The pandemic has been difficult for a lot of us. When the coronavirus hit in March, our governor declared a public health emergency, and instituted a series of measures to stop the spread of the virus, including one that required all out-of-state visitors except for essential workers to quarantine for two weeks after their arrival.

That rule was relaxed in June, when Gov. Mills said visitors could come if they had received a negative COVID test within three days of arriving. The rule was relaxed further, when Maine officials said visitors could come from states that had very low rates of infection – and though the list included New York and New Jersey, sadly, Massachusetts wasn’t on it.

Believe us, this probably hurt us a lot more than it hurt you. Our economy depends on tourism, and our neighbors in Massachusetts are some of our most reliable visitors. Lodging and accommodations were down nearly $100 million, or 40 percent, in July, according to Maine Revenue Services. Restaurant sales were down another $100 million, or 30 percent. Retail sales were also off. This punches a $34 million in the state budget, and threatened the livelihood of hundreds of small businesses and their employees. You have to believe us, we wouldn’t have told you to stay away if we didn’t have a good reason.

Early in the pandemic, Massachusetts was a hot spot for COVID transmission, averaging more than 2,000 new cases a day in late April to early May.

Maine, meanwhile, has been able to maintain the third lowest number of infections in the nation. That has held true even after an outbreak started at an Aug. 7 wedding in Millinocket, at which guests did not follow the state’s guidance on the size of the gathering and precautions around mask wearing. There were only 65 people at the indoor reception, but COVID cases connected to the event in three counties have resulted in 176 getting sick and seven deaths. Maine residents and business owners who strictly followed the state’s public health protocols kept incidents like that from being repeated all over the state.

We know that not everyone followed the rules this summer. We could see the Massachusetts license plates on the Maine Turnpike, in beach parking lots and outside popular restaurants. We have reasonably good suspicion that not everyone had gotten a COVID test or spent two weeks in quarantine before showing up to have fun.

But we also heard from heartbroken Massachusetts residents who said they had spent every summer of their lives in Maine and were disappointed that they could not make the trip this year because they could not meet the guidelines. We’re sorry to lose the company of people who care enough about other people’s health that they follow the rules even when it disadvantages them. Good behavior in your state has brought down the transmission rates to the point that we can reopen the gates and welcome you with open arms (at a safe distance).

The coronavirus pandemic has been unlike anything anyone now living has ever seen. Nationwide, we are on pace to count a quarter million deaths before the end of the year, and a potential vaccine is still months away from wide distribution. The only way to keep the disease from spreading is to wash our hands frequently, avoid crowds (especially indoors), maintain safe distances and cover our faces when that’s not possible.

But at least for now, it’s safe for people from Massachusetts to come to Maine, just as it will be OK for Mainers to make a trip south. We hope there are no hard feelings.

Online: https://bit.ly/33mHry0

___

VERMONT

A shot in the arm

The Rutland Herald

Sept. 26

On these pages in recent days, there has been a lot of discussion about getting flu shots.

The issue is an important one. Scientific American published an article on Thursday discussing concerns that if Americans choose not to get a flu shot, there could be a health care crisis between COVID and flu cases happening simultaneously.

At this critical moment in time, we do not want our hospitals overwhelmed.

According to published reports, the good news is that a safe and effective flu vaccine is already available to everyone aged 6 months and older.

A Real Time Barometer survey revealed that 92% of physicians in the United States are recommending that patients get their annual flu shot as soon as possible in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In New York and California, the number of physicians recommending a flu shot immediately jumps to 96% and 94%, respectively.

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traditionally recommends patients receive a flu shot by the end of October to help combat the virus during flu season, almost all (85%) of the 2,400-plus doctors surveyed from Sept. 17-20 across 31 countries are encouraging patients to receive a flu shot immediately.

“Each year, the flu sickens millions and hospitalizes hundreds of thousands of people during the fall and winter months. The elderly are especially hard hit every year,” said Peter Kirk, Sermo CEO. “While physicians always recommend flu shots, the fact that almost all are recommending that patients receive a vaccine sooner rather than later shows just how concerned they are about the potential for flu to deplete valuable resources in the middle of this historic pandemic.”

The survey also found that physicians, like everyone else, are planning to either eliminate or sharply curtail travel plans during the holiday season because of COVID-19. Worldwide, 68% of physicians said that their holiday travel plans are ‘significantly impacted’ by the pandemic. Overall, in the U.S., 66% of physicians said they didn’t plan to travel with their families. Again, in New York and California, the percentages are higher.

The numbers follow the belief physicians have that a second surge of COVID-19 cases is on the horizon. Globally, 93% of physicians expect a second wave of cases as the Northern Hemisphere enters the fall and winter months, and people spend more time indoors.

So a flu shot makes sense.

“The answer to the question ‘Why should you get a flu vaccine?’ is the same this year as it is every year. But there are some additional reasons why it’s extra beneficial to get (it) this year,” Emily Landon, executive medical director of infection prevention and control at University of Chicago Medicine, told Scientific American this week. She explains that influenza can have dire consequences ranging from loss of productivity to death. “You should do everything you can to prevent the flu, and the shot is the best way we can do that,” Landon was quoted as saying.

The CDC estimated that in the 2018–19 season, some 35.5 million Americans came down with the flu and that about 34,000 of them died from it. Flu shots prevented another 4.4 million cases and about 3,500 deaths. In 2020 vaccinating as many people as possible against influenza could be critical to preventing a dual-epidemic scenario. But getting a flu shot is good policy in any year, according to the article.

“In this COVID flu season that’s coming, it’s even more important to get a flu shot because it’s going to be hard to tell the difference between flu and COVID,” considering that the two diseases have similar symptoms, Landon was quoted as saying.

In fact, according to the CDC, it’s impossible to tell without a test. Influenza and COVID-19 have such similar symptoms, you may need to get tested to know what’s making you miserable.

Body aches, sore throat, fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue and headaches are symptoms shared by the two. One difference? People with the flu typically feel sickest during the first week of illness. With COVID-19, people may feel the worst during the second or third week, and they may be sicker for a longer period. Precautions against COVID-19 - masks, social distancing, hand-washing - also slow the spread of the flu, so health officials hope continued vigilance could lessen the severity of this year’s flu season.

So get the shot. Everyone 6 months of age and older should get a flu vaccine every season. It is the smart thing to do, and there is no good reason not to.

Online: https://bit.ly/3l9tiKx

___