Readers Write: George Floyd and Lake Street, COVID vaccines, transgender athlete policy

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I very much appreciated Teresa Ortiz’s opinion piece, “Lake Street rising” (Strib Voices, May 21). As a Minneapolitan with 66 years of experience living on or near south Minneapolis’ Main Street, I cannot reinforce enough the point that several waves of immigration have brought Lake Street back to vitality. As a child, Lake Street had small businesses and movie theaters, but by the time I graduated from West High (go, Cowboys!) it had fallen into neglect, with mostly boarded-up storefronts and sex businesses from the freeway to Hiawatha. Bring in new people with new energy starting in the 1990s, and soon it was hopping with new restaurants and shops catering to new and old Minnesotans alike.

Then 2020. The destruction. The waste. Now there’s so much to rebuild and reinvigorate. Uptown is still on the ropes. But Lake Street is already coming back, and in some places better than ever. On many blocks shops are busy and restaurants are hopping once again, mostly thanks to people not born here. 27th Avenue and Lake may not be downtown Longfellow anymore, but 36th and Lake is filling the bill nicely. No, you can’t keep this grand dame down.

William Burleson, Minneapolis

The writer is the editor of “Lake Street Stories.”

•••

In regards to Junauda Petrus’ poem: Thank you (“Cigarettes and Fireflies,” Strib Voices, May 20). Did not realize, at first, that it was commissioned for George Floyd, as I identified it with so many others. Such a beautifully written poem to read and also to watch on the video presentation. Would love to see more from her and others included in the Strib. I was brought to tears reading her beautiful words.

Anne Russ, Robbinsdale

On Tuesday, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Dr. Vinay Prasad published an opinion piece in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination.” In it, they laid out their vision for a new framework of regulation regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. Under this new framework, Americans between 6 months and 64 years of age would not be eligible for booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines unless they had a condition that made severe COVID-19 more likely. While the authors point out that the list of such conditions makes 100 million to 200 million Americans eligible (a concerningly large range for public health leaders to be comfortable with), this guidance leaves out many people (like health care workers) who have regular contact with vulnerable people who are unable to mount an effective response to vaccines themselves due to age, impaired immunity or medications. These patients rely on us to not bring illnesses to them. The proposed guidance also ignores multiple studies (not randomized controlled trials, but still large and well-done studies) showing that COVID-19 boosters decreases rates of illness, hospitalization and death.

President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. emphasized “medical freedom” on the campaign trail. How restricting access to vaccines that keep doctors, nurses and other health care workers from getting sick advances “medical freedom” is not clear to me. If this guidance is enacted, I will be keeping my patients safe — with a road trip to Thunder Bay for my Canadian COVID booster.

Dimitri Drekonja, Minneapolis

The writer is an infectious-disease specialist and University of Minnesota Medical School associate professor.

•••

In response to “FDA to limit use of COVID vaccines” (May 21): As a recently retired primary care physician, I felt a strong need to comment. As with the flu vaccine, which is recommended for everyone 6 months or older, there is a benefit for all if more people are vaccinated. In addition, the COVID vaccine has been proven to be more effective than the flu shot. The immune response to vaccines is less in the elderly and those with underlying health issues. Therefore, the less disease present in the community, the less chance one has to be exposed.

Finally, obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for hospitalization and death from COVID — and 40% of Americans are obese.

Mark Valgemae, Edina

Regarding “Athletes sue Ellison, state leaders” (May 21): In reporting this legal action taken on behalf of cisgender female athletes who feel disadvantaged when competing against trans female athletes, the Star Tribune missed an opportunity to educate the general public and promote compassion for trans people. The article did not mention the current lack of scientific information relevant to this issue. Unfortunately, various studies have shown various outcomes regarding the question of trans female athletes’ advantages after hormonal and puberty blocking therapies. (For a balanced overview, read “Fact check: Do trans women have unfair athletic advantage?” at DW.)

So, the reality that the Star Tribune omitted in its reporting is that there is no scientific basis on which to base this lawsuit. And considering the enormity of the challenges already burdening people with gender dysphoria — not to mention the harassment from politicians in high places — this omission was a failed opportunity. The Star Tribune failed to remind its readers that until proven guilty, trans female athletes are innocent.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

•••

No one would argue against the notion that athletes in 2025 are bigger, faster and stronger than those who competed in the past. Having coached both male and female athletes at the high school level, there is no question in my mind that male athletes would dominate when competing with female athletes.

I am not a doctor or physiologist, but I have to believe that a transgender female athlete has an unfair advantage when she competes against girls born as females. A transgender female athlete still possesses the male physical traits that do indeed make her bigger, faster and stronger. As a girls’ track coach, I know the boys and girls teams practice on the same track each afternoon. If I visualize one of my female athletes competing against one of the male athletes, I can only visualize an event unfairly dominated by the male.

I respect the civil rights factor that’s involved in this controversy, and my heart goes out to transgender female athletes, especially at the high school level. However, a bigger part of my heart goes out to those athletes born as females who presently have to compete against transgender females in Minnesota. It’s simply not fair, and the playing field is tilted in the direction of the transgender female athlete.

George Larson, Brooklyn Park

In a Minnesota Star Tribune article on May 14, Katie Cashman, the incumbent City Council representative from Minneapolis’ Ward 7, claimed that she was defeated by Elizabeth Shaffer for the DFL endorsement because corporate and special interests were “buying an endorsement” (“Despite lack of endorsement, Cashman stays in council race”).

That is nonsense. I was at the Ward 7 convention as a delegate and talked to many other delegates. Sixty one percent of us voted to endorse Shaffer. We were all residents of the ward and not corporations or special interests. We voted for Shaffer because she will help bring the City Council back to concentrating on its core missions — enhancing public protection, building affordable housing, enhancing public infrastructure and energizing a strong downtown business community. As our Park and Recreation Board commissioner, Shaffer has shown the focus to concentrate on the most important tasks of her job and the ability to collaborate with others to carry out the tasks. She deserves our support in the upcoming election.

Tom Tinkham, Minneapolis