Protecting us is hardly authoritarian
A reader wrote, in claiming that President Joe Biden is more authoritarian than former President Donald Trump ["Who are heroes, who are goats?" Letters, Oct. 10], that these same critics of Trump "have no issue with President Joe Biden issuing vaccine mandates? I can’t think of one issue where Trump imposed strict adherence . . . to government authority over personal freedom."
Biden has issued mandates only for federal workers, contractors and the military. Local mandates are issued by local governments. Encouraging them for the protection and health of the American people is hardly authoritarian. It is the appropriate thing to do if we are ever to get past this pandemic. It defies logic to think that protecting the welfare of the American people is more authoritarian than attempts to interfere with and overturn an election.
I’m tired of hearing the argument about personal freedom. You don’t have the freedom to drive while inebriated — all freedoms have restrictions. I’d like the freedom to walk into a restaurant or other public venue without being possibly exposed to COVID-19 by those who refuse to get vaccinated.
— Michael Golden, Great Neck
Now that the vaccines are closer to being approved for all age groups, if a person receives any assistance from any public agency, that person should be vaccinated ["Pfizer asks for vax approval for kids 5-11," News, Oct. 8]. We all support the government through taxes and fees.
Why should we support those unwilling to support the public good?
— Bill Ugenti, Centereach
Cut mail delivery to three days a week
I would think, instead of slowing first-class mail service and raising the cost of stamps, it would make more sense to reduce mail delivery to residential customers ["What to know about slow mail, higher prices," News, Oct. 1]. Why is Saturday delivery necessary?
As far as I am concerned, delivery three days a week is sufficient. Many people receive their bills electronically and do not rely on mail service as much as in the past. I find that 99% of what I receive is advertisements, and they are immediately recycled or thrown out.
— Marguerite Connell, Wantagh
Mourning doesn’t end after child dies
I was really taken aback by the secondary headline on " ‘There’s no smile anymore’ " [News, Oct. 10]: "Two months later, mother of crash victim STILL mourns" (my emphasis). The grief and mourning of a loved one, most especially one’s child, is not subject to time constraints, and only "two months" is beyond ridiculous.
To include the word "still" is not only insensitive and offensive but exhibits ignorance.
As a mother whose 15-year-old daughter died in a car crash (negligence is not an "accident") almost 40 years ago, I can say that any loving parent enduring such a loss is forever heartbroken, regardless of how they have managed to move forward with their lives.
I hope Newsday’s headline writers are more thoughtful in the future.
— Nancy Lustig, Port Jefferson
Letter offensive to school bus drivers
I am offended and highly insulted by a reader’s statement about bus drivers ["Who are heroes, who are goats?" Letters, Oct. 10]. How dare the reader insult the profession by saying, "To me, unvaxed and unmasked in the schools is worse than putting kids on a bus with a drunken bus driver."
This reader obviously does not hold bus drivers in high regard. He has no idea of the vetting process, training, testing and continued monitoring by bus companies to make sure drivers are top-notch. No bus company would knowingly ever allow a driver to drive a bus drunk.
People ask why is there a bus driver shortage? Well, insensitive statements like this show that the public does not respect the profession or appreciate what it takes to be a bus driver. With this mentality toward bus drivers, the shortage will certainly continue.
— Marie Mateyunas, Huntington
The writer is a school bus driver.
NYC isn’t saving funds with incentives
A reader who says it’s better for New York City to give $100 incentive payments to people who get the COVID-19 vaccine apparently fails to realize that if the city pays 100 people $100 each to get the vaccine, totaling $10,000, that money comes out of the city’s coffers ["Incentive for shots pays off in long run," Letters, Oct. 8].
If those 100 people had not received shots and one was infected with COVID and hospitalized at a cost of $10,000 or more, it would be that person (or the health insurance company) who would have to pay the bill. The city itself would not be saving money.
— Herbert Kraut, Woodmere
CORRECTION: Marie Mateyunas is an active school bus driver. A previous version indicated she as retired.