Colorado’s ventilators: Gift or takeaway?
Re: “Trump playing a disgusting political game,” April 9 editorial
Is there any way your editorial board can look beyond your hatred of our president? You state that when our governor asked for 500 ventilators, he was refused and the federal government got them. I believe the ventilators should go to the states that need them the most and not to a state like Colorado that seems to be under control. Then, when Sen. Cory Gardner gets some, you are ugly instead of grateful.
I would like to request that the members of your editorial board look at the positive things the president has done, and if you can not see anything good, why don’t you stop your ridiculous “opinions” and use the space for letters from the readers? My neighbors are more open-minded and smarter then you are. You are stuck in hatred.
Joanie Jones, Denver
Thank you for addressing this issue on a national basis. Trump’s lack of leadership and indecisiveness has already caused the deaths of so many people in the United States. And now, he is allocating critical medical supplies to those that kowtow to him and support his policies rather than those states that are in desperate need. When I look at the leadership in New Zealand and what is happening in other countries that are beating the COVID-19 illness, our leadership represents a sorry picture of how not to address a major worldwide pandemic when, instead, we should be setting the example for the world.
Patricia Horgan, Denver
Re: “Trump says 100 ventilators coming to Colorado,” April 9 news story
I read The Denver Postap editorial page first in Thursday’s paper, where I learned that Gov. Jared Polis had secured 500 ventilators from a private company for Colorado, then Trump prevented that transaction. Sen. Cory Gardner was later able to secure 100 ventilators for the state. I turn the page and read the headline, “Trump says 100 ventilators coming to Colorado.” A more appropriate headline would be, “Trump prevents Colorado from acquiring 400 ventilators.”
Colin Callahan, Denver
Get on the same page
Re: “State stay-at-home order is extended,” April 7 news story
Gov. Jared Polis, meet Denver Mayor Michael Hancock. Mayor Hancock, meet Gov. Polis.
Since first announcing and then extending our stay-at-home restrictions and closures, our two most visible local officials seem to be strangers to each other.
On the same day, the governor announces an extension of the stay-at-home order until April 26 and the mayor announces his extension until April 30.
Come on, guys. How about picking up the phone or walking across Civic Center park (figuratively) and forming a unified front. These individual statements just cause needless confusion.
Work together — for all our sakes!
Richard Abels, Englewood
Not so fast with that triage plan
Re: “Patient care rules decided,” April 6 news story; and “Triage guides will save more patients with disabilities,” April 8 commentary
Everyone does not receive equal treatment in the United States. This gets inscribed as policy when triage guidelines are set up in Gov. Jared Polis’ Expert Emergency Epidemic Response Committee’s rules. The list of criteria for who gets life-saving treatment among COVID-19 patients during the peak period of the disease is long enough that one wonders whether overworked health workers will have time to gather and access so much data on each patient. On the list of criteria triage teams would consider is “how many life years” could be saved. Seniors may now think that they will have little chance of receiving life-saving emergency treatment during the peak of the disease.
The experts covered all the bases and then some in the effort to make sure no one is discriminated against due to “race, ethnicity, ability to pay, disability status, national origin, primary language, immigration status, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, religion, veteran status, ‘VIP’ status, and criminal history.” Age is not included in this list. Many seniors support younger family members (in many ways), but unless they are the sole financial support, this doesn’t count.
Also, seniors often spend their later years volunteering for the community.
The point is, no one is more expendable than anyone else for any reason. Contrary to what the authors of the guest commentary assert, the implications of setting up a hierarchal vetting system lead me to conclude “first come, first served” is a more ethical and maybe easier system in an unacceptable and unquantifiable situation.
Cornelia Hall, Denver
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
