Readers Write: The Twins, masking, Dilbert

Opinion editor's note:Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I bought a Twins baseball cap recently. Every now and then I choose a team other than my home team to root for, too. Once the Twins re-signed Carlos Correa, I knew something was happening. The club earned a superb score of A-minus by The Athletic on its offseason moves list, highlighting Correa, pitcher Pablo López and catcher Christian Vázquez. (The Guardians are pegged at only a B-minus.) I recognized the Twins would be a fun team to watch.

I also truly believe they'll win the AL Central Division — contrary to what some may think after the disenchantment of the 2022 season. Sizzling center fielder Byron Buxton has a long-term contract with the club, providing stability when paired with Correa's. Manager Rocco Baldelli expects increased innings from his broad starting pitcher staff.

A recent sports column ("Deep dive: How Twins roster is shaking out," Feb. 23) voiced concern about the middle third of the batting order. I can't speak to that, but there are 162 games to figure that out before the postseason begins.

We hear annually about payroll discrepancies across Major League Baseball, but how does one measure potential chemistry and leadership — or the variables of a reshuffled schedule and fresh playoff format?

The analytics sites and casinos have already figured out exactly how many games the 2023 Twins will win. (More than last year, but nothing seismic.)

They can have their predictions, and I'll keep my hat. We'll see.

Adam Silbert, New York

MASKING

In the commentary by Bret Stephens, "Truth unmasked, at last" (Opinion Exchange, Feb. 24), he cites what is proposed to be the definitive study demonstrating that wearing masks, or not wearing masks, had no effect on the pandemic. This was positioned to be the absolute, definitive science that revealed the truth about mask wearing. That conclusion may be true, but Stephens also provides evidence that it might not be true later in the article.

It comes down to compliance. Americans are fiercely independent and do what they believe to be right. As a result, even states with mask mandates had incredibly poor compliance, and in states without mask mandates, people wore masks because they thought it was the right thing to do. Sorry, but wearing a mask under your nose or on your chin isn't compliance.

To draw the conclusion that masks are of little value, the study authors would need to know the compliance rate of wearing masks correctly and in all situations. If that data is available and verifiable, and the study still shows that masks are of little value, I will believe it. Until then, should there be another pandemic, I'm wearing mine.

Rich Jansen, Cumberland, Wis.

•••

I have no medical background, but this seems worthy of further comment. Is the COVID virus so unique that masks are ineffective only in this case? If not unique, why should surgeons wear masks while operating? Seems to call into question the whole theory of spreading of germs/viruses. Stephens also calls into question social distancing. Many anecdotal cases were cited of a spread via social gatherings — choir practice, concerts, business meetings, weddings, etc. All fictitious? The whole article deserves some response or clarification from medical spokespeople. How about Michael Osterholm?

John Jackson, Bloomington

•••

We cannot understand if mask mandates were effective or not without considering the costs and outcomes. How much money did Minnesotans and our various state and private agencies spend on our response to the COVID pandemic, and to what effect? How many people got infected in groups that never wore masks?

From this we can understand how much money was withheld from cancer treatment and research, and from the host of other public health problems and measures that save lives.

What if we had spent all of this money on solving childhood obesity, trading lives with large potential for lives that were mostly finished?

The simplest way to treat this is to do the same thing we have done for many years in response to avian flu. Otherwise, we are at odds with nature, evolution and economics.

Mark R. Jacobson, Richville, Minn.

•••

If masks are useless, why do surgeons and other hospital personnel continue to wear them in the operating room? Until you can explain that, I cannot believe they are useless.

Wendy Richardson, Minneapolis

•••

A recent piece by Bret Stephens was allocated a half page by the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In that commentary, Stephens incorrectly assets that: "Mask mandates were a bust." He based this on a study published by Cochrane. That is not what the study concluded.

The authors readily admitted the limitations of their review: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions." In short, they recognized significant limitations to their review.

A more honest commentary from Stephens could have said something like: Mask mandates are of limited and possibly no effectiveness depending on types of masks used, situations of use and user compliance.

There is solid experimental and epidemiological evidence that masks (N95s better than cloth) limit dispersion of micro-particles that carry the viruses and therefore can limit disease transmission. A more honest assessment would be that masks are not an absolute protection and their value is limited. Sweeping statements like those from Stephens may sell newspapers but they don't inform the public.

James Haemmerle, Savage

•••

Rather than everyone pontificating on the historical effects of masking, why not just let anyone and everyone who prefers to wear a mask to wear one? Those who prefer to go maskless, feel free to do just that! Problem solved!

Gordon Ritz, Minnetonka

DILBERT

While I don't understand or condone the political leanings of "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams, I do find the Dilbert comic strip to be a small piece of joy that adds to my day ("'Dilbert' creator admits his racist rant sank his career," Feb. 27). It is my favorite comic strip. I will defer to the Star Tribune's wisdom regarding their business relationship with Adams, but I strongly suggest that the strip be replaced by bringing back Calvin & Hobbes ... whatever it takes!

Tom McDonough, Eagan

•••

A Sunday news item ("Media drop Dilbert after creator's remarks," Feb. 26) stated that "The Star Tribune is evaluating whether to continue carrying Dilbert." [Opinion editor's note: The paper announced Monday it was dropping the comic strip.]

Scott Adams' politics are naive and uncouth at best, perhaps bigoted at worst. But Adams is not a politician. He is an artist. And Adams' art, the Dilbert strip, remains a biting and often incisive view into the machinations of corporate bureaucracy.

American art is already experiencing a great wave of censorship, from the bowdlerization of Roald Dahl's children's books to the virtual book ban promulgated by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Removing Dilbert from the comics serves little purpose but to deny Star Tribune readers the delights of Dilbert's befuddlement and Wally's cynical undermining of corporate mismanagement, regardless of their creator's unworthy personal comments.

Let's not conflate the artist with the art. Please allow Dilbert to keep talking, and entertaining us, on Star Tribune pages.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka

•••

I will miss the comic strip Dilbert. It was consistently funny in subtle ways. It was one of my favorites. I understand why the Star Tribune, along with numerous other newspapers, have dropped the comic strip due to its creator Scott Adams' racist statements. Doesn't make sense that someone who can write such a smart comic strip can be so stupid.