Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.  

To the editor: On Tuesday, Nov. 30, I read the first letter to the editor condemning the mask mandate in Brattleboro. Looking to get another perspective I read the second and third letters, but they just said the same thing in different ways. So for starters, I am skeptical that this is the only sentiment that the Reformer received. But if that is the case, then why were these three letters selected to be published? What's the value in just stirring the pot?

Secondly, I would suggest that if the scientists are correct, then one of the ironies of the pandemic is that the people who are against requiring masks tend to be more reticent about getting the vaccine. Since the vaccines are demonstrably effective, then it's the anti-maskers who increase the need for masks. For myself, I choose to believe the science on the virus, but I know that those three letter writers will not be convinced by me, nor me by them. However, that's not relevant to my second point. Here's what I wonder: If you could do a simple thing that inconveniences you in only a minor way, and in doing so, you could help many other people feel a whole lot better, why wouldn't you go for it? What's the downside?

Paul Weber

Support our journalism. Subscribe today. →

Townshend, Dec. 2

Editor's note: The Reformer has published several letters and op-ed columns, both for and against the indoor mask mandate, since the Brattleboro Select Board voted to adopt the new rule on Nov. 23. Letters are printed on a first-come, first-served basis.