Your Jan. 23 editorial “State need to drop proposal for lasting indoor mask rule” omitted mentioning the law that set us in this mess. Granted, any law can’t address just about every circumstance, but this law is failing us. There seems to be some form of panic of governing administration overreach that constrains us to possibly a non permanent or everlasting problem this is an synthetic constraint we have developed. The creators of the law didn’t foresee a health disaster that would past this extensive. I characterize this condition as a failure to incorporate an exception in circumstance of emergency. With hospitals crammed to capability, we are in a general public wellbeing crisis. If we’re lazy, we could simply adjust the legislation to let the renewal of the temporary rule, possibly restricting it to “x” quantity of renewals. I would desire a little something that supplies the outlines of what constitutes an unexpected emergency and grant a lot more leeway to the correct agency. We can debate what qualifies as an crisis (hospitals at a selected capacity, and positivity fees at a specified percentage, for case in point) and how a great deal ability to grant, but clearly the existing regulation wants fixing.
David Moriwaki, Portland