A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Outlasting
omicron
T
he early days of the pandemic can seem impos-
sibly distant today, so much has happened in the
nearly two years since the word “coronavirus” made
its unwelcome intrusion into the worldwide lexicon.
Vaccines and breakthrough cases.
Th e delta variant arrived last summer, then re-
treated through the fall, only to be supplanted by the
currently dominant omicron variant.
But in one important sense, the situation that
prevailed in the spring of 2020 remains utterly rel-
evant now. Th e pool of people in the U.S. for whom
COVID-19 presents a signifi cant risk of severe
illness or death is not particularly deep. And it’s even
shallower now, in the era of omicron, than it was fi ve
months ago when delta was spreading rapidly.
Experts, including Dr. Paul Offi t, director of the
Vaccine Education Center and professor of pe-
diatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, emphasize that
a growing body of evidence shows that omicron typ-
ically results in less serious symptoms, regardless of
age. Most importantly, omicron is less likely to aff ect
the lungs, leading to potentially fatal pneumonia.
Statistics refl ect this lower level of virulence.
Although omicron, because it’s much more in-
fectious than any previous variant, has led to record
numbers of COVID-19 cases across the nation — in-
cluding in Baker County — the numbers of people
who have died or needed treatment in a hospital
have not risen in proportion.
Even in the early stages of the pandemic, health
offi cials recognized that the virus was vastly more
lethal to the elderly and to people with compromised
immune systems or other health issues such as obe-
sity, diabetes or pulmonary problems.
Th ose groups remain the most vulnerable, al-
though omicron is less dangerous to them than delta
and earlier variants were.
Moreover, as Offi t noted in a recent interview,
people of all ages who are vaccinated — and in par-
ticular those who have had a booster dose — have
strong protection from severe illness if they con-
tract omicron. Th at variant is more likely to cause
breakthrough cases in vaccinated people, to be sure,
but people who have a breakthrough infection are
unlikely to get seriously ill. Many likely will have few
if any symptoms. As has been the case for more than
a year, vaccination remains a potent weapon against
the most serious eff ects of COVID-19. It’s unfortu-
nate that Baker County has the fi ft h-lowest vaccina-
tion rate among Oregon’s 36 counties.
People who are infected, including those who are
vaccinated, can potentially spread the virus to that
small minority of people who are more vulnerable.
And just as was the case during the onset of the
pandemic, we can blunt the eff ects of COVID-19 by
striving to minimize potential exposure to the virus
in that population.
Th at means, among other things, that people who
test positive need to be especially careful during
the several days they’re potentially infectious, even
though they probably will feel fi ne. Th is applies to
children as well as adults. Children, who are even
less vulnerable to severe illness from omicron than
are healthy, vaccinated adults, are contributing great-
ly to the rapid rise in cases nationwide, with pediat-
ric infections increasing by 78% the fi rst week of Jan-
uary, according to American Academy of Pediatrics.
Quarantining, although a responsible precaution,
has unfortunate eff ects, certainly, and ones we’re
seeing now, as schools and businesses struggle to
stay open due to worker shortages. But it’s far better
that people stay home for a week, with at worst mild
symptoms, than to increase to risk of infecting the
relatively few among us who are at greater risk.
Th e positive news, besides the lower virulence of
omicron, is that its rapid surge is likely to crest soon.
Offi t said in a recent interview that he expects the
situation will improve considerably in a month or so.
In the meantime, omicron likely will continue to
result in high case totals. But we have the ability to
protect people who are at great risk, and the more
successful we are, the more those numbers will be
just statistics.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
YOUR VIEWS
Letter about snowplowing
insulted public works department
Referring to the letter to the editor
dated Jan. 13. There is a need to set the
record straight ... the week of Jan. 3, 2022,
Baker City crews plowed snow from
streets and picked up snow berms be-
ginning at midnight Monday night. The
midnight plow crew plowed that Mon-
day midnight shift and then it became
necessary to plow the downtown priority
1 streets again Wednesday at midnight.
The berm crew continued to work mid-
night to 8 a.m. Monday night, Tuesday
night, Wednesday night, Thursday night
and Friday night picking up snow from
downtown priority 1 streets. Day shift
crews plowed snow on priority 2 and 3
streets Tuesday and Wednesday. Snow
conditions necessitated that priority 4
(neighborhood streets) be plowed. Zone
E and then Zone A were selected for
plowing Thursday and Friday to avoid
their garbage pick-up day. Continuing to
plow snow through the weekend would
cost the city street department overtime
wages. Every dollar that is spent on snow
removal is money that is not available
to crack fill, patch, chip seal and over-
lay streets. Not every citizen agrees with
every decision that is made regarding
street maintenance, but to make the un-
founded and untrue accusation that city
employees’ streets receive special treat-
ment is an insult to my integrity and the
professionalism of the Department.
Tom Fisk
Baker City
County shouldn’t be devoting time
to ‘constitutional county’ idea
Baker County United (BCU) is
known for its highly advertised attempt
last fall to get property owners to with-
hold their November property tax pay-
ments, in order to coerce Baker County
into defying state masking and vaccina-
tion mandates. The attempt failed mis-
erably. BCU could not even get its own
members to withhold their property tax
payments, let alone the general public.
What else does the public know
about BCU? I’ve tried to find out by
visiting its website BakerCountyUnited.
com. There you’ll read that BCU
purports to represent “We the People.”
BCU has commandeered that phrase
from the first three words of the U.S.
Constitution, which however refers
to persons living in 1787. It certainly
does not refer to BCU’s membership or
anyone else living today.
Yet at public meetings BCU support-
ers repeatedly recite their mantra “We
the People” “We the People” “We the
People.” They tell our Baker County
Commissioners that “We the People” are
the ultimate authority in Baker County,
therefore the Commissioners must do
what BCU wants. And right now they
insist upon adoption of a BCU-proposed
Resolution, which, if passed, requires
Baker County declare itself a “Constitu-
tional County” and, in addition, requires
that the County join the Constitutional
Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.
We can all agree that Baker County
voters elected our Baker County Com-
missioners to represent ALL Baker
County citizens, not just BCU support-
ers. So let’s count the numbers.
My rough estimate, given how few
supporters showed up for BCU’s rally
on Nov. 4, 2021, and at the recent Com-
mission hearings on Dec. 15 and Jan. 12,
is that BCU has about 150 supporters at
most. By comparison, registered Baker
County voters total about 13,000. Do the
math and you discover that BCU with
about 150 supporters is barely over 1%
of the 13,000 registered voters.
BCU’s demanding that Baker County
Commissioners adopt BCU’s Resolution
is akin to “the tail wagging the dog.”
Given that fact, why are the Com-
missioners spending such an inordi-
nate amount of time paying attention
to the tail?
Gary Dielman
Baker City
Two items of legislation that
deserve to be scrapped
There are two items of proposed leg-
islation, one federal and one state, which
are bad and should find their way to the
nearest trash can, not into law.
First, the bad proposed federal item
is the River Democracy Act, sadly ini-
tiated by our Oregon Senators Wyden
and Merkley. Thankfully it is opposed
by U.S. Representative Cliff Bentz and
our state Senator Findley and Represen-
tative Owens. The Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association also opposes it, along with
industry groups and several Eastern
Oregon county commissions. The pro-
posed bill would add some 4,700 miles
of streams for protection like those al-
ready under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act and would change buffers from ¼
mile to ½ mile wide along each bank,
i.e., total width of 1 mile. The process for
adding this additional stream mileage
was that anyone could recommend their
favorite stream or part thereof. Some
of these could be very small waterways
with only seasonal or ephemeral flow or
even dry gulches. With the buffers, some
3 million acres of land would be added
for protection but what that protection
level means is questionable. Agencies
would be required to develop extensive
management plans for the additional ar-
eas. This appears to be another means of
land grab/control and I question where
it will end. Will the next step be “tak-
ing” all watershed areas in the name of
stream protection but really more re-
lated to water control? This is dangerous
because all land surface is watershed. It
appears this might be a control strategy
similar to WOTUS.
Second, the bad proposed state item
is Initiative Petition (IP)-13, Abuse, Ne-
glect, and Assault Exception Modifica-
tion and Improvement Act. It’s basically
a vegan measure to put stock growers
(ranchers and farmers) out of business
and end hunting, fishing, and similar
activities that are significant in our East-
ern Oregon lifestyles and livelihoods.
Under this measure a person could only
kill an animal in self-defense. An animal
could only be butchered and used for
food if it died of old age. Wouldn’t that
make for a nice, tender steak? Animals
could not be used in rodeos or similar
exhibitions. Control of vermin and pests
would not be allowed. This Initiative Pe-
tition failed to get on the ballot in 2021
from lack of petition signatures but no
one thinks it will go away and it is not
unique to Oregon. Colorado faced a
similar measure in 2021. One would
think this proposal is so crazy it would
never be on the ballot or passed but we
need to be on our guard.
These proposed measures are avail-
able online and I strongly encourage
everyone to become knowledgeable of
their details, oppose them, and tell our
elected politicians to oppose them.
Jim Carnahan
Baker City
Snow berms can block gutters and
lead to flooding
On the warmer days this time of year
the street gutters should be running
like rivers carrying snowmelt out of the
neighborhoods and towards the Pow-
der River. The engineers who first laid
out the streets of Baker City did so with
water drainage in mind. A good exam-
ple of the city’s drainage system exists in
the area of Spring Garden Avenue, East
Street, Clark Street, and Auburn Avenue.
All snowmelt on these streets drains
down the gutters to Auburn Avenue and
then west down Auburn Avenue toward
the river. The deep ruts at Clark Street
and Auburn Avenue are there as part of
the drainage system.
The drainage system works perfectly
unless snow is piled in the gutters. This
year, the city snowplows came through
and pushed two feet of snow and ice into
the gutters, then it all melted a little then
refroze. That is why we are already see-
ing a large amount of water at the Au-
burn Avenue/Clark Street intersection.
The large snow berms create ice dams
preventing drainage of the melting snow.
As long as there is snow and ice in
the gutters the melt water goes no-
where except, eventually, the base-
ments of residents.
It doesn’t look like the city is going to
come through and solve the problem
by removing the snow berms created by
city snowplows. Residents along these
flooded streets are going to have to solve
the problem themselves by clearing the
snow and ice from the gutters in front of
their houses. Get that water moving or
expect it in your basements soon.
Brian Addison
Baker City
Constitution has served our nation
well for more than 230 years
The County Commission is be-
ing asked to adopt a “Constitutional
County” declaration. I’m a big fan of
the U.S. Constitution, so I think it’s
great to affirm our commitment to it.
It has helped the United States to pros-
per and become a model for other de-
mocracies around the world. However,
I don’t think that is what this proposal
is all about.
In 1787, the Constitution was estab-
lished in order to address the chaos
that existed under the Articles of Con-
federation, which allowed each state
to make up its own rules without a co-
ordinated federal government. Under
the Constitution each state, both the
original ones and those joining later,
has its own constitution in accordance
with the federal document. The U.S.
Constitution is the “supreme law of the
land” and guides the relationships be-
tween national and state governments
and the people they serve.
In short, our county and our state
are already bound by the U.S. Consti-
tution. In fact, federal, state and local
officials take an oath to abide by the
Constitution and the laws that flow
from it. So the Constitutional County
concept and a related Constitutional
Sheriff proposal are, at best, redundant.
The specifics of this proposal pres-
ent much greater problems. Propo-
nents seem to want County Commis-
sioners to take over judicial authority
of interpreting and applying the Con-
stitution and laws in order to address
their specific concerns. That is, of
course, not the Commission’s job.
We have over 230 years of history in
developing and adapting our govern-
ment to meet our needs in a changing
world. Our founding fathers couldn’t
foresee the ramifications of modern
technology, scientific understanding,
and social change, but they allowed for
representative government, amend-
ments, and independent courts to set
our course.
Having counties take over the exec-
utive, legislative and judicial roles set
out in state and federal constitutions
can only lead to chaos, especially if
elected leaders try to satisfy the de-
mands of local or regional interest
groups. Some people believe income
taxes are unconstitutional or that peo-
ple have the right to say anything they
want in any setting. Others believe
they have a right to enter state and
federal buildings any time they want.
Some believe federal or state vaccine
mandates are needed, while other see
them as unconstitutional. The list of
contentious issues goes on and on.
That’s why we need the Constitu-
tion. It allows elected representatives
to make our laws and independent
courts, selected by our elected repre-
sentatives, to interpret them.
Changing laws, and especially the
Constitution, can be a long and diffi-
cult process, as we’ve seen throughout
our nation’s history. But, whether you
or I agree with a particular position,
there are ways to proceed in accor-
dance with the Constitution and es-
tablished law. We can’t just pick which
laws we want to follow under our own
interpretation. That approach didn’t
work in 1776, and it won’t work now.
If proponents of a “constitutional
county” are truly supportive of the
Constitution, they need to respect
and follow the path it lays out. They
should not try to put local officials in
a position beyond the scope of their
office. That’s not fair to our officials,
nor to the people who elected them,
and it will undermine the value of our
Constitution.
Mark Bogart
Baker City