Get a life and get vaccinated

Parent Category: Editorials Written by Rob Viehman Hits: 665

    A common answer you often hear from many people when you ask them if they are going to get vaccinated to protect them from COVID-19 is “I think I’ll wait and see how it goes.” Let me introduce you to life.


    If you are waiting to “see how it goes,” out of concern that somehow these new vaccines are going to cause some unforseen health problems in the future, you might want to examine your entire life. There are no guarantees, there are no absolutes, but that’s not stopping you from living. Is it?
    Each and every day we make decisions that could have long-lasting impacts on our life and health. And each and every day we make those decisions without so much as even a second thought.
    Do you eat processed food? Take over-the-counter medications? Drink all sorts of prepackaged liquids? Enjoy meals prepared by people you don’t know? Travel the highways with people who could be drunk, drugged, or simply idiots? Put your life in the hands of unknown airline pilots and bus drivers? Use chemicals with ingredients only someone who majored in Latin could pronounce? Do you breathe?
    Doing all of those things put you at risk, but you don’t hesitate to do many of those things on a daily basis. Why? Because that is life. It is living. And we all must take risks in our daily lives.
    Getting vaccinated is no more of a risk than doing any of those things. And given the data—most of which shows that even if you get COVID-19 after being vaccinated your chances of being hospitalized or dying are reduced to almost zero—not getting vaccinated might actually be more risky.
    Vaccines have rid us of polio, tetanus, hepatitis, rubella, measles, whooping cough, mumps, chickenpox, diphtheria, and more. Vaccines will also help us get rid of COVID-19.
    Get vaccinated and get on with your life, so the rest of us can too.

Save bridge for now
    The city council in Steelville has debated removing the city’s Third Street bridge recently. The low-water structure, which is located near the Crawford County Courthouse, is routinely covered with debris and gravel with the Yadkin Creek floods.
    After periods of high water, city crews are often forced to do work at the bridge to remove driftwood from the structure and take out gravel that clogs drainage under it. This has been going on for decades and is not a new problem.
    To address the problem, however, aldermen are thinking about removing the bridge, which serves as a vital connection between the courthouse—including the Associate Circuit Court—and the Crawford County Jail, both as a roadway and for foot traffic.
    It’s true that removing the bridge will mean less work for the city, but something else is also true that means doing so shouldn’t happen right now. There is a real possibility that a major flood-control project for Yadkin Creek could be happening in the not-so-distant future.
    During discussions on new floodplains mapping held about a year ago, officials with the State Emergency Management Agency told local stakeholders that Steelville is near the top of the list (#2 behind De Soto) for major flood-control work. While that work has been on hold due to the pandemic, it could provide great flood relief for the city.
    If flood control is on the way soon, then why should the city be considering removal of the Third Street bridge? If flooding is controlled or even greatly reduce, the problems at that bridge could go away. Until more is know, the Third Street bridge needs to remain in place.