The issue in deciding on 'level of risk'

In her Oct. 7 opinion piece, Debra J. Saunders indicates that (other things being comparable) she favors the presidential candidate who "wants the country to remain open for business" rather than a candidate who prioritizes anti-viral precautions over business-as-usual: "I'll take the leader who doesn't want the cure to be worse than [the] disease and trusts Americans to choose their level of risk."

Let's repeat that last part: " ... trusts Americans to choose their level of risk." But when you fail to use precautions against the coronavirus, you risk not only your health but mine as well. How is your decision to put me at risk a subject for your choice? What signal did I send that you perceived as giving you consent to threaten my health - to endanger my well-being?

We all recall the words "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as key principles included in our founding documents. Notice that "life" is listed first. Of course it is. After all, what trumps life? Not freedom, not liberty, not property, not the Second Amendment, nothing.

It is stunted thinking to suppose that how we should control the coronavirus is a topic that we can properly either (1) vote on as a community or (2) individually decide on a go-it-alone basis.

We have all been instructed about what needs to be done. Until we get serious and follow these instructions, the infections can be expected to flourish.

Jim D. Kinney

Vernon Hills