Would you contribute to a COVID relief fund?

Iwas pleased to read of your support for the idea of paying businesses to stay closed (editorial, Sunday, Nov. 29), at least until the current COVID “wave” recedes. I proposed a similar approach myself (op-ed, Friday, Nov 20), although I would prefer to compensate individuals directly. I agree that this should have been done months ago and it should be done nationally. And I agree that a national solution is almost certainly not going to happen, at least not before January 20th.

But I disagree on one point: I think it is possible for one state, or a group of neighboring states, to implement this approach. States could raise the money via a “COVID relief fund.” Distribution of proceeds would need to be very transparent so it’s clear where the money is going. And it would have to be short-term, for the COVID-19 situation only. Some would object to paying into this fund but I would ask them: What would you pay to save the life of the most important person to you? It may not be a hypothetical question: We don’t know who is at serious risk from the virus. Youth and good health do not confer immunity. If you had to pay 5-to-10 percent of your annual income over a few months to save that person’s life, would you find a way to do it? What if this contribution could at the same time also save a thousand other lives? Or, what if, by contributing to the COVID relief fund, you ended up saving your own life?

It shouldn’t be a tough question. Covering people who have lost income due to COVID restrictions for about four months would get us through the winter and much closer to national distribution of a vaccine. It can be done, even at the state level. The state could pass a one-time “COVID tax” but with the right presentation I think the people of Connecticut would contribute voluntarily.

How about it, Connecticut?

Bruce Barrows Danbury