A new strain of COVID-19 known as XEC is gaining traction in Chicago, just as the holidays approach and seasonal respiratory virus season gets underway. The COVID-19 virus remains a public health challenge that must be met with continued vigilance, particularly among members of Chicago’s Hispanic and Latino community. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Latinos have experienced the highest COVID-19 mortality rate of all minority groups in the United States. This year, we are fortunate to be approaching the season from a position of knowledge and strength. We know that getting an updated 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine lowers our risk of serious illness and hospitalization. We hold the power to determine whether COVID-19 will be a minor inconvenience or a major health incident this year. Protection from prior vaccinations wanes over time, which is why the CDC recommends getting an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Current vaccines are formulated to protect against the latest strains of the virus, including the prevalent JN.1 strain, to which most circulating variants — including XEC — are related. Most insurance plans cover COVID-19 vaccines at no cost, and free vaccination clinics are hosted regularly by the Chicago Department of Public Health across the city. This season, Chicagoans have the added option of choosing between the mRNA-based vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna or the protein-based vaccine developed by Novavax, which is built on the same technology as many flu shots. Both are widely available in pharmacies across the Chicago area. Regardless of which vaccine you choose, when you get vaccinated, you are making an intentional choice to help protect yourself, those closest to you and the broader Hispanic-Latino community in Chicago. — Esther E. Sciammarella, Chicago Hispanic Health Coalition, Chicago Carbon pricing is critical Thanks for the article “EPA adding methane fee to oil, gas rule violations” (in print Nov. 13). The new fee is intended to encourage the fossil fuel industry to adopt best practices that reduce methane emissions in oil and natural gas mining and transport. Methane is a climate super pollutant, far more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The industry will fight these rules, and the Environmental Protection Agency during the next administration is expected to weaken enforcement. The larger issue is whether fossil fuel companies should be paying for the additional extreme-weather damage caused by using their products. That damage includes more frequent and more intense wildfires, droughts and storm damage. Today, they pay nothing, and taxpayers foot those bills. As a society, we need to decide whether these companies should be allowed to freely emit climate-damaging emissions into the atmosphere. If these polluters are forced to pay for the harm that is caused by using their products, such as through carbon pricing, the transition to cheaper and less damaging clean energy will happen much faster. A more livable world would be the outcome. — Andrew Panelli, Homer Glen Date centers’ power needs I am concerned after reading the Nov. 17 article “Nuclear plants in Illinois are caught in the crosshairs.” The implications for ratepayers are alarming. The article states that “data centers’ seemingly insatiable appetite for energy … could also increase residents’ electric bills.” That’s the problem. Why must it be inevitable that building more power capacity for the benefit of tech firms results in higher costs for everyone else? If tech firms plan to make money from new, energy-intensive ventures that are unrelated to basic heating, cooking and keep-the-lights-on needs, then why should everyday users be responsible for the resulting increased costs? Why can’t the rate structure be revised to put the increased cost burden on the entities that will be responsible for incurring those increased costs — i.e., the tech firms themselves? Evidently, the existing rate structure equally spreads capacity costs among all ratepayers. If some entity wants more energy, then, under current thinking, that entity pays for its extra watts. That arrangement is indeed fair, but only under the assumption that the amount of generating capacity is equally needed by all ratepayers in the first place. It would appear that this “normal” scenario is assumed to hold even in the new situation in which the demand for vast amounts of additional power are coming from a distinct subset of the ratepayer population, namely the tech firms. The rest of the ratepayer population does not directly benefit from the increased capacity. Can a new payment arrangement be devised/proposed so that the segment of the ratepayer population that is demanding the new generating capacity will then be responsible for the bulk, if not all, of the costs required to build that new generating capacity? Is there some way to think outside the status-quo payment mechanisms so that all ratepayers are not, in fact, subsidizing the demand by tech firms for more capacity — capacity that only the tech firms benefit from? Illinois should ensure that the existing cost-allocation methods don’t become just a convenient tool in a tech firm lead play for more power. The matter should be rethought before these costs become locked in the usual bureaucratic arthritis. — Fred R. Garzino, Chicago Chicago is true home of ‘Oz’ The “Wicked” movie has hit theaters, welcoming old and new audiences alike to the land of Oz. Many may not know that “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” the novel that started it all (movies, plays, musicals and more), was written right here in Chicago. Author L. Frank Baum wrote “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” from his home in Chicago’s Humboldt Park neighborhood in 1899. So the legend goes, Baum’s idea for Oz’s Emerald City was inspired by his numerous visits to the White City of the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago — a brightly lit, beautiful city but filled with skeletons of temporary buildings covered in painted plaster. Although the Baum family home in Humboldt Park no longer stands, the block’s sidewalk was dug up in 2019 and repaved with yellow bricks to honor the birthplace of America’s great fairy tale. A colorful Oz-themed mural was also commissioned on the site. And less than 4 miles to the east of Chicago’s own yellow brick road is Oz Park. Yes, that “Oz.” Located in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, Oz Park celebrates all things “Wizard of Oz.” According to the Chicago Park District, areas of the 14-acre park include Dorothy’s Playlot and the Emerald City Gardens. Surrounding these areas are statues of the Tin Man, Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion and everyone’s favorite, Dorothy and Toto. Another Chicago connection: Chicago’s own Quincy Jones produced the soundtrack for “The Wiz,” the 1978 musical adaptation of “The Wizard of Oz” featuring a star-studded cast of all-Black actors, including Diana Ross and Michael Jackson. I think Chicago historian Shermann Dilla Thomas sums this whole thing up best: “Everything dope about America comes from Chicago.” — Marty Malone, Chicago ‘Figaro’ review is grumpy On Nov. 9, I became blissfully wrapped up in Lyric Opera’s gratifying production of “The Marriage of Figaro.” While it played out, stressful current events didn’t exist. Reading Chris Jones’ grumpy, prudish review (“‘Figaro’ by Lyric Opera leans into comedy of a tricky story,” Nov. 13), I found myself wishing once again that he could resist trying to punish centuries-old classics for not fitting 2024 political correctness. Worse, he takes directors to task for not doing so. His comment that you can hear in Gordon Bintner’s voice his difficulties with the production’s choices is one of the most risible opinions I’ve read in serious music criticism. I think modern audiences can deal with letting Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s sublime work play out as originally conceived. — Lee Kingsmill, Munster, Indiana Note to readers: As part of our annual holiday tradition, we’d like to hear from you about what is making you feel thankful this year. Sincere thoughts only, please. Email us a letter of no more than 400 words to [email protected]. Be sure to include your full name and your city or town. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].