MY grateful thanks to Marianne Taylor ("Let the over-70s decide what’s best for their health", The Herald, April 27) – at last we are being referred to as a group of intelligent people who are indeed able to decide on what is best. In every age group there will be people who need help with decisions or are not able to cope – they are certainly not all over 70.

As a 74-year-old with no underlying health issues (not that I’m aware of anyway) who normally walks two dogs for two hours every day, weighs in at a fairly slim eight and a half stone and is probably fitter than many who are considerably younger, I have found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by the assumption that we are all bundled together into a group that must be protected, whether we like it or not. Of course, during the present lockdown, like everyone else, my life has changed, and of course I understand why and have accepted the restrictions, but it cannot be sensible or fair to continue these restrictions for one particular group. Those who know they are particularly at risk will, of course, make considered decisions for themselves and the rest of us, while ensuring that we are not behaving selfishly, should be allowed to do the same.

Ms Taylor makes the point that the over-70s “have been grown up for longer than anybody else”. We are also aware that there are fewer years left to us in the normal order of things – for goodness sake let us enjoy them, see families and friends and grandchildren – or go bungee jumping if that’s what we want to do.

Anne Mitchell, Elgin.

I AGREE wholeheartedly with Marianne Taylor's article about the possibility of extending the lockdown for the over70s for another 18 months. Being over 70 I've lived through various risks, from managing as a student to escape a stabbing Glasgow’s Byers Road from a thug in the Young Partick Cross gang to scaling Blencathra and Sharp Edge a few years ago. Life is full of risk and looking at the deaths on British roads, does that mean you'd never drive anywhere?

I feel if I'm confined to my house for another 18 months life would not be worth living. I'm prepared to take acceptable risks and obey social distancing when the general lockdown is lifted. Similarly, will the Government stop people mountaineering, motorcycling, scuba diving, paragliding and the like to prevent death or injury or being a burden on hospitals?

Ivor Matheson, Dumfries.

AS an 80-plus guy who up until a few weeks ago was out five days a week on volunteering duties how I agree with Marianne Taylor's article. I am fortunate to have good health but the thought of Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon continuing the lockdown for over-70s fills me with abject horror and I think rather than prolonging my life it would in fact shorten it and I am prepared to take a risk with my own health and wellbeing.

Alan Stephen, Glasgow G44.

I AGREE wholeheartedly with Ian Johnstone (Letters, April 24). I will soon be 70, and probably like many older people, have been social distancing to some extent for the last 10 years. As you age, you become much more aware of your own mortality and are making risk assessments on almost a daily basis about places to go and activities to follow because you appreciate you are more vulnerable to all sorts of situations and activities – for example, shopping centres, buses, trains, supermarkets, gyms, large gatherings, planes, cruise ships and the like where germs are easily spread and accidents can happen and plan your life accordingly.

Also, as we age we tend to take each day as it comes, make the most of it and are thankful for it as we realise our time is limited and don't know what is round the corner. Please don't shut us in for months on end. We have lived a full life with all its ups and downs and coped with many distressing situations and experiences in our lives. We are not stupid. We know that our time is limited and we want to make the most of it but we are also very capable. Don't shut us in for months on end and take some of that life away from us. It might be the last chance some of us get!

Margaret Sweeney, Johnstone.

“ARE you listening, Nicola Sturgeon?”, asks James F McGilvray at the end of his letter (April 27) on aspects of the lockdown. I am sure that Ms Sturgeon is listening. She will be listening to the team of medical and scientific experts who are tasked with advising her.

We are all missing out on the activities that we used to take for granted. I would like to go fly fishing for trout on a remote loch where I would be very unlikely to meet anyone else, but I accept that the lockdown rules prohibit that. The lockdown is there to ensure that the minimum number of people as is reasonably possible is exposed to this highly infectious disease. Every case of infection places someone else at risk and every case of hospitalisation puts our hard-working NHS staff at great risk.

The golf courses and the lochs will still be there when this pandemic is over so we all simply need to be patient. There will be many people, like the armchair football managers, who think they know better, but when the world is in crisis we need to trust the advice of the experts.

David Clark, Tarbolton.

PETER Russell (letters, April 25) is a little disingenuous with his comparison of the deaths being caused by the coronavirus just now, with the number of deaths that would be caused by an “extended economic depression”. These are not the appropriate comparators.

The present lockdown restricts social interaction to an all-time low, but should we prioritise the needs of the economy, and loosen the lockdown, or have no lockdown at all, the level of social interaction would be increased, vastly so in the case of the latter. In that event the number contracting the virus, and thus the number of deaths, could be expected, through greater and wider exposure, to increase, and it is that figure which some estimates have described as “biblical”, which should be used to compare to the number who might die as a result of " extended economic depression”.

At some point the lockdown can be safely modified, but this must be done with the greatest care. The needs of the economy are critical, but should be set against the wider health needs of the community, as this genie will not easily be put back in the bottle if we allow it to escape into the wider community.

Given all of this, Mr Russell’s conclusion that “Maybe we have reached it [the point where the economic consequences are worse than the lockdown] already” seems not just unlikely but reckless.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

LOOKING at the picture accompanying Alison Rowat's article showing the people in Sweden enjoying fresh air and sunny weather ("Politics watch: Man of the moment is nowhere to be seen", The Herald, April 27) leads me to think that their health will benefit from this simple freedom, whereas in the UK people are being actively discouraged from being outside to any great extent. I am sure the benefits of being out of doors as the seasons progress helps everyone to shake off winter ailments as we build up our vitamin D levels and strengthen our immune systems.

Duncan Miller, Lenzie.

IT is welcome news that the First Minister is considering a new approach and additional powers to deal with the coronavirus ("Lockdown could end later in Scotland than England", The Herald, April 27). We have been digging a deeper hole for ourselves by following the UK approach with its half measures and tentative attempts to limit the spread of the disease.

It is not surprising that the lockdown is reported to be crumbling in places, as people have no clear idea of what we are supposed to be achieving – are we crushing the virus or just slowing it down?

In contrast, countries which acted decisively with strict measures are now becoming clear of it – from Greece to China. The world will soon divide into such "clear" countries and others where the disease threatens to become endemic. It is imperative that Scotland is not in the second category.

Much of our economy here is dependent on services. Hospitality, tourism and education would all be greatly damaged. The thousands of students we teach from the Far East would prefer to go to "clear" countries such as Australia and New Zealand. It is folly to continue as we are and we must now mobilise our population in a total effort to suppress the virus.

Professor Greg Philo Glasgow University, Glasgow G12.

WELL, this isn’t good. The US, population 328 million has reported 50,000 deaths from the virus. The UK population, at 60 million, has reported 20,000 deaths, so with one-fifth of the US population, we have pro-rata, comfortably, the highest death rate from the virus in the world. If we’re in this state despite the Government telling us that policy follows the science, then that suggests in that great tradition of British exceptionalism, our science isn’t very good.

Alistair Richardson, Stirling.

HOW can it be that at ports of entry across the nation we have no quarantine and little or no testing of even a rudimentary nature?

Surely to confront an initially asymptomatic virus, tracking and tracing new cases domestically is of reduced overall utility without also stopping new cases entering the perimeter undiagnosed? This seems likes basic good sense any ward matron, housewife or farmhand could surmise from their own experience.

Christopher Ruane, Lanark.

LET'S hope that when the Thursday night applause and pot-rattling comes to an end NHS employees will feel safe and secure enough in their place of work to remove posters, found in most health centre establishments, indicating that physical and verbal abuse of staff is not acceptable.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

I WATCH with increasing fascination the signing which accompanies most news briefs from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. I think it's brilliant, albeit I have no hearing difficulties. However, I do wonder: where is the signer out there with the three stooges who trundle out from No10 to stand in front of a podium and bore us to death (sorry) with their tedious mantra. No one up for the gig?

Patricia Allison, Glasgow G46.