I DON’T know Rebecca McQuillan’s age, but I would hazard a guess at the “right” side of 50. The views she expressed in her column (“Keeping over-70s at home isn’t victimisation. It’s protection”, The Herald, May 1) are extremely patronising.

In many cases those who have died had pre-existing medical conditions – not surprising, very few of us are going to be 100 per cent fit by that age - but so too do many well under 70.

In addition, it is more likely that the over 70s, aware that they are at risk, will more stringently adhere to the social-distancing and face covering recommendations.

Who is going to police this house-arrest? Will our birth certificates be demanded and examined as we queue at supermarkets and pharmacies, will we be put on a blacklist or fined?

If, as has been repeated ad nauseam, “we are all in this together” then please treat us all in the same way. The danger seems to be that we are moving from a nanny state to a police state where “we will do this because we can”.

Isobel Hunter, Lenzie.

I READ Rebecca McQuillan’s article with interest. As someone who has only been 70 for a few months and who matches none of the other criteria for being at high risk with coronavirus, I do feel discriminated against if there is no change in lockdown rules for the over-70s. There are many people in their sixties who are a higher risk than myself.

I fully realise that we must not overburden the NHS. Personally, I expect to have to socially distance for several months and am resigned to the fact that the gym, badminton, restaurants, bars and the theatre will be out of the question for a while. I certainly don’t want to visit any shops where social distancing is difficult. But as lockdown relaxes, I do want to be able to meet my family and a limited number of friends in a garden or other outside venue and chat at a two metre distance, with a mask if necessary. Also people should be able to travel further to exercise. In some areas of Glasgow, walking and socially distancing are difficult.

Over the next three months, I need my car serviced, my boiler serviced and my eyes tested. The first two can certainly be achieved with social distancing and the third, perhaps, with protection.

I also worry about people who are in care homes. In some cases, at present, they are isolated in their rooms with little human contact and no family visitors. I fully appreciate that this keeps them safe from catching coronavirus, but if you are 98, with good mental capacity but with eyesight and hearing problems, this is not a life. As lockdown relaxes, ways of combining family visits with social distancing must be devised. Perhaps one could book a visiting time with a room set aside to allow this.

I realise that we are in unprecedented times but government needs to develop policies that are fair and considered and just not sweepingly dismiss the needs and rights of a section of the population because of their age.

One further interesting point, as far as the sheriff court is concerned. one is excused jury duty by right at over 70. When I was summoned recently it was made clear that I wasn’t excused on age grounds till my 71st birthday.

Hazel-Anne Steel, Glasgow G12.

NOW in my 80th year and extremely healthy and energetic I have self-isolated with my husband (age 82) and have plenty to do.

Still working in a teaching capacity, I Skype my pupils, continue my voluntary work with a Zoom session every week, and am working on a family tree. These activities require a certain amount of research and preparation. With closest family in London and abroad, our neighbours have been wonderful – shopping for us and just checking we are ok – although now I find mastering slots in the supermarket a new challenge that sometimes brings up surprises (ordering two red onions yielded two kilos). Having committed to our grandson, working on the front line in a London hospital, that we would follow the rules and isolate we do look forward to family and friends visiting us when this is over.

Jennifer Speculand, Newton Mearns.

STRANGE that Rebecca McQuillan doesn’t want the Government to concentrate on where the virus is coming from rather than on one group it is affecting. Considerably more than10,000 people a day fly into the UK including from Spain, Italy and China yet none is asked on arrival either to wear masks, or self-isolate. For some reason, testing, self-isolating and contact tracing have not been instituted as a package at local level so an attempt to control spread at that level cannot be made. Very recently I read a comment from England’s Chief Medical Officer stating that he couldn’t state precisely what the R0 figure was. Germany can.

Trying to stop me (an over-70) cycling 10 miles daily on the empty roads of East Lothian or visiting my local butcher once a week, 15 minutes after he opens, when the shop is empty, is unlikely to help send young people back to work. It is, however, easy to institute a blanket ban, making the Government look in control, but much more difficult to set up the package, mentioned above. As for “keeping” me under control, it will certainly add interest to life in these occasionally boring times.

Ewan Henderson, Haddington.

I AM becoming increasingly exasperated with some of the views expressed recently concerning the ongoing lockdown. Like everyone, I miss my grandchildren, friends, and my normal routine. However, we are being asked to stay at home not only to protect our own lives, but the lives of others.

Every time an unnecessary trip is made to purchase non-essential items, every time someone breaks the lockdown because they are "bored", they are risking spreading the virus. While it could be argued that we have a right to take risks with our own lives, we have no right to put others' lives in danger. I wonder how many people who applaud the NHS on a Thursday evening are breaking the lockdown the next day. We are not "stuck " at home. We are safe at home. A no-brainer, really.

Susan McKenzie, Fort William.

Read more: Keeping over-70s at home isn't victimisation. It’s protection