I CAN'T be the only person dismayed at the speed at which Covid restrictions are being lifted in Scotland ("Scotland to scrap rules as Omicron cases fall", The Herald, January 19). With 7,000 NHS staff off ill or isolating, A&E times at an all-time high, 12,500 excess deaths, and 45 care home deaths in the last week, is now really the time to stop protecting vulnerable people?
In Austria, Germany and New York vaccination is compulsory. In England it is compulsory for NHS and social care staff, but in Scotland Nicola Sturgeon refuses to do any of these things. Football stadiums are empty across Europe but not in Scotland. Are we really to accept GPs not accepting patients in Lanarkshire as a price worth paying so people can stand at a pub bar?
The First Minister was too slow at the start of each wave, and too quick to reopen every time. It seems one of the highest excess death rates in the world is acceptable.
David Watson, Edinburgh.
YOUSAF RIGHT TO PROTECT THE NHS
JANE Lax (Letters, January 20) condemns Humza Yousaf for his advice to use NHS resources, including A&E and your GP, only if necessary. Certainly, patient numbers at A&E have declined, but the waiting time target is still missed, even if still the best in the UK. One important reason for this is the number of NHS staff absent because of Covid, having tested positive for the virus or having to self-isolate.
Is it not obvious that if more staff are absent there will be less capacity to deal with patients presenting at GP practices and A&E? With absences among NHS Scotland staff because of Covid higher now than since the early days of the pandemic, there is, consequently, less capacity to meet the needs of patients.
So, what might have been done to reduce staff absence? Covid, like many viruses, spreads by person-to-person contact, so more interaction means more cases. However, with a newly discovered variant, like Omicron, first notified to WHO by South Africa at the end of November, while data on its rate of transmission was limited, it seemed more transmissible than earlier variants, justifying caution at the outset. The fact there were fewer cases does not indicate failure, but the lack of data in early December when decisions had to be taken. No point taking these decisions once the virus is raging through the community.
Jill Stephenson’s letter (January 20) shows no understanding of this whatsoever. She is correct to point to the damage done to the hospitality industry but compensatory financial arrangements are supposed to be a matter for Westminster, which proved typically unwilling to offer adequate assistance. However, without the restrictions of which she complains, the increased interaction would have been likely to lead to more cases of Omicron than there were, and very likely more NHS staff absence.
Therefore, the combined positions of your two correspondents is inconsistent to the point of being illogical.
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.
* I DON'T share Jill Stephenson's view that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP don't "like private business".
I also don't share her disregard for human life above business and am glad that the Holyrood Government erred on the side of caution during the Christmas period. The virus doesn't choose who it's going to affect, or when.
Kevin Orr, Glasgow.
WAS MASK ADVICE WRONG?
DURING the last few years of my time as a consultant anaesthetist in Glasgow South, I and other theatre staff were advised to stop wearing masks as after a short time they become moist and ineffective. This advice was given during the tenure of Nicola Sturgeon as Health Secretary.
Is it not then inappropriate for schoolchildren to be instructed to wear masks for prolonged periods while in class?
Or was the advice incorrect?
Dr David R G Marsh, Newton Mearns.
SAVE OURSELVES, NOT THE PLANET
YOUR piece from the New York Times last Saturday, featuring the interview with Noam Chomsky ("Can we fix the planet?", The Herald, January 15), was interesting in providing a novel take on the climate change issue. Only history will decide whether this was a useful approach, but one aspect of the presentation does require comment: that is the chosen headline. It is a misleading framing, since the planet, this lump of rock spinning round a relatively insignificant star, will carry on existing whatever we do and our demise as a species will make no difference. Our real concern is fixing humanity, that is protecting the human race from the damaging effects of rapid climate change, brought on by our own actions.
In that context, talking about the planet can actually discourage, or even prevent action. The word has little real meaning or relevance to the average individual. At best, it conjures up images of obscure plants and animals, enthused about by Sir David Attenborough, but unlikely to affect most of us when deciding whether to turn up the heating, take the car rather than walking, or countless other aspects.
The climate crisis needs urgent, practical action at all levels. So let us stop talking in vague terms about fixing the planet, and talk instead about saving ourselves. Unless the majority get the real message, then little will be done. Chomsky's words should at least help us to work out how to persuade more people to take this seriously.
Dr RM Morris, Ellon.
FERRY WOES WILL CONTINUE
COSMETIC surgery appears to be a problem with our new ferries. Glen Sannox had to get a nose job, and it now turns out that Hull 802 is to get a new waistline ("New ferries face further delays despite overseas recruitment", The Herald, January 19). Unbelievably a fair amount of already-fitted equipment to Glen Sannox will require ripping out and replaced, and that's before it even gets as far as sailing into the distance. Surely that speaks volumes over the fitness of the equipment at the time of procurement.
I foresee many cancelled sailings when it finally goes into operation.
George Dale, Beith.
LEGACY BENEFIT
I NOTE the letter by Alexander McKay (January 18) on the tourism value of the royal family. Three words by way of a riposte: Palace of Versailles.
Alex McMahon, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel