Letters: We will need a judicial review when all this is over

The UK Government has overarching responsibility over the whole coronavirus issue. That doesn’t mean it is always correct – herd immunity being its most dangerous mistake. The refusal to join the EU procurement programme for ventilators (and give a contract to a resident of Singapore who has never previously produced ventilators) and PPE is another. The slow and confused response to this crisis will surely need a judicial inquiry after the event.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

I HAVE to mostly agree with Michael Kent’s sentiments relating to the leadership demonstrated by our Governments in respect of the current coronavirus emergency.

However, there are leaders and there are followers and where Boris Johnson is concerned, credit where credit is due, he has shown exceptional leadership during the current crisis whereas Nicola Sturgeon, and I don’t doubt her commitment to Scotland’s interests, has demonstrated the fine art of emulation.

The three podiums during her own daily briefings are so obviously a clear imitation of those at Westminster, as is the briefing content and the Saltire in the background. We do not need two sets of daily addresses as the UK-wide Westminster broadcast is perfectly adequate.

Ms Sturgeon’s desire to appear to be leading the fight against this killer virus is totally understandable, however, she must understand we are all in this together and united we stand just as united we fall. As Mr Kent infers, this is not the time for political posturing and if Ms Surgeon would give credit to Westminster for its unprecedented financial, moral and healthcare support instead of making out it was all her initiative then she would earn a great deal more respect and if Ms Sturgeon wants to tweak some of Scotland’s responses and issue additional Chief Medical Officer health warnings about hygiene and the like, that is fine. However, she should do so in a short address making it clear that this information is supplemental to the Westminster briefing in order to avoid any confusion relating to the way forward for us all at this critical time in our history.

Christopher H Jones, Giffnock.

BY halfway through reading the defensive article by Andy Maciver I decided he was being politically naïve but by the end I felt he was just politically biased ("Let’s be thankful we have true leaders stepping up to the plate", The Herald , March 26).

Mr Maciver seems to think we should wait to judge Boris Johnson historically. He even considers this process comparable to the post-Second World War appraisal of Churchill. He forgets that Churchill said “I felt as if I was walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour of trial.” We can also too easily forget that during the war we had a coalition government for most of the duration.

Mr Johnson, on the other hand, looks to me to be self-consciously nervous and lacking confidence throughout the unexpected coronavirus crisis as he knows that his statements such as “We can beat coronavirus in 12 weeks” , sound like the words fell off the side of a red double-decker bus.

I feel he has no credibility as the man to lead us in any crisis. The Tory Party grandees must be wondering how they could have been so unlucky when Theresa May would have been the obvious choice in such an emergency.

Mr Maciver chooses to ignore international criticisms of our PM’s leadership where the lessons they learned have been slow to be reflected in an immediacy for our own response.

Sadly it would be impossible in a practical sense, in the circumstances, to have a General Election at this time but I am certain the Government will indeed be judged historically by survivors who have acquired “herd immunity”.

Bill Brown, Milngavie.

I WAS no great fan of George Osborne, but I do think that all those now benefiting from our Government being able to do so much for all those workers affected by the Coronavirus might reflect and give thanks for his prudence in recovering the dire financial situation he inherited. The austerity of 10 years must surely now be viewed as an investment that enables our Government today to give so much help to those affected through no fault of their own, or indeed the Government's.

James Watson, Dunbar.

WITH the coronavirus crisis still threatening to overwhelm the National Health Service and cause many needless deaths, our politicians need to ask why lockdown hasn't been needed in South Korea, one of the first countries to be hit by the virus? There, a system of mass fever screening (taking temperatures of people), intensive testing, tracing and isolation of those with coronavirus and all they had been in contact with was put in place from the start. Both the UK and Scottish Governments acted far too slowly for that and as a result some form of countrywide lockdown was clearly needed to prevent a complete catastrophe. However, this can only be sustained for a few weeks without social and economic collapse. Already millions of people have no income, while the mental health consequences of isolating people from one another are already becoming apparent.

In these circumstances, it's extremely worrying that our governments still show no sign of putting in place proper arrangements for identifying and isolating people with coronavirus. Contact tracing has been the proven methodology by which public health has stopped the spread of infections for many years. In Wuhan City alone, besides the lockdown, China employed 1,800 teams of five people each to do nothing else but to track down every person who might have had contact with the virus carriers and take appropriate measures. It enabled China to determine where additional measures like lockdown were needed and is the reason why China is now re-opening with less deaths than Italy. Contact tracing is enabling China and the other south-east Asian countries to suppress the coronavirus until an effective vaccine is developed.

In the UK, by contrast, households are being left to cope on their own. People who pose no risk are confining themselves to their homes – with consequent implications for essential services – while those who pose a danger are still unwittingly going to work. No wonder there is panic.

The announcement that testing kits will soon be made available to the public to test themselves will not address the issue, even if those testing kits are found to be accurate ("Home virus testing for millions of Britons could arrive soon", The Herald March 26). We need public health teams in place to provide appropriate advice to people who self-test as positive, follow up all their contacts and impose specific conditions on the people and areas involved to prevent the virus being passed on.

Nick Kempe, Glasgow G41.

I READ today a suggestion that nature is sending us a message with the coronavirus pandemic. Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, not a voice to be ignored, said “humanity was placing too many pressures on the natural world with damaging consequences” warning that “failing to take care of the planet meant not taking care of ourselves .... Our long-term response must tackle habitat and biodiversity loss .... our continued erosion of wild spaces bringing us uncomfortably close to animals and plants that harbour diseases that can jump to humans”.

Other leading scientists also warned that the Covid-19 outbreak was a “clear warning shot”, given that far more deadly diseases existed in wildlife, and that today’s civilisation was “playing with fire”. They said it was almost always human behaviour that caused diseases to spill over into humans. “To prevent further outbreaks,” the experts said, “both global heating and the destruction of the natural world for farming, mining and housing have to end, as both drive wildlife into contact with people.”

“We have created a global, human-dominated ecosystem that serves as a playground for the emergence and host-switching of animal viruses,” writes the American pandemic expert, David Morens.

When this pandemic has passed over and should this theory or hypothesis gain mainstream scientific acceptance, those with the power to do so must overcome the objections of vested interests and act to change the trajectory of the world’s economies to ensure that future pandemics are at least minimised in number and effect.

John Milne, Uddingston.

THE coronavirus is indeed a crisis. Economically, socially and politically, things can never be quite the same again for those who survive. But there may be at least one silver lining: even the most fundamentalist of believers must now realise that we can no longer afford to replace Trident missiles, weapons which should have no place in any future society, which would simply add further unnecessary debt to our beleaguered country.

This is one American trade deal we can well do without.

John N E Rankin, Bridge of Allan.

THROUGH the auspices of your columns, may I appeal to supermarkets and food stores to offer the same facilities as those afforded to NHS workers, to community carers. Particularly now, grocery shopping is integral to the service they provide the frail elderly and disabled. In order to source their clients’ requirements, sometimes three or more stores have to be visited.

No such provision has, as yet, been made for those who care in the community. This would not just expedite shopping, but also increase protection for both client and carer.

Christine Martin, Glasgow G12.

Read more: Police handed powers to issue on-the-spot fines