SURELY the latest worrying incidences of coronavirus outbreak at some of our universities give the lie to any optimistic assertions that we were over the worst of the pandemic.

It is to be hoped of course that all of the affected students make a full and safe recovery.

But it is dismaying to say the least that the National clinical director, Jason Leitch, should have to warn students (again): “We need you not to have house parties, I could not be more clear.”

What is it with young people that prompts so many of them to ignore official warnings and the fact that nearly one million deaths worldwide have been attributed to Covid-19?

Not so much herd immunity as herd stupidity.

A. Beattie, Glasgow.

KENNETH Reid (letters, September 23) feels aggrieved that he is “prohibited from acting freely” regarding the Scottish Government’s guidelines on coronavirus and “is willing to face the consequences of my own actions, be they social, moral or health-based”.

May I point out that it is not only Mr Reid who could be affected by his actions but a great many other people in the community as well, including the impact on the NHS and potential risks to the health of NHS staff?

The horrible fact that Scotland has recorded its highest number of new coronavirus cases is surely proof that during this health emergency we’re all in the same boat and nobody should go off for a paddle on their own.

The Scottish Government’s actions are tougher than those being implemented in England, but although the Prime Minister’s decisions currently differ in some respects from those of the First Minister it is very probable that Boris Johnson will eventually follow Nicola Sturgeon’s Covid advice, given that he has already done so on several occasions over the past six months.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

AGAINST all the odds my wife obtained a dental appointment earlier this week as she had a loose tooth.

The surgery had stringent anti-Covid protocols in place including having to phone reception from the car park, a waiting room devoid of its usual accoutrements and other waiting patients, and the staff fully kitted out with mask, visor et cetera.

No treatment could be administered and the surgery room would be deep-cleaned and out of use for an hour after each patient left.

The dentist said she could see no end to the current arrangements and expressed concern for the dental health of her patients, plus a worry of undiagnosed mouth cancers.

Leaders of the dental health profession have kept a deathly silence bordering on invisibility since this virus appeared and it is now about time they informed a concerned public of the way forward.

Jim Martin, Glasgow.

THERE were reports that Police Scotland were called out to break up over four hundred house parties over last weekend. On the assumption that a party was defined as there having been at least 15 people at each party, all attendees will be thoughtless morons who act in the same way the rest of the week.

Then multiply that out and we are reaching mind-blowing cross-contact figures. I also doubt very much if any of the aforementioned idiots use the NHS app.

Would it not be worth a try to allow the police to confiscate items from the homes of the hosts? This could be something most likely associated with hosting the party that would hurt their day-to-day enjoyment – barbecue set, TVs and sound systems – which would in turn hurt their pockets too, rather than a paltry fine and a possible future community service order.

George Dale, Beith.

SOME of us can even remember when pubs closed at 9.30pm (letters, September 22).

Gordon Casely, Crathes, Kincardineshire.

AS an elderly citizen, I am somewhat amused by the fuss raised about pubs closing at 10pm.

In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and into the early 1970s, all pubs in Glasgow had to close by 9.30pm.

In Renfrew it was 9pm and the Renfrew ferry did a roaring trade carrying passengers from the local hostelry across the Clyde to Yoker, where they could drink for a further 30 minutes.

At a dinner dance on a Saturday evening, no drinks could be served to diners after 10pm and you had to be out of the establishment by 11pm.

All dance-halls had to close by 10.30 on a Saturday evening to ensure that the dancers were home before midnight for the Sabbath.

Sunday drinking laws were a shambles. All pubs were closed but if you were a bone fide traveller you could drink in any hotel bar for literally 24 hours, assuming you could prove to the management that you were legitimate traveller.

On a Sunday evening in my old Wolseley we drove to the Paraffin Lamp Hotel in Lugton and had a great evening’s entertainment. It is like the old days, all over again.

Ed. Robertson, Loganswell.

I FEEL for Hazel Scott (letters, September 22) and am only grateful that I did not have to endure the current situation when my own parents passed away. However, that said, I think she ignores two crucial points.

The current situation and restrictions are not only about the direct relationship of parent(s) and child, but about the others residing in the same care home. I think we have had plenty of evidence of the consequences for care homes if/when the virus finds its way in. Thus, is it not better to err on the side of caution?

The issue, then, is how to balance the need for residents to see family with the risk of someone entering a care home, symptomless but infected.

Of course, this could happen in a restaurant or bar as well, but risk is not only about something going wrong (eg, the chance of someone with Covid gaining access, whether to a restaurant or care home) but just as much about the consequences if something does go wrong.

I think it’s clear that the consequences of the virus being brought in to a care home by an unsuspecting but infected relative are both much more likely to materialise, and to be much more severe than in the case of a restaurant.

As above, I understand and sympathise with Ms Scott’s distress. Her heart must be breaking by being unable to see her parents. However, the restrictions are there to protect the whole care home.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

THE letter by Alexander McKay (September 23) was nothing short of insulting to the wider public and derogatory towards Scotland’s First Minister.

First, the BBC is a public broadcaster and has a responsibility to BBC licence-payers.

Secondly, from the derogatory comments, we must assume Mr McKay is not a listener of the Scottish Government’s daily briefings, currently broadcast by the BBC, because those briefings never include any political point scoring.

I am sure Mr McKay would agree that Nicola Sturgeon, as Scotland’s First Minister, has a responsibility to the country, especially during the current crisis and it would be amiss of her not to be at the helm and keeping the country fully informed on a daily basis.

Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk.

THE UK government’s decision to fine people up to £10,000 for not self-isolating may backfire by making many people decide against getting tested.

The plan to offer £500 to self-isolation grants is better, as many people live on weekly earnings in jobs they can’t do from home. But why not offer more, with it being lost if they fail to self-isolate?

Restrictions and lockdowns are necessitated by the UK government’s failure to prepare in advance, despite 10 years of expert advice, especially the failure to organise proper contact tracing.

It would be more effective to close Covid-unsafe industries like pubs, gyms and airports, and subsidise them, rather than expecting people to separate from close family, friends or partners for another six months. Rules that most people won’t obey, and which are difficult to enforce, will make little difference.

A temporary ban on evictions only delays people being made homeless if they can’t pay when the ban ends. They need financial support from the government to cover the resulting debt.

UK government welfare policies make this worse, with a wait of five or more weeks for Universal Credit payments even when granted, and with Department of Work and Pension staff under pressure to refuse more claims and sanction more people, whose claims were previously granted, every month.

This, like the £10,000 fine, is a symptom of the Conservative Party’s attitude that everyone poorer than them is a fraudster, perhaps based on subconscious projection by some less-than-honest politicians.

This will lead to mass poverty and homelessness and a much deeper recession unless the government pays rents and council tax for those who can’t afford them.

It should also provide benefits that anyone could manage to survive on, and stop assuming that most claimants are fraudsters.

It was good that the homeless were housed during the lockdown – but many are already being put out on the streets again as government financial support ends.

This can’t be right; nor can adding to their numbers.

Duncan McFarlane, Braidwood, Carluke.