THE second paragraph of the letter by Glenda Burns (Jul 3) is a clear example of making assumptions and not taking into account all the facts, what I might call a 2+2 = 5 mentality.
She writes: “As so-called Freedom Day approaches, Covid infection numbers spiral to a level above that which demanded a full lockdown only a few months ago. Government policy, both UK and in the devolved nations, is now clearly herd immunity with the addition of a hope that vaccine numbers will keep the infected members of the herd from getting so sick they will need hospital treatment and possibly die.”
READ MORE: Is herd immunity now the strategy across all four nations of the UK?
There are four points which need to be addressed –
1. Covid numbers have spiralled.
2. The assumption that government policy, at whatever level in the UK, is herd immunity.
3. Vaccine numbers.
4. Describing people as a herd.
In general terms the confirmed Covid numbers fell between mid-January and mid-June. On June 1 Professor Jason Leitch suggested Scotland was entering a third wave of Covid. Since then, Covid infection numbers have indeed spiralled – what could have caused this?
The answer to that question can only be the Delta variant. This variant is known to be more infectious and faster spreading than previous variants. There is no mention of these facts in Glenda Burns’s letter. She then jumps to the assumption that the spiraling Covid numbers equate to a “herd immunity” policy. Of course there is hope that increased vaccine numbers will help to counter the Covid but ask yourself this – what might the numbers be like if there were no vaccine?
Glenda Burns might be content to describe herself as being a member of a herd, but me – I’m a person and member of a community.
Michael Follon
Glenrothes
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here