RUTH Davidson was quick enough to demand an explanation from the First Minister as to why Scotland had a lower vaccination rate than England, and refused to accept her explanation; however she made no attempt to explain why England had decided to leave the time-consuming vaccination of care home residents until the AstraZeneca vaccine became available.
The English government is required by law to follow the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendations.
Why did it decide to change this order without questioning the manufacturer’s recommendation not to subdivide the Pfizer vaccine into smaller numbers of doses for transportation to small communities such as care homes?
READ MORE: Scotland's Covid vaccine programme: Sturgeon rejects Tory lagging behind claim
The Scottish Government is not legally required to follow the JCVI recommendations but as care home residents are in the most at-risk group in the population it didn’t accept the seemingly impossible.
It asked Pfizer if there was any possibility of subdividing batches in order to take smaller numbers of doses to the most endangered people in Scotland. Pfizer not only quickly came up with the solution but also granted approval for the use of its vaccine in this way in Scotland.
This has ensured that the most at-risk members of our society in Scotland were the first to obtain the life-saving potential of vaccination.
Why did Ruth Davidson not clarify why England failed to take advantage of this opportunity, which appears to be the reason for the difference between the vaccination rates as the English rate is now slowing as care homes are targeted?
It appeared that Ruth Davidson was far more interested in using Scotland’s octogenarians to score points over vaccine supply than ensuring that the most vulnerable were the first to be vaccinated, and in the process drew attention to the incompetence of the UK Government in England.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
ON Monday night STV News headlined a report on the roll-out of the coronavirus vaccine featuring an octogenarian couple from Cumbernauld complaining that they had not yet had any notification of the vaccine. The report had what one of my old pals would have described as “the full boona”, that is to say cameras, interviewer etc.
My interest was aroused as my wife and I are also octogenarians from Cumbernauld and were notified last Thursday to present ourselves to be vaccinated next Saturday, January 23, at 1.45pm and 1.50pm. We also discovered that other octogenarian friends in Cumbernauld had been given appointments.
READ MORE: Covid vaccine calculator Scotland: When will you get yours?
This was clearly an attack on the Scottish Government based on the experiences of one couple, which had me wondering what research STV had carried out before their report, how were the couple identified, eg did they contact the reporters, were the couple known to certain reporters etc?
Also, as of Tuesday’s questions to the First Minister apparently the parents of The Baroness had yet to be notified. One might have thought someone in her position would have had access to sources which could have answered her query. Of course I realise that her ladyship was unlikely to pass up an opportunity, as she would see it, to try and embarrass the FM, although failing miserably as usual.
A question was also raised about the Health Secretary having stated that vaccinations would be carried out seven days a week. It seems to me that at this early stage of the availability of the vaccine, judging from my own appointment for a Saturday afternoon, the vaccination teams may well already be working seven days a week.
Robert Roddick
via email
I REFER to recent public comments from Lord Jack McConnell and related comments in your letters pages.
Lord Jack McConnell may be the man who started Labour’s slide by losing the 2007 election, but he now seems like a titan compared to those that followed.
Unlike James Bond’s nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the Labour Party does tolerate failure and Lord Jack found an ermine robe and £300-a-day in expenses to allow him to extend a political reach over Scotland, despite the Scottish electorate expressing otherwise via the ballot box.
READ MORE: Lord McConell under fire for suggesting half of SNP voters are extremists
Lord McConnell feels this latest round of Labour navel-gazing presents a “huge opportunity” to challenge the “extreme”nationalism of the SNP and “extreme” Unionism of the Conservatives.
He really should let his Labour comrade and Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray MP in on that memo.
Famed for campaigning in a Union Jack suit during the 2014 referendum, Mr Murray stated recently that it was “right” for the Scottish Labour party to “destroy itself” to save the Union and they would do it again.
If that is not extreme Unionism, then I do not know what is.
The reality, as others have said, is that Labour offer nothing new in a crowded field of anti-democratic Unionism.
Hopefully, that will give those who care to vote in the upcoming leadership contest pause for thought.
Henry Malcolm
Dundee
I AM so sorry to hear of the death of Andy Gray. Many years ago he was appearing in His Majesty’s Theatre, Aberdeen. At that time I was playing piano in the lounge of the Caledonian Hotel. One evening I noticed that Mr Gray was in the lounge with some friends. When I finished one of my sets, He turned round to me, smiling, and applauded. This kind gesture meant so much to me.
RIP Andy Gray, you were taken from us too soon.
Joe Cowan
Balmedie
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