I AM sure that the National Clinical Director, Jason Leitch does have a very demanding position which requires commitment and hard work for which he is eminently qualified.
I am however becoming increasingly alarmed about the stridency and frequency of the pronouncements of senior civil servants and other advisors who presently command media attention and their often conflicting advice.
Last week Leitch, right, stated on Good Morning Scotland – ahead of the FM – that hopes of a normal Christmas were “fictional” and that we should prepare for a “digital” one. This was quite frankly crassly insensitive. Many older people may be alone this year as a result of restrictions and have no access to digital technology. This is equally so for poorer members in our community.
At the press call the First Minister, in almost direct contradiction, stated that “it does depend upon people doing the right thing now”.
It is important to bear in mind that members of the Civil Service have no democratic legitimacy since they do not speak as elected members of our democratic institutions.
We live in a Parliamentary democracy - not a “Scientocracy.” This is all the more poignant since this pandemic has witnessed the biggest erosion of our personal liberties this century whether in peace or war..
The First Minister last week compared the fight against the virus like that of an enemy in the Second World War. It is not – it is much more hideous than that.During wartime we could visit our friends and family (and this produced community solidarity), while now we are being conditioned to regard every neighbour, family member and stranger as being a potential killer source of a deadly infection.
The implications for our mental health are truly extremely damaging since we now live in a world of constant fear and anxiety where even touch and close quarters to our fellow human beings are looked upon as both dangerous. This is an extremely unnatural state of existence when people are literally “frightened to death” of one another which has led to self-harm and in some more extreme cases suicide.
On October 24 an analysis carried out by Public Health Scotland. Leading author, Professor Paul Mckeigue of Edinburgh University’s Usher Institute, called for a “focussed” protection to the pandemic and that it would be possible to advise those at high risk of severe disease to shield themselves when there is a Covid-19 epidemic in their locality and that health resources should be directed towards this strategic goal in tackling the pandemic.
Any effective vaccine if developed should be directed at those most vulnerable to the disease “to achieve herd immunity, the proportion who have to be immune – the herd immunity threshold – is lower with natural infection than with a vaccine.This is because natural infection affects the most connected and most susceptible people first.Once this group have been immunised the epidemic will be contained,It is possible only 20per cent of the population may bring about herd immunity”.
READ MORE: Jason Leitch hits back at Richard Leonard over 'tone deaf' tweet
Leitch commented on this: “This study analyses risk in the population in relation to severe illness as a result of Covid-19. It adds to our existing knowledge who is most at risk and allows our risk assessments to improve. It does not suggest herd immunity is a solution.” Confused dear reader? so am I!
“While it is undoubtedly the case that every death is a tragedy in this pandemic it is equally important to get a sense of historical perspective on the matter to mitigate the effects of mass panic in our society.
“During the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 more than 500 million people became infected and the death toll world wide was 50m. This latter figure of incidentally was more than all combined casualties (combatants and civilians) who perished in the First World War.
Presently Covid-19 has had just in excess of 43m infections and just over 1.5m deaths worldwide.
James Park
Edinburgh
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel