Telling us over and over that children are unlikely to catch the coronavirus is irrelevant – it’s about the risk to others

Send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Schoolchildren have undeniably been adversely affected by Covid-19 and it is clear that those who expected to be taking exams this summer have been very badly let down by our so-called government.

However, the arguments presented by the government for encouraging parents of younger children to ensure their return to school are woeful. Pet scientists, behavioural science units and ministers are clearly out of their depth.

Telling us over and over that children are highly unlikely to have the virus is irrelevant.

What if they are carriers? What about teachers who may be worried about transmitting the virus to their families? What about children who live in multi-generational households who may transmit the virus to older relatives (or vice versa)? What about those households that are adversely affected economically if the children cannot go to school? What are the strategies – let alone the snappy three-word messages – for countering these reasonable concerns?

I am in favour of children going back to school but none of these obvious concerns are being addressed.

This government has had the best part of eight months to plan for this. Clearly that was not nearly long enough.

Beryl Wall
London

Land of no hope and Tory

I suggest Boris Johnson sticks to what he knows best (he was recently photographed playing with a bow and arrow) and leaves the planning of concerts to the BBC music department. The Last Night of the Proms traditionally plays “Rule, Britannia!”, with the lyrics, “Britons never never never shall be slaves ...” This year the song will be orchestral only, but it’s another lie. We are all slaves to Tory diktats now, soon to be trapped on an increasingly irrelevant small island.

As for “Land of (no) hope and Tory” – it’s a splendid march by Edward Elgar. The words – absolute (world-beating) tosh.

Colin Hayward
Fareham, Hampshire

Truth is out there

Kellyanne Conway, adviser to Donald Trump, is resigning from her position to spend more time with her family. Hopefully she will take the concept of “alternative facts” with her and that it is never mentioned again.

The truth is the truth and facts are facts.

Dennis Fitzgerald
Melbourne, Australia

Listen to the experts

You published a letter by Stuart Wilkie that denounces expert opinions and probable facts. I say probable, because I don’t know the numbers but, like the advice from Simon Calder on the risks of air travel, the expert view makes sense. He also proposes ridiculous measures such as speed cameras outside schools (is that where accidents happen most often?), equally ridiculous deadlines, and paying teachers danger money.

My recent experience of teachers falls into two camps – those who are committed, sensible, and want to help their students; and those who are akin to union activists and who left their common sense and professional duties behind when they picked up the union guide on how to disrupt schooling.

If this was related to something trivial I could understand the levity or irony. On Covid-19 and such important matters you are being irresponsible.

Michael Mann
Shrewsbury

Calculated risks

Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer for England, is being ridiculed for trying to put risk into perspective, something that is sadly missing from the crisis.

I have just returned from a stay in a hotel in Yorkshire where one of the precautions we were told to take was to “avoid touching handrails on the staircases” which we had to use as the lift “was only to be used where necessary”. Because for me the risk of tripping and falling on the stairs (possibly breaking an ankle or hip) is much greater than picking up coronavirus from a regularly cleaned handrail, it was a rule I had to ignore. As I always washed my hands when getting to my room safely it was not an issue.

Making up the rules like this prevents people understanding how to measure risk. Education in risk assessment would mean everyone could make decisions on how to behave to minimise their exposure to the virus, and therefore take responsibility for their own actions. But people are scared to do that, preferring to blindly follow nonsensical rules instead. That way you can blame someone else for your behaviour.

Anna Taylor
Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex

Dream of PR

In a strange dream last night I saw the next general election. All the opposition parties had come together under one banner – reform of the electoral system.

Their promise was to introduce proportional representation immediately and conduct another election within six months. No “pie in the sky” promises about making Britain great or free wifi for all, just one issue. Give us an electoral system fit for purpose and representative of all our views.

But as I say, it was just a dream.

D Leddy
Ottershaw, Surrey