FRANCIS Lankester’s letter about the effectiveness or otherwise of lockdowns earlier this week prompted some strong responses from readers who got in touch through our website and Facebook.

Mr Lankester wrote: “The crushing economic harm caused by lockdown is obvious. But there are invisible harms... Increasing evidence shows lockdown has no beneficial effect.

“At best it only delays, at worst by preventing immunity and cutting healthcare it leads to increased deaths.”

Andrew Thomas contacted us to say: “This letter is an hopelessly naive response to an extremely serious public health crisis.

“How many deaths does your correspondent think would be acceptable in order to keep the High Street open for the few weeks before the vaccines start to do their job?

“Countries such as Australia and Singapore which locked down hard and soon at the start of the epidemic are now in a much better position than we are.

“The WHO does not oppose lock downs on principle, please look at the WHO website yourself in order to check this.”

But Amanda Meanock took the opposite view: “I totally agree [with Mr Lankester]. Lockdowns... are totally the opposite of what we actually should be doing.

“I’ve heard older folks saying they’d rather die of the virus than live like this. I think that speaks for a lot of us. Our shop has been closed down, our livelihood has been threatened. We intended to survive if we can and continue to be responsible for our own income – I don’t want handouts.

“I want to just live my life, see my 80-year-old father, newly alone after my mom died at the beginning of this. I will not actually be told that I can’t see him.”

Her view was echoed by Liz Taylor: “Spot on. It is now doing unbelievable harm. Lost business and economic devastation will also cripple the NHS in the future as the tax revenues are vital to finance it.”

On our website imustbeoldiwearacap1st also took issue with Mr Lankester’s assertion that the WHO opposes lockdowns: “The WHO does not ‘oppose’ lockdowns – rather the WHO states lockdowns should not be used as the primary means of control, but it should be used to give space to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted!”

Worcester Lass was in no doubt as to one of the main reasons for the current situation: “The lockdown would have worked if it had been implemented a lot sooner and harder.

“Instead, we played the waiting game and lost. Add to that the selfish people who decided that following early guidance wasn’t for them and carried on regardless.

“Later guidance looked like something a drunk had come up with. No clarity, no consistency and contradictory advice. Just when you think this Government couldn’t be any less competent they prove that they can. As for those selfish people, it is you who dragged this out longer than necessary. No point complaining now.”

Perhaps Matt Price on Facebook summed up the discussion best: “A fiendishly complex situation which can’t be summed up effectively in a short letter – for me not particularly compelling.

“Of course, different attitudes to risk inevitably lead to different conclusions on whether Covid measures are worth it.”