THE practice of medicine is an art as well as a science.

I will write this in plain English avoiding the medical terms and steering clear of politics and economics.

Our coronavirus is very versatile, attacking the various age groups with different degrees of severity and is different from other coronaviruses in its aggressiveness. It has not yet exhausted its potential for change, eg broadening its ability to jump between species. I am convinced that we have not yet recognised all the symptoms of infection by limiting them to cough, temperature and more recently loss of the sense of smell which I understand is due to the inflammation in the nose causing obstruction rather than damage to the nerve of smell. Some bowel disturbance, although less frequently a symptom, was added later. As far as I know little has been said about the less serious but prolonged version of the illness.

Early in the pandemic, I developed a mild flu-like illness with sore throat, blocked tickling nose and a feeling of being very cold and “shivery” but without any muscle contraction which is usually part of flu. I know that elderly people can have difficulty in maintaining their body temperature and achieving the higher temperature associated with flu. My temperature never rose above 36C. I assumed I had not been affected by the virus, but then my eyelids became swollen and my eyes felt itchy and with grit in them. I had an occasional cough which, on only one occasion, lasted all night. I tried to arrange a test at the GP surgery only to be told that my symptoms were “not on the list” and was advised to phone the NHS number where I got exactly the same advice. The symptoms remain the same several months later, with the only exception being that I have not had “shivering” for some time.

My plea is that medical practitioners evaluate this type of story if they have not already done so and that lay people with similar histories will share them. We are now in the “second wave” with further pressure on testing and contact tracing and possibly more undetected cases than we realised or, if you believe in conspiracy theories, infections that are denied. The other side of the same coin, more testing, would possibly allow those of us who are self-isolating to regain some freedom.

READ MORE: Coronavirus: Four UK nations agree strategy ahead of second wave

I rarely look in the mirror but when I do, to check if my swollen eyelids are recovering, my reflection recalls my six-month-long hair and the exhortation “physician heal thyself”.
Robert Mac Lachlan
Foulden

ALISTER Jack is a somewhat confused (or confusing) chap these days. To paraphrase his no doubt hero Winston Churchill (compulsory under Boris) he is a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside incompetence”.

It is Alister’s oft-stated view that the UK is “one country”. Presumably made up of regions, of which he considers Scotland to be but one. Yet he is discombobulated by “regional” variances in Covid-19 responses. (Jack slams Sturgeon’s Scotland-wide visit ban, September 24).

He has “no problem” with household bans in some regions of the UK (presumably because Boris says it’s OK) but does object if the UK region of Scotland (as he sees it) does similar. However, he wouldn’t object if a region of the region of Scotland was locked down.

Perhaps locking down his street might be an option to stop his rambling and contorted criticisms of the Scottish Government’s – across the board – praised handling of the pandemic.

But I will only need to wait a couple of days until Boris follows suit with a ramping up of restrictions and then, when they are in the same place as Scotland, it won’t be because Scotland has led the way (again) but merely the UK Government “following the science.”

What a set of chancers.
Henry Malcolm
Dundee

MUCH as I appreciate that Allan Anderson, and many others I’m sure, have their own interpretation on Ruth Wishart’s latest excellent column that differ from my own, I would like to comment on Mr Anderson’s expressed view.

It appears to me that by suggesting “older folk” have no vote in any future indyref2 because the majority may vote against independence to be not only a blatantly ageist, undemocratic and simplistic argument, but also to adopt the dangerous tactics of tyrannical totalitarian states by eliminating anyone who may disagree with your opinions or political goals from the political process.

I hope very soon to live in an independent, socially democratic Scotland where everyone’s civil liberties are celebrated and respected irrespective of age or school of thought.

Owen Kelly Stirling HUMZA Yousaf’s proposal only to remove “likely” from his bill’s criminalising of behaviour “likely” to “stir up hatred” doesn’t go nearly far enough to protect free speech.

Which writers and artists will be reassured by such a nuance if they still fear having to argue their absence of intent in court? Existing laws covering “threatening and abusive behaviour likely to cause fear or alarm” already serve us well.
Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society