University students need the option of returning home. Forcing them to stay will damage their mental health

My children went up to residential universities from boarding school without the slightest trauma. I had been sent over to France after the war to spend my summers with relatives and also hit the ground running. But for my three younger brothers, university was the first time they were away from the family and homesickness made them vulnerable in their early months on campus.

Enormous efforts have been made in recent years to increase the number of students from poor backgrounds. I think this was a mistake and most would have been better served by immediately entering the world of work via apprenticeships, etc. But if university is the way our leaders want to go, they must appreciate that many new entrants will be like my three brothers.

The contributions of Professor Jason Leitch, Scotland’s national clinical director, have been deeply unhelpful. To say that these young people cannot go back to the family home is outrageous and could even lead to severe mental health issues. Threatening to prevent students from going home for Christmas kicks away the last sign of support. "Experts" who proclaim such idiocies shouldn't be given television slots.

John Cameron

St Andrews

I feel very sorry for young people in general and students in particular in the era of coronavirus. Mixing, socialising and making new friends is all part of growing up for young people wherever they are.  

The current scenario just seems ridiculous. Whatever one’s political persuasion, it would have seemed an almost inevitable consequence of the tens of thousands of students heading for universities and colleges that Covid-19 infections would dramatically increase.

It just seems that yet again the government has been taken by complete surprise and altogether unprepared. If test and trace were considerably more available and the results more quickly available then perhaps the consequences of this migration of young people would have been significantly reduced.

The government should start thinking about Christmas now and try to avoid Covid consequences of mass migration (of all ages) over the festive period.  

Peter H Williams

Ayrshire

The possibility of Boris Johnson choosing who will get two key posts in the oversight of the apolitical BBC is alarming. But it is all of a piece with Trump packing the Supreme Court with right-wingers who could skew the court’s judgements for 30 years.

A future left-of-centre government in the UK (in four years or less) could rein in political interference in high profile public appointments, but by then a lot of long term damage could have been done in the case of the BBC.

In the past, even Labour governments have been unhappy with the carefully objective BBC. As far as I’m concerned, a number of politicians do not like those who speak truth to power, and many react badly to satire, investigative journalism, fair comment, and even constructive criticism.

Although the main issue that the right has with the BBC is about perceived political bias, they are uncomfortable with programmes examining changing attitudes to our national history, to race, religion, disadvantage and many other social issues – the exploration of which should always be part of the BBC’s mission.

There is also another worrying strand in this anti-BBC sentiment: some politicians on both the right and the left are not themselves lovers of the arts, and are aware that much of their mass support in the electorate is not in the least interested in money being spent on serious music and the arts – fields in which the BBC has always excelled.

Gavin Turner

Gunton

I read your editorial with interest and a certain amount of agreement (“Boris Johnson only has himself to blame over the latest parliamentary rebellion” 28 September) that rebel MPs are right to stand up to Johnson. The reservation I do have in the case of this virus is that speed is of the essence and decisions do have to be made quickly. What I don't think will be helpful is a swathe of Conservative MPs leaping to their feet extolling the rights of every English person to do exactly what they please.  

Boris Johnson is now very wary, perhaps from his own experience, of playing “catch up" yet again if the virus really gets out of control and there are yet more tragic deaths.

I agree with the compromise that parliament should be given more scrutiny but must fully appreciate that the government has to act speedily in certain instances.  

The trio of Johnson, Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings is really getting to MPs, who are being sidelined on many occasions. The very idea of an adviser being so omnipotent is absolutely anathema to them, and the prime minister needs to recognise that before yet more governmental self-harm is done because you can't rely on the cabinet to stand up to them.  

Judith A Daniels

Great Yarmouth

How many times have we heard that ministers will, “come down heavy” on all sorts of miscreants only for nothing to happen to those who diverge from the accepted norm?

Perhaps Priti Patel ought to send the police to tell Stanley Johnson and Dominic Cummings what is expected of them during this pandemic. No more soundbites, what we need is a more proactive response for transgressors.

Keith Poole

Basingstoke

John Rentoul (“Warning: coronavirus statistics can damage understanding” 27 September) implies that the recent slower growth in reported Covid-19 cases means that underlying growth is no longer exponential. It is far more likely that this is an artefact – when demand for tests exceeds the number available, as now, the number of positive cases can only increase if the fraction of positive tests increases. There are, as yet, no measures in place to ensure this, other than asking people who don’t have symptoms not to get tested. The random-sampled ONS figures are more meaningful, but always a long way behind.

All other measures – hospitalisations, numbers on ventilators and deaths – are still increasing exponentially, doubling every eight or nine days. In the absence of sufficient testing capacity, these are a better measure of growth rate – albeit slightly delayed – than positive tests.

Rachael Padman

Newmarket