Politicians had no firm grasp of the scientific evidence before imposing lockdown again

sir – Given that the decision to lock down (or not) had to be based on sound facts, I took the time to watch Tuesday’s meeting of the science and technology committee, which questioned the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance.

With the exception of the chairman, Greg Clark, and also Graham Stringer, I found that the questioning by MPS was lightweight and betrayed a lack of preparation. Many questions were clearly outside the brief of the Chief Scientific Adviser, a point he made many times. The members seemed to have little grasp of the key issues. Jerry Etheridge

Murcott, Wiltshire

sir – Appearing before the committee, Professor Chris Whitty said: “Most of the additional deaths stack up because you don’t deal with Covid.”

Well, that is only true if the NHS is overwhelmed. But no one was claiming that. Professor Whitty has therefore inverted cause and effect.

It is the lockdown itself that has caused either a lack of timely attention by the NHS or of any attention at all. Graham Stringer challenged Professor Whitty about this, but he did not answer the point.

The additional (non-covid) deaths, in the short and long term, are the price the majority pay for Professor Whitty’s lockdown mania.

Nick Martinek

Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

sir – Charles Moore (Comment, November 3) reminds us that it is not science that drives the ultimate thinking around Covid, but politics.

We can talk about lockdown, liberty, lives and livelihoods, but it is the fear of liability for the outcome that drives key political decision-making. Michael Cooper

Addington, Kent

sir – The Prime Minister seems so concerned about doing nothing wrong that he seems to get nothing right. Andrew J Smith

West Malling, Kent sir – Rather than locking down the entire country, we should lock down Sage and stop its members presenting alarmist projections, many of which have proved false.

Malcolm Symonds

Ashtead, Surrey

sir – I’m afraid that David Conroy (Letters, November 3) is mistaken in referring to “the combined wisdom of our public-health experts”. If anyone, such as Carl Heneghan, the director of the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, or Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at Oxford, dares to dissent from Sage dogma, they are at best ignored, at worst vilified. Amanda Rowlands

Ross-on-wye, Herefordshire

sir – Protecting the NHS and saving lives today means running out of funds for the NHS, costing lives tomorrow. Christopher Hunt

Swanley, Kent

sir – On a whim, I took a moment to consider the personal liberties I have lost recently. There’s freedom of association, freedom of worship, the right to make medical decisions for myself, the right to family life and the pursuit of happiness and (as I am 85) freedom from discrimination.

The consciences of the judiciary, so proactive in the run-up to Brexit, appear to be in a form of lockdown on this. I am at a loss to find non-violent support. Perhaps from a libertarian government? Alas, no chance of that. Stuart Ashton

Whitley Bay, Northumberland

sir – Is there any evidence that a single case of Covid has been transmitted by a player on an outdoor tennis court? Ian Statham

Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

sir – To prove that I am unlawfully playing golf, any arresting officer would first have to find my ball in the rough. Good luck with that.

Peta Vick

Lytham, Lancashire