Spread of Delta means we have to change the vaccine rules

I am a 70-year-old feeling vulnerable, during this outbreak of the Delta variant, as I wait long weeks for my second AstraZeneca vaccination. I propose making available to everyone a first vaccination of AZ to be followed by Pfizer for the second dose, three weeks later.

Currently, the major drawback to having AZ rather than Pfizer is the much longer interval between doses (12 weeks rather than three weeks). That leaves those aged over 60 restricted to AZ more vulnerable – the very people who most need vaccination protection – because many will only have had one dose. Research has shown that mixing vaccines enhances protection against Covid. In the present situation, where there is insufficient Pfizer for everyone, guaranteeing people who have AZ for their initial dose access to Pfizer for their second dose only three weeks later would be the most effective and equitable method of allocation of vaccine resources.

Dr Drew Bullock, Bonville, NSW

While I agree with Troy Bramston’s assessment of the federal government’s failings in regard to fighting Covid (“Morrison almost out of credit as voters lose respect, trust”, 10/8), I disagree with his suggestion that the Prime Minister should avoid confrontations with premiers.

Setting a clear end point for lockdowns, without any backdoor loopholes, and demanding adherence from the lockdown-happy premiers, would gain Scott Morrison a lot of support from the increasing number of people who are sick of the increasingly futile and counter-productive sledgehammer method of locking people up. A prime minister who offers an alternative approach, instead of impotently mouthing his support for the open-ended continuation of lockdowns, would gain much respect and ultimately votes.

Dietrich Georg, St Ives, NSW

God forbid

Paul Monk’s welcome call for moderation when it comes to ultimate beliefs would have been more effective had he not claimed a monopoly on rationality and that belief in (a) god is necessarily dogmatic, something most believers would of course not accept (“Census a chance for a rational debate on religion”, 10/8).

Monk says he is a “son of the Enlightenment” because he has rejected Catholicism, and that he has also been influenced by Greek philosophy, which “rejects dogmatic monotheism.”

But like the Renaissance humanists who preceded them, most Enlightenment thinkers were Christians, and even the ones who weren’t tended to be deists, precisely because they thought there were good, independent reasons that have nothing to do with the “occult” for believing in the existence of a single Supreme Being.

As for the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle – theists both – founded Western rationalism in opposition to the sort of scepticism later popularised by Epicurus, which they associated not with rationalism but with a low view of the power of reason to make sense of a universe not founded on rational principles. Which makes sense, if you think about it.

For modern atheists to call themselves “rationalists” or “humanists” has thus always seemed to me a case of false advertising as well as an attempt to stack the deck. Like theism, atheism might be true or it might not be.

But even if it’s true, that doesn’t mean atheists are uniquely or generally more rational than other people, something history shows is false and that I don’t believe someone as intelligent as Monk really believes.

John Sexton, Centennial Park, NSW

China principle

I always take comfort from Glenda Korporaal’s competent commentary on China and her persistence to find solutions. Let us take her column “Olympics Hope for China” (9/9) a step further by identifying what can succeed beyond business interests to improve political interest.

How about demonstrating an interest in and respect for culture.

The difference between Western culture, founded on ancient Greco-Roman concepts of democracy, and Asian concepts based on pre-Confucius Legist use of authority to protect the power of the ruler will always lead to different perceptions, especially when we know that Xi Jinping is committed to this as a basis for his rule. A good starting point would be to express a sincere respect for Chinese culture and its relevance to Chinese society while noting that we have some different perceptions.

Can we not encourage a modus vivendi within these differences including progress in the relevance of human rights so that mutual respect can lead to shared benefits of peace and stability?

After all, political and business interests do not seem to be finding solutions for Taiwan and Hong Kong. And we need shared perceptions to work together on climate change.

Ian Crawford, Paddington, NSW