I refer to your report, “Pope suggests people who have pets, not children, are ‘selfish’” ( January 5 ). The mainstream media placed much emphasis on the “selfish” part of the pontiff’s remarks, thereby fostering a misconception that the Pope was criticising all childless couples. That the Pope leads the Catholic Church whose clergy and religious orders take vows of celibacy may be why his comments attracted so much media attention and online backlash. Yet, the media did not paint the complete picture. Pope Francis was giving a catechism lesson with the theme of St Joseph and adoptive fatherhood at a weekly general audience. In light of declining birth rates and diminishing family values worldwide, the Pope was referring to married couples who are able to bear or adopt children, but choose to have pets instead. In 2015, Pope Francis also stressed that there is no need to breed “like rabbits”, regardless of couples’ ability to care for their children. However, pets should not count more than children, even though emotional relationships with them are easier and programmable. Not only is family the building block of society, but it also shapes the future of humankind. Family provides a foundation of love and care in our society, which further extends to other people and even to the environment and wildlife. Parenthood transforms one’s life in many ways, so society should treasure this extraordinary experience instead of deprecating it. It is understandable that some people are not entirely comfortable with the Pope’s comments, especially against the backdrop of various social problems and reality constraints. With the new Legislative Council inaugurated earlier this month, I hope the government will put forward more family-friendly policies, further raising the tax allowances for those with children, providing more breastfeeding spaces in public places, and offering premarital counselling and a community-based intergenerational childcare partnership programme. Anfield Tam, Quarry Bay Zealous feeders of wild animals put them at risk While hiking one Sunday in Kam Shan Country Park, monkeys, stray dogs and wild boars were a common sight. At the bus stop, a private vehicle suddenly stopped in front of me. The driver lowered his window and threw bananas to a group of monkeys. When some people pointed to the banner saying feeding wild animals was prohibited, the driver was unmoved. He replied that he was just educating his son who was in the car that people should care for animals as they may starve to death. This incident is just the tip of the iceberg. Every day, some zealous people feed wild animals to express their empathy. But they ignore the fact that their behaviour has resulted in more animals gravitating to urban areas, disturbing and harming residents. As a result, the government has introduced regular capture-and-kill exercises to tackle the wild boar overpopulation problem. The government has been lambasted by the public and animal welfare groups for being cruel. However, it is those who have been feeding wild animals, who prioritise their sympathetic impulses over the community’s welfare, who should be held responsible. These people also ignore what is best for the wild animals, as feeding them will gradually eliminate their natural survival skills. In the United States and some European countries, wild boar hunting is legalised to address overpopulation. Wild boar can be found on menus in Japan and Italy. While legalising hunting in Hong Kong is not a good idea, we should tackle the disturbance caused by boars at the root – stop feeding them. By expanding the current feeding ban from designated country parks to the entire territory, coupled with more patrols and prosecutions, hopefully the ecological balance can be restored. In the meantime, Hongkongers should leave the local wildlife alone. They are better off without us. Alison Ng, Olympic Hong Kong is caught between rock and hard place on Covid I refer to your editorial, “Back to square one as Hong Kong takes the battle to Omicron” ( January 11 ). In reality, Omicron has brought the battle to us and moved Covid-19 a long way from square one. Omicron is one of the most infectious viruses our world has experienced. From the US and Europe to India, the number of infections has quickly spiralled out of control. However the key data point is not the number of cases or infections, but the rate of hospitalisation, of those on ventilation or in intensive care treatment, and the death rate. On this score, humanity can count itself extremely lucky, for as Omicron continues to replace the more damaging Delta variant, all these rates are lower, despite the massive increase in case numbers. One study in China suggests that an earlier variant of the virus jumped to mice where it mutated into Omicron and then jumped back to humans. If this sequence had been repeated with Sars (from bats) or Mers (from camels), then we would have reason to be extremely worried because of the potential for high death rates. Omicron could help boost natural immunity against existing and future coronavirus mutations. Conversely, “zero-Covid” policies together with existing vaccinations and booster shots may offer only weak protection against future mutations which could be highly transmissible and pathogenic. Hong Kong is caught between a rock of international experience and a hard place of China’s steadfast zero-Covid policy. I commend Bernard Chan for recognising this (“Jabs are vital for HK to remain Asia’s world city”, January 14 ) Frank Lee, Wan Chai