It is three weeks since I asked for any justifiable reason why anyone working in primary eye care practice should not have to maintain an up-to-date vaccination record, in the same way as taking all other measures to minimise the threat of cross-contamination. No responses so far.

I was beginning to worry that this column might only be read by my brother and my mum. But this week, my worries have been assuaged. It seems that our sustainability-themed issue, timed to coincide with the start of the COP26 conference in Glasgow, has prompted many of you to put fingers to keyboard. Some of you were supportive of the overall tone of our features, while others expressed concerns about the potential for us offering a biased, one-sided view. Keep the messages coming as this is an important discussion.

I would argue that sustainability is very much of relevance to eye care practice, and one where the efforts of the individual can only complement those of governments that wield the real power. I would also argue against the view that current coverage of environmental matters shows a significant bias towards those arguing for the inevitability of climate degradation. This may seem the case, but many of those with economic and industrial axes to grind in opposition to sustainability have less to argue, while solid data has come to the fore to emphasise the need to act. However, any effective approach must be ubiquitous and any perception of bias, either way, has to be addressed by those in the media. I feel a few debates coming on.

A quick footnote. Last week, the American Academy Conference was held in Boston. Look out for reports on the latest MiSight seven-year data, the effectiveness of nitrous oxide/prostaglandin combo drops for glaucoma and the rise of virtual reality testing kit in the coming weeks.