the only blot on his copybook in all of this is he’s spent his entire career in the service of mandatory law, but as he surely realises, Covid is showing that mandatory law is basically a bad thing
I did think this morning how he would have approached a Claimant who had deliberately ignored the law in a case before him. Bit more flexible on this than he has been, eh.
But yes if you didn't agree the 1st time you're not going to the 5500th. It still needs saying though , if only to add a counterweight to the dominant narrative
One of my friends told me yesterday I am the "only person (he) knows" who is cross about the restrictions and worried about what I feel is the dangerous precedent they set.
All I can suggest is that perhaps plenty of people he knows secretly think the same but will go along with it in public because it's seen as the socially acceptable thing to say and we live in a wierd groupthink culture where people are afraid of voicing a dissenting opinion. This may even explain the opinion polls which show a level of support for measures which seems unrealistically high to me
In fairness Super Serial Sam he has in the past (Reith lectures?) said that he would expect an unjust law to be enforced just as he would expect an unjust law to be flouted.
Everything he says is right and I agree with him (although he is stunningly naive about the wider community effects of people taking their own personal risk assessment - see for instance drink driving etc).
But I fear nuance will be lost and he will be quited to excuse all manner of shitty behaviour.
You're taking a very strange position on this Fosco, which doesn't reflect well on you actually. Seems to be "if you're very clever and at the top of society, then yes I can understand why you'd reach a conclusion I disagree with. You reach it because you're clever etc. What I feel compelled to post on the internet about however, is that normal people will either follow you, or use your words to justify their less learned opinions, and I loathe normal people who have a different opinion to me." Something like that...
All theoretical objections are bullshyte. If this thing had an IFR of say 50% nobody half sane would be questioning even more draconian laws if required to save society from descending into chaos. It is all a matter of degree and sensible cost benefit analysis to include health, economic, social and liberty in terms of cost and benefit.
I don't think anyone should call for censorship of political views. You can disagree with what he says, but he's got a right to say it without his mic being turned off.
And increasingly, he's the only voice for a big % of the population that will speak to the media.
He was on LBC yesterday, well worth a listen. key takeaway, this is unenforcable and a nonsense, the virus cannot be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Sounds about right
It is perfectly acceptable to have Lord Sumption's views about the law and I am not saying such views are the sole preserve of the 'right sort'. It is obvious as a matter of practicality that in daily life that we all act as we see fit rather than with regard to the letter of the law - how many people know the Theft Act off by heart?
It is just not a great idea for a very-recently-ex-Supreme Court judge to be saying 'just take a view on the law, whatevs' at every opportunity.
It's not at every opportunity, is it. It's in relation to laws he feels are to the detriment of society as a whole, for the reasons he has very clearly and carefully explained.
I think Dom has realised that petty unenforceable laws are great coz the whole world will descend into petty irrelevant bickering, whilst he can get on with whatever the fook he wants.
Its his MO. Tbh I admire him. He may be dangerous, but he is far more effective than any other political operative out there.
He could just go Sweden, respect our ancient liberies, and probably end up at roughly the same R. But this is much much better for him politically.
It's a bit of scandal that they don't have to even try to justify it in any serious way or put it up for scrutiny first, these are fundamental freedoms they are impinging on. It should go before a public parliamentary committee at least with a sunset clause.
Most people seem to think it's just guidance - oh, they're saying this to stop the 30+ personal illegal raves. Rubbish. They're telling you not to mix with 5 other people, not asking.
ebitda is right that Sumption was interviewed on LBC and that it is well worth a listen.
He's very wrong about what Sumption said. Sumption did not say that the virus can't be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Instead he said there are three options. 1) no lockdown. 2) a long term lockdown until a vaccine arrives. 3) a short term lockdown to save the NHS and protect ICU capacity for such time as that is at risk as pervaded March and April.
Problem is govt got consent for 3 and is now embarked on 2, which was not the original plan. In fact Sumption believes 1 is correct. I agree with him.
Im broadly with Team Sane right now - but what GC said as well. Theres clearly a need for prooprtionality. If we get to 100s of deaths a day again and the rate is going up towards 1000s then we may need to reappraise. But not right now.
The situation is different from March where we did not know what we were dealing with that well and should have controlled/shut down much sooner. I think we have a bit more knowledge and much more control now so we can risk deaths in the low 10Ks to allow society to function and to avoid trampling on basic rights any more rhan strictly necessary.
I suspect that by October/November we may be facing 50K deaths plus again (with downside risk of low multi 100k deaths; that was the calculation before and Im not sure its changed fundamentally tbh). Clearly at that point you need to lock down again. But I am confident that we will have much more visibility this time and can take timing risks.
But right now - cases in low thousands and deaths still less than 5 a day and with a lot of controls already in place. I think we need to err on side of civil liberties for a while yet.
Sumption" They should have used the Civil contigiency Act 2004, which allows the government to do that which they have. I ask myself why they haven't ? Because the 2004 Act explicitly says , parliament must approve any actions such as what is being done (cornona virus lockdown/restrictions), and even then parliament must review it after the first seven days, and 30 days thereafter"
SAGE in reports to government in Feb and March explicitly say " lockdown will not reduce any deaths, the deaths will remain the same but over a longer period of time"
Interviewer, " Where does it say that"
Sumption" Pages x, y, and z 7 paragraph, 18 sub paragraph little a. Ah said the interviewer. He had no notes he just remembered it.
“ebitda is right that Sumption was interviewed on LBC and that it is well worth a listen.
He's very wrong about what Sumption said. Sumption did not say that the virus can't be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Instead he said there are three options. 1) no lockdown. 2) a long term lockdown until a vaccine arrives. 3) a short term lockdown to save the NHS and protect ICU capacity for such time as that is at risk as pervaded March and April.
Problem is govt got consent for 3 and is now embarked on 2, which was not the original plan. In fact Sumption believes 1 is correct. I agree with him.”
This is a good summary. I was always a 3. But very much feared the 3-2 switch, which is what is happening. Clergs was right on this risk. Tbh so was I - as soon as we locked down my view was we needed to lobby to have it lifted as the 3-2 switch was always a massive risk given the hysterical/compliance obsessed nature of our media/culture.
Tbf to the govt this is more of a switch to something between 1 and 2 rather than a full lockdown. But I think this 1.5 is probably as bad as 2 - people are getting far too confortable with basic liberties being eroded. 1 would still be a lot lot safer than the 0 setting we were at in early March.
Of course part of the reason we were at 0 in early March was because the govt and the media had spent 6 weeks trying to ignore or play down the issue (and telling outright lies about obvious control measures such as masks).
@Canary Worf - agreed with your point above, people are too sanguine about having fundamental rights eroded. It should be very hard for a government to do so, even in exceptional times. This is no longer a fast moving crisis (or at least it's no longer unexpected). It's not acceptable that a govt can interfere so fundamentally in people's lives without even bothering to justify it to parliament.
"It's not at every opportunity, is it. It's in relation to laws he feels are to the detriment of society as a whole, for the reasons he has very clearly and carefully explained."
So we should all be able to decide we can break laws we feel are to the detriment of society provided we explain it carefully enough?
I reluctantly accepted the original lockjdown on the basis of 3, but feared it would turn into 2 (in effect, if not in legal doctrine) due to the lingering fear embedded intpo the national psyche in the implementation of 3
A fear that has 100pc been realised.
And what I always say to my pro lockdown friends is: what if we don't get a vaccine? Every plan should be stress tested against that scenario
I think Sumption made some valid points about individual choice, but he isn't an epidemiologist and should have stayed in lane about how best to prevent the spread of the virus. He doesn't know whether individuals can protect themselves from coronavirus if the rest of society is unlocked and by opining on that weakens his overall argument which stands and falls on a point of principle not on balancing public health considerations against individual freedom which he is unqualified to give a view on.
@ ebitda - is this definitely what the SAGE report says? "lockdown will not reduce any deaths, the deaths will remain the same but over a longer period of time"
Always thought they assumed that infections would be the same, but over a longer period of time, rather than deaths.
Sumption's a fool (albeit a very intelligent one). He was great when other people (i.e. clients) were telling him what to argue, but when he finally got to make decisions for himself as a judge and now commentator, he's just a disaster with awful judgment Imagine a lawyer thinking his views on how best to effectively manage a health crisis are important and should determine the outcome.
Alright look, so if you want to form policy and talk truth to power in respect of a virus, you have to be an epidemiologist do you?
Should the country just effectively be run by epidemiologists, with no scrutiny outside of epidemiology, until such time as the epidemiologists step aside and allow normal political views to at least be heard, in any material way?
staying in your lane is the biggest load of baloney I've ever heard
@Simon - judges are some of the best positioned to take all the facts and evidence and use that to interpret the laws being made and how they should apply in conjunction with liberties and freedoms. In North America, they would have to weigh in things like the Bill of Rights/Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the risk to public health presented.
I think a very high ranking judge is one of the best people, absent good political leaders, to make these decisions and interpretations with a view of ALL the evidence from economists, social workers, psychologists, etc not just the epidemiologists.
We can all be safe from the virus if we lock ourselves in white padded cells with no human contact, but this isn't how society should function. IF we only look at things from an epidemiology point of view, we may end up in permanent lockdown.
"If this thing had an IFR of say 50% nobody half sane would be questioning even more draconian laws if required to save society from descending into chaos. It is all a matter of degree and sensible cost benefit analysis to include health, economic, social and liberty in terms of cost and benefit."
And if my aunt were possessed of a nadsack, she'd be my uncle. What's your point?
His arguments are not based on epidimeology, and where it is he relies on Sage reports sent to government. See post above. He is resoloute that the Actions taken are illegal and are not scrutinisd by parliament, all of which is true.
Lockdowns he says, will not reduce infections /deaths as one can't lockdown permanently, as unlock happens , infections and deaths will rise. He says the can is only being kicked down the road.
My understanding is that the measures being taken now are to try and prevent a scenario where health service risks getting overwhelmed again which will in turn necessitate another national lockdown.
We can argue about whether these measures are required or justified, but I don't think the aim is to simply reduce or end the current comparatively low level of deaths. In otherwords we are still operating on policy goal 3 not policy goal 2.
Anyone who thinks we should let it rip without any regard for overloading health service is fool, as is anybody who is not an expert opining on the likelihood of the virus doing so.
I think we have enough real world evidence at this point in time to judge the risk of overwhelming health care, regardless of whether you are an "expert" Guy. cf Sweden
Also "let her rip" is not an option, as mandatory or not, most people will not be reckless in their actions and exhibit some forms of social distancing, hand washing, restriction on travel, etc.
We can indeed argue about whether the measures are required or justified, and they're not. The aim may be more in line with 3 but the evidence so overwhelmingly is much more in line with 2, that taking a position pointing this out is entirely fair enough. Correct in fact. The evidence that the NHS and ICU capacity would be overwhelmed without these measures is so thin as to make it risible.
I do not believe that it is necessary to be an expert to opine about whether the NHS and ICU capacity will be overwhelmed. It's perfectly fine to form an opinion about this based on sound evidence and the views of honest actors.
One of the big lies going on is that all the honest actors are on the side of health, and all the dishonest actors want to trash health. This is so far from the truth, and in fact is a viewpoint from which health in a more broad sense (including the full suite of services the NHS normally fully provides including cancer and mental health) is trashed for this.
Sweden has relied on multiple voluntary social distancing measures which may not work here (and certainly would not if Clergs had her way). It is also a very different country, it suffered far worse than its Scandi neighbours to date, whose to say we would have suffered far worse than we did without lockdown? Indeed it seems to be me we inevitably would have done as in lots of the country (with less health care provision than London) the infection was stopped in its tracks after lockdown.
There will be less flu deaths thasn normal this winter I'll bet.
Why?
Because it will be the only winter in UK history where millions of people will be essentially stopping their lives to protect against the risk of infection, be it from covid or common garden flu.
And then come March 2021 the government can stand there, surveying the wrecked economy, permanantly altered relationship between person and state, completely toxicified social culture of people seeing each other as vectors of disease, and appalling waiting list and death rates for heart attacks, cancer, strokes, mental health crisis and suicide rates, and say...
"but look how many less people caught and died from flu"
like the "1 instrument on the 6 pack" pilots they have been throughout this crisis
One of his better lines " I am classed as being in the vunerable range, and during lockdown I would have not hesitated to go to a packed pub and have a few pints, I am as are most capable of making choices of their own as to what I should do with my own body.
Fast forward three months
Interviewer, " So have you been to the pub since they were allowed open?"
Sumption " Yes I have , it was packed the weather was fine, and I drank 3 pints of my favourite Ale, it was very pleasant , you should try it" fooking golden!
"the infection was stopped in its tracks after lockdown. "
But was that because of our lockdown? Geuninely skeptical on that. I think our UK lockdown came too late to stop the virus properly, and the virus just did what it did regardless. People were dying in large quantities 2-3 months after lockdown started as evidence of this. I don't think anyone can be 100% sure now of anything. And to impose strict lockdowns on the nation we need to be 100% sure they are necessary to prevent health care collapsing.
As I said, we can rely on people to behave rationally and take their own risks - this is Sumption's persistent argument. I don't believe overwhelming health care is a risk to consider at this stage, nor should anyone who has paid attention to how the virus has acted in Sweden without national lockdowns. We've been out of lockdown for months in the UK, and hospitals are basically empty. The surge in cases we see now are not sending people to hospital in sufficient quantities to justify the measures taken against our rights and freedoms. Also his point.
What awdit said. We need to have voices on more than just the side of project fear. Rof is the only place I read where anyone questions the stasi style madness
Canadian the reason we know lockdown stopped the virus rather than it running out of targets is (a). Areas with low levels of known infection remained low they didn’t catch up with those hit first the lockdown effectively froze things as they were and( b) cases are increasing again following end of lockdown.
I think it is arguable that lockdown didn’t do much for London, we still don’t know that though, but I cannot see how that can be said for other regions
@lolz - calm down. We can disagree without being rude.
@Canadian - the policy makers' obviously have to factor in all the issues, but Sumption isn't a policy maker, he's a single issue commentator so should stick to his point not pretend his point factors in a deep epidemiological / public health understanding which it self evidently doesn't.
She got gaslit and bullied by Piers Morgan for daring to take a perfectly sensible, non extremist stance that was nowhere near even Clergs, let alone Icke
One of my friends told me yesterday I'm the only person they know who is remotely angry/worried about restrictions! Shows what a job mass media can still do in a way I honestly thought couldn't be a thing anymore due to the internet, free press etc etc.
Macawbre that is true, please remember I am talking about policy 3 not policy 2 and addressing Canadian specific point that is not clear that lockdown did delay deaths because it was no worse in Sweden
The mandatory national lockdown ended in June...cases are rising now 3 months later; cases never ceased (stopped in their tracks) and were at 1% of tests positive consistently throughout post lockdown period. Virus incubates in about 2 weeks. So there's a lot of evidence that lockdowns didn't do anything, but a public that stopped practicing social distancing measures as much caused the recent increases (particularly young folks).
In other words, we can get the same result by voluntary guidance and reminders as we can with mandatory laws and criminal records for lawbreakers.
Ok Canadian, I get your point, maybe in some countries but in this country when Johnson advised people not to go to the pub a week before lockdown they continued to pack them out - including many proud roffers. The feeling in the UK that you are a bit of a wuss if you follow voluntary guidelines is amply illustrated on rof day in day out.
heh - rof isn't real life is it? I agree with all your points as well (as usual) just I'm hoping and a praying we don't get more national lockdowns and a national curfew. I think you're very right in that London / South East is more akin to Sweden than the rest of the country.
Lockdowns can and do work to stop any virus obviously - just the cost is too great to justify it here and their impact is very limited if they come too late to stop community spread or result in people going to school and work in mass numbers. So...it's all puzzling.
I think what has been said here is that the rule of 6 is just optics. There's no logic in it, if people go to school and work on tubes/trains/busses the virus will spread fast and hard. Coming down on the non-economic social activities is just pretend lip service. What would be better to me is either say we're going to stop the spread with lockdown and back to April for us all (boo!) or say we're going to go for broke like Sweden, do what you must but please social distance and wear masks and wash your hands but we're only going to make laws about very large gatherings.
This middle ground is a farce to me. I'll stop ranting as I have proper post work lunch to do.
I pretty much agree with him; I only ever favoured the 3-month "get the NHS ready" lockdown.
The only thing I'd say is it's easy to express that view when you're not actually doing any decision making and the disease hasn't reached the dizzy heights people feared. And I criticize myself for that too.
I think the way the government sees it is that there are a number of possible leavers that may reduce infection - and it is pulling those it perceives to have lowest cost in hope this will be enough - trouble is it makes it hard for public to see any consistency
Absolutely lord gaga - it’s all about viral loaf and proximity right so then a lot of information should be updated and people released from quarantining post etc
I think what has been said here is that the rule of 6 is just optics. There's no logic in it, if people go to school and work on tubes/trains/busses the virus will spread fast and hard. Coming down on the non-economic social activities is just pretend lip service.
The Government claims that the track and trace data shows that the virus is spread through social activities and is not, for the most part, spread through work / public transport.
Now they could be flat out lying (unlikely, too easy to come a cropper) or it may be just that a shitty track and trace programme makes it far easier to trace social contacts than public transport contacts (work contacts being a piece of piss to trace and therefore suggesting at least that bit is true).
But it isn't illogical to ban one type of activity if all of the hard data you have suggests that is the main thing spreading the disease.
@canadian - surely the middle ground is exactly where we should be aiming?
________________
Normally compromise and middle ground are great things! But when it comes to criminalizing basic civil liberties like meeting your family, I'm afraid we are past the middle ground.
Middle ground to me is masks on transport and public indoors.
0
0
(^Sumption on R4 Today just now)
0
0
He's also a chin stroking academic tbf. And the more tedious they Are, the more the media lap them up.
0
0
he’s right about everything, as well you know
the “mentalists” he is “giving ammunition” are ordinary people rightly outraged by the confiscation of their rights and freedoms for no good reason
0
0
Some are, Laz.
Some are governments looking for things to parrot when they want to break the law in 'specific' and 'limited' ways.
0
0
the threat that matters is the oppressive laws governments are passjng in the here and now m88, not ones you fantasise they might break in future
0
0
He is not an academic FGS
0
0
Sumption is very brave in respect of COVID, and is entirely correct
0
0
is it on now, i cannot find it?
0
0
All of the threads on Sumption are identical. They tell him to shut up, but never say what he's said that is wrong, and why.
That's because he has been right about everything on this throughout, and continues to be right.
0
0
agreed
the only blot on his copybook in all of this is he’s spent his entire career in the service of mandatory law, but as he surely realises, Covid is showing that mandatory law is basically a bad thing
0
0
I did think this morning how he would have approached a Claimant who had deliberately ignored the law in a case before him. Bit more flexible on this than he has been, eh.
0
0
Lord Gumption for saying it!
But yes if you didn't agree the 1st time you're not going to the 5500th. It still needs saying though , if only to add a counterweight to the dominant narrative
One of my friends told me yesterday I am the "only person (he) knows" who is cross about the restrictions and worried about what I feel is the dangerous precedent they set.
All I can suggest is that perhaps plenty of people he knows secretly think the same but will go along with it in public because it's seen as the socially acceptable thing to say and we live in a wierd groupthink culture where people are afraid of voicing a dissenting opinion. This may even explain the opinion polls which show a level of support for measures which seems unrealistically high to me
0
0
In fairness Super Serial Sam he has in the past (Reith lectures?) said that he would expect an unjust law to be enforced just as he would expect an unjust law to be flouted.
Everything he says is right and I agree with him (although he is stunningly naive about the wider community effects of people taking their own personal risk assessment - see for instance drink driving etc).
But I fear nuance will be lost and he will be quited to excuse all manner of shitty behaviour.
0
0
*quoted
0
0
He was a fellow at Magdalen, teaching history. How is he not an academic?
0
0
You're taking a very strange position on this Fosco, which doesn't reflect well on you actually. Seems to be "if you're very clever and at the top of society, then yes I can understand why you'd reach a conclusion I disagree with. You reach it because you're clever etc. What I feel compelled to post on the internet about however, is that normal people will either follow you, or use your words to justify their less learned opinions, and I loathe normal people who have a different opinion to me." Something like that...
0
0
He was a Lecturer briefly for about three years yes. About 50 years ago...
0
0
All theoretical objections are bullshyte. If this thing had an IFR of say 50% nobody half sane would be questioning even more draconian laws if required to save society from descending into chaos. It is all a matter of degree and sensible cost benefit analysis to include health, economic, social and liberty in terms of cost and benefit.
0
0
So?
0
0
I don't think anyone should call for censorship of political views. You can disagree with what he says, but he's got a right to say it without his mic being turned off.
And increasingly, he's the only voice for a big % of the population that will speak to the media.
0
0
He was on LBC yesterday, well worth a listen. key takeaway, this is unenforcable and a nonsense, the virus cannot be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Sounds about right
0
0
It is perfectly acceptable to have Lord Sumption's views about the law and I am not saying such views are the sole preserve of the 'right sort'. It is obvious as a matter of practicality that in daily life that we all act as we see fit rather than with regard to the letter of the law - how many people know the Theft Act off by heart?
It is just not a great idea for a very-recently-ex-Supreme Court judge to be saying 'just take a view on the law, whatevs' at every opportunity.
0
0
It's not at every opportunity, is it. It's in relation to laws he feels are to the detriment of society as a whole, for the reasons he has very clearly and carefully explained.
0
0
I think Dom has realised that petty unenforceable laws are great coz the whole world will descend into petty irrelevant bickering, whilst he can get on with whatever the fook he wants.
Its his MO. Tbh I admire him. He may be dangerous, but he is far more effective than any other political operative out there.
He could just go Sweden, respect our ancient liberies, and probably end up at roughly the same R. But this is much much better for him politically.
0
0
The law of 6 is a bad law.
It's a bit of scandal that they don't have to even try to justify it in any serious way or put it up for scrutiny first, these are fundamental freedoms they are impinging on. It should go before a public parliamentary committee at least with a sunset clause.
Most people seem to think it's just guidance - oh, they're saying this to stop the 30+ personal illegal raves. Rubbish. They're telling you not to mix with 5 other people, not asking.
0
0
Didn't Sumption write a huge historical tome
0
0
ebitda is right that Sumption was interviewed on LBC and that it is well worth a listen.
He's very wrong about what Sumption said. Sumption did not say that the virus can't be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Instead he said there are three options. 1) no lockdown. 2) a long term lockdown until a vaccine arrives. 3) a short term lockdown to save the NHS and protect ICU capacity for such time as that is at risk as pervaded March and April.
Problem is govt got consent for 3 and is now embarked on 2, which was not the original plan. In fact Sumption believes 1 is correct. I agree with him.
0
0
On the 100 years war iir c
0
0
How did the govt get consent for 3? How do you know they haven't got consent for 2? Court of public opinion?
0
0
What does the science say, which is of course being followed.
Sumption on Boris " His main problem is he is obsessed with PR and he's not dilligent enough to study a problem carefully and in depth"
On the Corona Virus regs, " I do not myself believe that the act confers on the government the powers which it has purported to excersise"
0
0
Im broadly with Team Sane right now - but what GC said as well. Theres clearly a need for prooprtionality. If we get to 100s of deaths a day again and the rate is going up towards 1000s then we may need to reappraise. But not right now.
The situation is different from March where we did not know what we were dealing with that well and should have controlled/shut down much sooner. I think we have a bit more knowledge and much more control now so we can risk deaths in the low 10Ks to allow society to function and to avoid trampling on basic rights any more rhan strictly necessary.
I suspect that by October/November we may be facing 50K deaths plus again (with downside risk of low multi 100k deaths; that was the calculation before and Im not sure its changed fundamentally tbh). Clearly at that point you need to lock down again. But I am confident that we will have much more visibility this time and can take timing risks.
But right now - cases in low thousands and deaths still less than 5 a day and with a lot of controls already in place. I think we need to err on side of civil liberties for a while yet.
0
0
Sumption" They should have used the Civil contigiency Act 2004, which allows the government to do that which they have. I ask myself why they haven't ? Because the 2004 Act explicitly says , parliament must approve any actions such as what is being done (cornona virus lockdown/restrictions), and even then parliament must review it after the first seven days, and 30 days thereafter"
Cheeky sods.
0
0
Yes CCA 2004 should have been used but wasn't. problem.
0
0
SAGE in reports to government in Feb and March explicitly say " lockdown will not reduce any deaths, the deaths will remain the same but over a longer period of time"
Interviewer, " Where does it say that"
Sumption" Pages x, y, and z 7 paragraph, 18 sub paragraph little a. Ah said the interviewer. He had no notes he just remembered it.
0
0
basically he says its all illegal and the court hearing is listed in two weeks.
0
0
“ebitda is right that Sumption was interviewed on LBC and that it is well worth a listen.
He's very wrong about what Sumption said. Sumption did not say that the virus can't be controlled absent a safe and effective vaccine. Instead he said there are three options. 1) no lockdown. 2) a long term lockdown until a vaccine arrives. 3) a short term lockdown to save the NHS and protect ICU capacity for such time as that is at risk as pervaded March and April.
Problem is govt got consent for 3 and is now embarked on 2, which was not the original plan. In fact Sumption believes 1 is correct. I agree with him.”
This is a good summary. I was always a 3. But very much feared the 3-2 switch, which is what is happening. Clergs was right on this risk. Tbh so was I - as soon as we locked down my view was we needed to lobby to have it lifted as the 3-2 switch was always a massive risk given the hysterical/compliance obsessed nature of our media/culture.
Tbf to the govt this is more of a switch to something between 1 and 2 rather than a full lockdown. But I think this 1.5 is probably as bad as 2 - people are getting far too confortable with basic liberties being eroded. 1 would still be a lot lot safer than the 0 setting we were at in early March.
Of course part of the reason we were at 0 in early March was because the govt and the media had spent 6 weeks trying to ignore or play down the issue (and telling outright lies about obvious control measures such as masks).
0
0
@Canary Worf - agreed with your point above, people are too sanguine about having fundamental rights eroded. It should be very hard for a government to do so, even in exceptional times. This is no longer a fast moving crisis (or at least it's no longer unexpected). It's not acceptable that a govt can interfere so fundamentally in people's lives without even bothering to justify it to parliament.
0
0
They are deliberately conflating public health guidance (which is fine, even strong guidance) with law
0
0
I don't think Sumption likes Boris a single bit, that much is clear.
0
0
Boris is doing a great job in proving his critics right, and alienating those who have voted for him
0
0
Now he is giving Priti Patel a monumental kicking.
0
0
Now he is giving Priti Patel a monumental kicking.
0
0
"It's not at every opportunity, is it. It's in relation to laws he feels are to the detriment of society as a whole, for the reasons he has very clearly and carefully explained."
So we should all be able to decide we can break laws we feel are to the detriment of society provided we explain it carefully enough?
0
0
I reluctantly accepted the original lockjdown on the basis of 3, but feared it would turn into 2 (in effect, if not in legal doctrine) due to the lingering fear embedded intpo the national psyche in the implementation of 3
A fear that has 100pc been realised.
And what I always say to my pro lockdown friends is: what if we don't get a vaccine? Every plan should be stress tested against that scenario
0
0
I think Sumption made some valid points about individual choice, but he isn't an epidemiologist and should have stayed in lane about how best to prevent the spread of the virus. He doesn't know whether individuals can protect themselves from coronavirus if the rest of society is unlocked and by opining on that weakens his overall argument which stands and falls on a point of principle not on balancing public health considerations against individual freedom which he is unqualified to give a view on.
0
0
@ ebitda - is this definitely what the SAGE report says? "lockdown will not reduce any deaths, the deaths will remain the same but over a longer period of time"
Always thought they assumed that infections would be the same, but over a longer period of time, rather than deaths.
0
0
@ Terry I was quoting sumption I haven’t checked myself.
0
0
Sumption's a fool (albeit a very intelligent one). He was great when other people (i.e. clients) were telling him what to argue, but when he finally got to make decisions for himself as a judge and now commentator, he's just a disaster with awful judgment Imagine a lawyer thinking his views on how best to effectively manage a health crisis are important and should determine the outcome.
0
0
OMG Sumption should have stayed in his lane = fail
0
0
I think he's got excellent judgment on this Warren. If you disagree, might be an idea to explain why.
Even if it's just 'stay in his lane' wtf
0
0
Wot peeps sed about Sumption not being an epidemiologist. Other than that etc.
0
0
ok that requires a smack does it. fine.
Alright look, so if you want to form policy and talk truth to power in respect of a virus, you have to be an epidemiologist do you?
Should the country just effectively be run by epidemiologists, with no scrutiny outside of epidemiology, until such time as the epidemiologists step aside and allow normal political views to at least be heard, in any material way?
staying in your lane is the biggest load of baloney I've ever heard
0
0
@Simon - judges are some of the best positioned to take all the facts and evidence and use that to interpret the laws being made and how they should apply in conjunction with liberties and freedoms. In North America, they would have to weigh in things like the Bill of Rights/Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the risk to public health presented.
I think a very high ranking judge is one of the best people, absent good political leaders, to make these decisions and interpretations with a view of ALL the evidence from economists, social workers, psychologists, etc not just the epidemiologists.
We can all be safe from the virus if we lock ourselves in white padded cells with no human contact, but this isn't how society should function. IF we only look at things from an epidemiology point of view, we may end up in permanent lockdown.
0
0
"If this thing had an IFR of say 50% nobody half sane would be questioning even more draconian laws if required to save society from descending into chaos. It is all a matter of degree and sensible cost benefit analysis to include health, economic, social and liberty in terms of cost and benefit."
And if my aunt were possessed of a nadsack, she'd be my uncle. What's your point?
0
0
"So we should all be able to decide we can break laws we feel are to the detriment of society provided we explain it carefully enough?"
Strictly my position is: no, because I don't think there should be laws.
0
0
His arguments are not based on epidimeology, and where it is he relies on Sage reports sent to government. See post above. He is resoloute that the Actions taken are illegal and are not scrutinisd by parliament, all of which is true.
Lockdowns he says, will not reduce infections /deaths as one can't lockdown permanently, as unlock happens , infections and deaths will rise. He says the can is only being kicked down the road.
What do you disagree about what he says?
0
0
I'm not quite following whether you're broadly for or against Sumption ebitda, so I don't know who you're addressing your question to
0
0
lolz, I am for what he is advocating, and I think most are ?
Sumption on Hancock " He is a glorified school prefect" Yup
0
0
My understanding is that the measures being taken now are to try and prevent a scenario where health service risks getting overwhelmed again which will in turn necessitate another national lockdown.
We can argue about whether these measures are required or justified, but I don't think the aim is to simply reduce or end the current comparatively low level of deaths. In otherwords we are still operating on policy goal 3 not policy goal 2.
Anyone who thinks we should let it rip without any regard for overloading health service is fool, as is anybody who is not an expert opining on the likelihood of the virus doing so.
0
0
I think we have enough real world evidence at this point in time to judge the risk of overwhelming health care, regardless of whether you are an "expert" Guy. cf Sweden
0
0
Also "let her rip" is not an option, as mandatory or not, most people will not be reckless in their actions and exhibit some forms of social distancing, hand washing, restriction on travel, etc.
Let's not use as a strawman
0
0
We can indeed argue about whether the measures are required or justified, and they're not. The aim may be more in line with 3 but the evidence so overwhelmingly is much more in line with 2, that taking a position pointing this out is entirely fair enough. Correct in fact. The evidence that the NHS and ICU capacity would be overwhelmed without these measures is so thin as to make it risible.
I do not believe that it is necessary to be an expert to opine about whether the NHS and ICU capacity will be overwhelmed. It's perfectly fine to form an opinion about this based on sound evidence and the views of honest actors.
One of the big lies going on is that all the honest actors are on the side of health, and all the dishonest actors want to trash health. This is so far from the truth, and in fact is a viewpoint from which health in a more broad sense (including the full suite of services the NHS normally fully provides including cancer and mental health) is trashed for this.
0
0
Sumption is a voice of sanity in the middle of this Covid hysteria
0
0
Sweden has relied on multiple voluntary social distancing measures which may not work here (and certainly would not if Clergs had her way). It is also a very different country, it suffered far worse than its Scandi neighbours to date, whose to say we would have suffered far worse than we did without lockdown? Indeed it seems to be me we inevitably would have done as in lots of the country (with less health care provision than London) the infection was stopped in its tracks after lockdown.
0
0
There will be less flu deaths thasn normal this winter I'll bet.
Why?
Because it will be the only winter in UK history where millions of people will be essentially stopping their lives to protect against the risk of infection, be it from covid or common garden flu.
And then come March 2021 the government can stand there, surveying the wrecked economy, permanantly altered relationship between person and state, completely toxicified social culture of people seeing each other as vectors of disease, and appalling waiting list and death rates for heart attacks, cancer, strokes, mental health crisis and suicide rates, and say...
"but look how many less people caught and died from flu"
like the "1 instrument on the 6 pack" pilots they have been throughout this crisis
0
0
canadian, sumption said the same thing in fact.
One of his better lines " I am classed as being in the vunerable range, and during lockdown I would have not hesitated to go to a packed pub and have a few pints, I am as are most capable of making choices of their own as to what I should do with my own body.
Fast forward three months
Interviewer, " So have you been to the pub since they were allowed open?"
Sumption " Yes I have , it was packed the weather was fine, and I drank 3 pints of my favourite Ale, it was very pleasant , you should try it" fooking golden!
0
0
"the infection was stopped in its tracks after lockdown. "
But was that because of our lockdown? Geuninely skeptical on that. I think our UK lockdown came too late to stop the virus properly, and the virus just did what it did regardless. People were dying in large quantities 2-3 months after lockdown started as evidence of this. I don't think anyone can be 100% sure now of anything. And to impose strict lockdowns on the nation we need to be 100% sure they are necessary to prevent health care collapsing.
As I said, we can rely on people to behave rationally and take their own risks - this is Sumption's persistent argument. I don't believe overwhelming health care is a risk to consider at this stage, nor should anyone who has paid attention to how the virus has acted in Sweden without national lockdowns. We've been out of lockdown for months in the UK, and hospitals are basically empty. The surge in cases we see now are not sending people to hospital in sufficient quantities to justify the measures taken against our rights and freedoms. Also his point.
0
0
What awdit said. We need to have voices on more than just the side of project fear. Rof is the only place I read where anyone questions the stasi style madness
0
0
Only other mainstream ive come across is Denise Welch
0
0
That's because the rest are all Looney Tunes (David Icke, etc.)
Who's Denise Welch??
0
0
Canadian the reason we know lockdown stopped the virus rather than it running out of targets is (a). Areas with low levels of known infection remained low they didn’t catch up with those hit first the lockdown effectively froze things as they were and( b) cases are increasing again following end of lockdown.
I think it is arguable that lockdown didn’t do much for London, we still don’t know that though, but I cannot see how that can be said for other regions
0
0
@lolz - calm down. We can disagree without being rude.
@Canadian - the policy makers' obviously have to factor in all the issues, but Sumption isn't a policy maker, he's a single issue commentator so should stick to his point not pretend his point factors in a deep epidemiological / public health understanding which it self evidently doesn't.
0
0
She got gaslit and bullied by Piers Morgan for daring to take a perfectly sensible, non extremist stance that was nowhere near even Clergs, let alone Icke
One of my friends told me yesterday I'm the only person they know who is remotely angry/worried about restrictions! Shows what a job mass media can still do in a way I honestly thought couldn't be a thing anymore due to the internet, free press etc etc.
0
0
What Gannicus saId FGS
0
0
Guy would be buying Lisa's rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiUcY4dECqA
0
0
Macawbre that is true, please remember I am talking about policy 3 not policy 2 and addressing Canadian specific point that is not clear that lockdown did delay deaths because it was no worse in Sweden
0
0
The mandatory national lockdown ended in June...cases are rising now 3 months later; cases never ceased (stopped in their tracks) and were at 1% of tests positive consistently throughout post lockdown period. Virus incubates in about 2 weeks. So there's a lot of evidence that lockdowns didn't do anything, but a public that stopped practicing social distancing measures as much caused the recent increases (particularly young folks).
In other words, we can get the same result by voluntary guidance and reminders as we can with mandatory laws and criminal records for lawbreakers.
0
0
Ok Canadian, I get your point, maybe in some countries but in this country when Johnson advised people not to go to the pub a week before lockdown they continued to pack them out - including many proud roffers. The feeling in the UK that you are a bit of a wuss if you follow voluntary guidelines is amply illustrated on rof day in day out.
0
0
heh - rof isn't real life is it? I agree with all your points as well (as usual) just I'm hoping and a praying we don't get more national lockdowns and a national curfew. I think you're very right in that London / South East is more akin to Sweden than the rest of the country.
Lockdowns can and do work to stop any virus obviously - just the cost is too great to justify it here and their impact is very limited if they come too late to stop community spread or result in people going to school and work in mass numbers. So...it's all puzzling.
I think what has been said here is that the rule of 6 is just optics. There's no logic in it, if people go to school and work on tubes/trains/busses the virus will spread fast and hard. Coming down on the non-economic social activities is just pretend lip service. What would be better to me is either say we're going to stop the spread with lockdown and back to April for us all (boo!) or say we're going to go for broke like Sweden, do what you must but please social distance and wear masks and wash your hands but we're only going to make laws about very large gatherings.
This middle ground is a farce to me. I'll stop ranting as I have proper post work lunch to do.
0
0
I pretty much agree with him; I only ever favoured the 3-month "get the NHS ready" lockdown.
The only thing I'd say is it's easy to express that view when you're not actually doing any decision making and the disease hasn't reached the dizzy heights people feared. And I criticize myself for that too.
0
0
I can't believe dux has dissed David icke
0
0
I think the way the government sees it is that there are a number of possible leavers that may reduce infection - and it is pulling those it perceives to have lowest cost in hope this will be enough - trouble is it makes it hard for public to see any consistency
0
0
Levers not leavers heh.
0
0
There were some outrageous lies told to justify lockdown. One of my favourites was:
Don't come down here to [rural area] with your nasty filthy city vuvu, we don't have as many hospital beds here as you do it's not fair!
Er yes but you also have far fewer people. Acute healthcare provision per capita is at its worst in cities. 'tards.
0
0
Guy m88 ur eyes are swivelling wildly. Get on the bus:
ANTI LOCKDOWN
0
0
@canadian - surely the middle ground is exactly where we should be aiming?
0
0
If you touch that fence and someone else touches it...
Etc etc
0
0
Absolutely lord gaga - it’s all about viral loaf and proximity right so then a lot of information should be updated and people released from quarantining post etc
0
0
Sweaty Betty steam down clothes every time they are tried on
0
0
I am anti lockdown, I am pro measures to avoid another lockdown.
0
0
Er yes but you also have far fewer people. Acute healthcare provision per capita is at its worst in cities. 'tards.
Not true of London which has more beds per capita than anywhere else once private provision (which was co-opted by NHS) is taken into account.
0
0
"I am anti lockdown, I am pro measures to avoid another lockdown."
which weirdly looks like more lockdown...
classic.
0
0
I think what has been said here is that the rule of 6 is just optics. There's no logic in it, if people go to school and work on tubes/trains/busses the virus will spread fast and hard. Coming down on the non-economic social activities is just pretend lip service.
The Government claims that the track and trace data shows that the virus is spread through social activities and is not, for the most part, spread through work / public transport.
Now they could be flat out lying (unlikely, too easy to come a cropper) or it may be just that a shitty track and trace programme makes it far easier to trace social contacts than public transport contacts (work contacts being a piece of piss to trace and therefore suggesting at least that bit is true).
But it isn't illogical to ban one type of activity if all of the hard data you have suggests that is the main thing spreading the disease.
0
0
well then they can bus the vuvubumpkins in
0
0
What lolz said.
putting us in rule of 6 just fooks us all again that much harder
0
0
Social activities = fun = ban them
work activities = not that fun and make money = keep them
it’s so Puritan
0
0
https://youtu.be/8UvFhIFzaac
Some bits more convincing than others but worth a watch
0
0
No, lockdown is not being able to leave the house except for essential purposes, this is not lockdown.
No measures will likely lead to another lockdown so I would prefer some measures and no lockdown ta.
Simply saying we should ignore it is like a toddler throwing a tantrum, it isn't going to happen.
0
0
solid tun
Go Sumption!
0
0
SimonLePingPong14 Sep 20 13:22
Reply |
Report
@canadian - surely the middle ground is exactly where we should be aiming?
________________
Normally compromise and middle ground are great things! But when it comes to criminalizing basic civil liberties like meeting your family, I'm afraid we are past the middle ground.
Middle ground to me is masks on transport and public indoors.
Join the discussion