More Sumption

In other news;

-police in manchester closed a pub because the pizzas it was serving weren’t deemed ‘substantial’ 

- covid antibodies only last a few months

Sumo neatly demonstrates the inability of the Woke left to even consider alternative views, so utterly sure of their absolute correctness as they are. 

I wonder if Freshfields will get cancelled on twitter for sponsoring his platform. 

oh my mistake, please explain to me the effect that the awesome political power being wielded by this random pensioner will have on the situation, feel free to contrast that with the effect shouting at a cloud would have

ponder also if you will, how often la Sumption, crusader for freedom, did not do anything to oppose tyranny while he was an actual judge or lawyer, instead doing fairly well defending the government and calling for more men in on the court benches. 

and finally if you will, pass a bottle of beef milk, seems the woke left were not expecting many hard core libertarians to turn up and have only put vegan soy bakes and coconut water

But as far as I can make out you claim that influential people in the public domain have no influence while simultaneously decry his influence on achieving your desired equality of outcome, diversity by tick box quota position. 

which one is it?

your last point is incoherent nonsense so idk. 

I 100% believe you when you say you don't know

unfortunately rof doesn't have a crayon and sticky macaroni function but will do my best with what I have

I say Sumption seems to bitch about injustice when it affects him, corona and court bench quotas for example and is not so fussed about anything else 

do you need me to get hoolie to tell you what you should think about this or are you okay to blow your stranger danger whistle until she shows up? 

You’re doing exactly what I said you were doing at first. Utterly incapable of seeing alternative positions. 

You glibly misrepresent assumptions nuanced position from 5 years ago about not just appointing people to the judiciary to get the gender numbers “right” as him being opposed to injustice. 

it’s mendacious and dishonest. 

anyway, I presume you’re joining the NY. Post in applauding the Barrett appointment as a victory for womxn.

are, are you reading your ramblings back before you mash your sticky enter key?

I might ask the same of you. 

Your opposition to Sumption on one point is partly because you disagree with his position on something entirely different. Which is typical wokie. Only the Pure may speak. 

I think he has a valid point on gender based judicial apts. You may disagree. 

but you’ve just jumped straight to ad him attacks so clearly not interested in a conversation. 



I mean, kinda seems like that is advice for yourself 

since the post that got your ovaries in a twist was more about the impact his weekly huffing and puffing will have on the situation

and as an aside it seems (as with a lot of Team Sane) that what he's mainly worried about is not freedom and justice etc but rather personal inconvenience to himself

I do not recall a slew of anti terror legislation rants and I note he's not a fan of applying a quota to fix the historic imbalance of the court benches themselves

You know that a judge, especially a supreme court judge, are the best suited men and women to consider evidence from all sides (medical, economic, social, liberties, etc) and come to a conclusion on what should be done for the greater good of society. This is literally what they are meant to do.

Comparing a recently retired Supreme Court judge to Abe Simpson is ridiculous. 

Canadian27 Oct 20 09:53

consider evidence from all sides (medical, economic, social, liberties, etc) and come to a conclusion on what should be done for the greater good of society.


I don't think that is right

I think they are best suited to apply the law to a situation

but I do not think (indeed Sumption himself often says that too much is done by courts and not enough in political discourse) that judges, detached as many are for a great many years, are well placed to address socio economic issues, nor should they be, that is the job of the executive and to some extent parliament 

You are utterly misrepresenting his position (and mine) as being concerned with personal inconvenience. 

But I’m not surprised. 

You don’t agree that judges are supposed to be good at evaluating evidence?

I am not misrepresenting his position

I am questioning his motivation, we're only like 20 posts in Ganni, do you need some pineapple or something?

Or you think that people like Rees Mogg and Hancock are better placed to know what’s best for the man on the 240 bus?

Judges are not there to consider socioeconomic issues and decide ‘what should be done for the greater good of society’.. as both sumption and eg LJ Judge have said. They are there to apply the law. Socioeconomics are broadly a matter for politicians. 

Macawbre you have used the word "woke" in 3 posts on this thread, you seem to be under the impression it is some sort of clever insult rather than a lazy way of lumping people together you disagree with.

I think relevant scientists (i.e. virologists) are 

I understand that you believe medical opinion should be taken from the comments section of the daily mail based on what Bob saw someone do down the pub and not get Corona so it's all a hoax

are you honestly not getting tired smashing your face against the keyboard in faux mask rage? It cannot be good for you

I don't think that's what most people against lockdowns believe Sumo - speaking for myself (and I think most others against lockdown will agree with me) - of course I believe in science and relying on advice from the scientists who know best. BUT:


1. The scientists disagree violently and there are plenty of very legit scientists who are against lockdowns. It's not the same as (for example) climate change or the negative health effects of smoking. So it's more than a little disingenuous for the government to claim they are following The Science when they are simply picking the scientists who agree with what they want to do anyway (Sir Humphrey style). 

2. Even if the scientists are unanimous and correct on the science (the latter is not guaranteed), they are not the people who can or should make massive decisions that have to balance The Science against huge social, political, cultural, economic and health impacts. That should be the job of the politicians and what they are failing at. Scientists will tell you - far more unanimously than with Covid - that banning alcohol and tobacco would massively improve UK public health. Why hasn't the government done that yet?


Most people actually charged with responsibility for the nation (rather than just spouting on the internet) accept that the overloading of health services must be avoided, even at the cost of lockdown because the costs in health, social and economic terms of the health service being unable to cope with covid or other illnesses is too great.  I think even Trump would subscribe to that.  

It seems that some believe lockdown is worth it simply to "save lives".   , I do not agree given the IFR and the age profile of those at risk.  I also do not actually think the UK government believes this (although the Welsh and Scottish governments might).

So assuming you fall into the former camp the question is  - when does overload happen? - to that degree I think we must "follow the science" to prevent that happening at least cost (which may be early and hard)

Guy I agree with you and so does most of the country - that's why everyone was so supportive in March and April. 

But now it's just beyond crazy (leaving aside the point that there is no "Science" to follow - Hancock, Boris et al are actively choosing to follow Ferguson instead of Sunetra Gupta etc)

Fair enough Risky about politicians versus SC judges, but  I will counter that Supreme Courts have tended to override laws when the laws aren't working and unfairly restricting people's basic rights. In other countries at least. It was the Supreme Court that allowed gay marriage, not politicians, in many countries where it is legal, for example. They heard the evidence against it, decided it was bollocks, and said gays can get married just like straight people regardless of the law (in Canada anyway).

And everything that Struandirk said above is 10000% correct.

And I am waiting for the day when the courts start to weigh in on the evidence for severely restricting liberties the way they have, because as struandirk points out "the Science" is hardly unanimous and if the courts set precedent for agreeing hastily imposed highly authoritarian laws based on little or no conclusive scientific evidence, then we're all in big trouble.


Yes Canadian, and that is not right (the process) in my opinion. It leads to the politicization of the judiciary which at its extreme is like we have just seen in the USA. To be fair, the task hasn’t been helped by some of the legislation that the uk parliament has passed. 

Just coming into this now, but assuming everyone's recognising Sumption is right. Great.

Team Cow displaying its customary levels of cogitation and understanding I see.

The top right 🐑 is correct. The old ‘I only have to run faster than you’ joke. If they ran away and left their nice field, that is the economic damage. 

If we use your cartoon as an analogy, Sumoking, the other sheep who are afraid then ran off of a very tall cliff to avoid the wolf.




I think in the analogy the other sheep are locked down in a barn? 

do you think immuno compromised cancer patients stand a good chance of survival in a covid infested hospital 

part of the problem here is that Team Sane seem to think there is an outcome where growth is 5%, nobody dies and cancer is cured by Christmas

rather than choices between shit and very shit

The choices are between shit and very shit, so let's choose shit (Tier 0 plus plus)

Prolly a better chance of survival than not being treated at all tbh. 

and I guess it’s a question of which way round you think the shit and very shit are is the difference. 

I was impressed with Gupta in the early days as she seemed to provide a credible alternative to the Ferguson show.  However her hypothesis was that the virus arrived earlier than thought, that IFR was a fraction of what was thought and that it was already blowing itself out.  This turned out to be wrong and the imperial model was closer to the truth in terms of ifr and how many people had caught it .  She is now still anti lockdown but this seems to be on a political rather than scientific basis.

Canadian, you have shown graphs demonstrating the impact of a global pandemic, it tells us nothing about what would have happened given the pandemic  without lockdown, both to general health or the economy.  So what you have posted tells us nothing really other than the pandemic is bad news.

Yes, the mandatory UK lockdowns definitely caused those numbers to be much worse than if we hadn't had mandatory lockdowns and CONTINUING to "save the NHS" and shut hospitality and enforce closures will continue to drop GDP and prevent a recovery.

We cannot know how much is due to covid fear creating voluntary measures and how much is due to mandatory efforts to stop covid spread.

So to me, the graphs say that continuing down the route we have taken in response to the virus will lead us to ruin, like the sheep jumping off a cliff. That's what I see in those graphs. Not a cozy barn protecting us all, but a terrifying drop in life quality for all of us.


Maybe (?) a better chance of survival.

But not duration. The average time-to-death of patients hospitalised with Covid was 18.5 days (it may be longer now)

Cancer kills slowly

The government have done a great job in scaring people witless in them thinking this is an extremely infectious and dangerous disease that effects anyone and everyone in the same way . 
last night whilst in the pub there were 25 people max , despite the pub having 50 percent of most drinks . Those that were there looked thoroughly miserable. My guess most people are not mixing households. 4 restaurants have shut , probably for good.

Gupta's been tremendous throughout. It's amazing how damning criticism of her is, when Ferguson's modelling is systematically wrong in a rolling maul of baloney.

Wrong lolz.  You are entirely coloured by your political beliefs. 

Gupta never said Ferguson was wrong, she just said it was equally likely that the infection arrived earlier than thought , most people were asymptomatic or very mild and effectively we were only seeing  tip of large asymptomatic iceberg and that herd immunity may not be far off.  She was wrong,  the IFR assumed by Ferguson of 0.7 was probably about right at the time give or take (has now come down with better treatment) the level of infection assumed by Ferguson was also probably about right.  With the advent of the second wave we are quite clearly nowhere near herd immunity.

She has nothing of epidemiological value to add now, she is a busted flush.   She still opines lockdown is not worth it, which is fair enough, but has nothing to do with epidemiological expertise.

Canadian, you are once again ignoring the reason for the lockdown, to prevent complete overload of the health service.   If this had happened, this would have caused utter chaos on many many levels health, social and economic, that hopefully we will never have to experience.

It's rather rich of you to suggest that someone else's views are entirely coloured by their political beliefs...

why?  I have no "political beliefs" when it comes to covid response, I dont take an ideological stance at all.  I was also a fan of Gupta until it turned out her theory which looked convincing at the time was wrong.  I am also only pro lockdown only on the pragmatic basis that it will prevent health service overload.   If that is not a risk, I am oot.  I am political on many issues, but not on this one

of course you take an ideological stance.  the only person who can't see that is you!

On some issues, for example Brexit, I am political and will genuinely only support the remain side.  On this I  change according to circumstances.  In May and June I was banging the drum for Gupta and thought Ferguson was probably pessimistic, but as evidence has changed and my view has changed

You need a bit more self awareness.

From my point of view I'd call it 'what the R rate says goes' and screw anything outside that 

excess deaths? what's happening to the R rate

lockdown cure worse the disease?  what's the R rate doing

yawning unemployment causing all manner of health disasters?  what's the R rate doing

biggest recession of all time?  R rate 

wow 'New Frame' looks like the most painfully handwringing publication I've ever seen, and that's saying something 

perhaps lawsun, maybe a little hyperbole because I was so on board with her theory (wishful thinking probably) early on.

I soon as it became apparent it didn't fit with your ideological stance, you bailed on that one pronto no doubt 

wtf?  you still haven't said what you think my idealogical stance is.

The clear consequences of what Gupta was saying from the start was it was likely that lockdown was unnecessary (although she accepted the need for it as an initial precaution I think), as time went on and it appeared Armageddon was not occurring anywhere she doubled down andsuggested that her theory was more likely to be right and lockdown should be lifted far sooner than it was, I was entirely on board with her at that point and posted it many times on rof in late spring early summer.   However since early September it is now very clear that  IFR is not as low as she posited, that infections are not so far as widespread and that overwhelming of health services still remains a significant risk.   To the extent the latter is a real risk, measures needed to prevent it, compulsory or otherwise are justified.  To the extent it is not, they are not justified.

How low was posited?

These are the CDCs recent best estimate of IFRs

0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054

overwhelming of health services is not a significant risk.

One of the things people are not talking about enough is that the whole strategy the government are taking is rubbish by their own control.   During the height of the pandemic in March / April it came directly from Whitty that the over 80s needed to be triaged out so that they would never be allowed in intensive care.  Sunday Times ran an expose on this at the weekend.  2% of over 80s got into intensive care.   If you're going to all these lengths to protect the NHS and ICU capacity, and are not even allowing the over 80s access to it, what's the point.  Presumably Whitty will correct this now / going forward but the point is this is back to front.  The emphasis is on protecting the health service, whereas it should be on protecting health.  The health service should be protecting the population's health.  The population should not be protecting the efficient working of the health service. If usage is rising to 85 / 90 per cent this is good, as show it's being used.  Currently it's not being used much. Let's not triage out the over 80s again shall we, even if we're up to high levels.  Make do, that's what the population are having to do.  Particularly the poorest.

Well you say that but virtually every major government in the world and the bulk of medical and scientific advisors say it is a risk, so I am inclined to go with them.

I fully agree with you about the fuck ups on NHS access in the early days mind, why build these unused nightingales and then turn away very sick people?

tbf to guy he has always been on #teamdata (even if i disagree with him sometimes on the necessary political response)

macawbre, I think Ferguson went for 0.7% overall, now reckoned to be about 0.4% as treatment has improved. Gupta was positing a figure way below that  (possibly as low as 0.1%) on basis most people that got it didn't know about it.  This was wrong.

Doesn't sound like it was wrong though.  It's true that most people who have had it don't know about it.  Very large numbers have had it, and wouldn't know about it.  Even now large numbers have it, and don't get tested, so don't know they've ever had it.  She's probably right...

I love that the articles are always accompanied by that photo of him looking like Professor Weeto

No lolz she was wrong and I am pretty certain she would accept that IFR is not the tiny fraction she suggested it might be and there was not a vast iceberg of asymptotic case prior to March 

You don't know that... prior to mid March I assume you're saying btw

Professor Crouchback doing a hard disagree with the CDC I see

No lolz Gupta was hypothesising that the virus came in January and multiplied rapidly unnoticed 

Which is a hypothesis which can not be disproved no doubt 

Yes combination of low antibody tests and rapid growth of second wave  pretty much prove Was wrong - you are just proving oni this thread that you are not really interested in fact tbh just What might help Your anti lockdown agenda which brings us back to where we started - typical team sane

'Combination of low antibody tests and rapid growth of second wave prove was wrong'?

that's it, that's what you got?


You're only interested in the data that suits you. You're only fooling yourself. 

Right thanks for confirming you are just trolling

For someone who purports to be led by evidence, by your own admission you've dismissed Gupta on an argument which you can not substantiate. This goes from bad to ugly. 

Guy coming across as the smartest guy in the room on this thread. Chimpy would be proud.

Lolz and risky totally undermining the other side of the debate with piss poor trolling as per. 

Dividing down tribal lines with classic lefty rear guard morale booster from the moral high ground right there 

Risky must have one hell of a selection of platters at home.

He’s had his arse handed to him on one enough times.