to be disgusted at these comments made by Lord Sumption

[DoreensEatingHerSoreen]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2021/jan/17/jonathan-sumption-cancer-patient-life-less-valuable-others

Lord Sumption today told Deborah James, who is living with stage 4 bowel cancer, that her life is less valuable than the lives of others.

As a fellow stage 4 cancer patient, I find it appalling that someone could suggest our lives are less valuable than those without cancer.
In spite of my diagnosis, I live a wonderful and fulfilling life, and intend to carry on doing so for as long as is possible.
It's terrifying to think that I may be denied access to a ventilator should I become ill with Covid, and I believe we have a collective duty to do everything we can to reduce pressure on the NHS and minimise the horrific collateral damage of Covid on those living with other illnesses and conditions.

But how do you shield the vulnerable, elderly or not, if they need carers? You can't can you.

I think you are massively underestimating the impact of loneliness @perfect28 and its really not a simple as socialise and die or isolate and live. In the government's own words, covid is a mild illness for most people. The vast majority of us won't die if we catch it. The effect of people's mental health cannot be dismissed so casually by saying its better than dying of covid.

Education is still happening (I'm a teacher), just not in the way that it was before, you can still leave your house for reasons such as excersize, getting medical attention, buying food (and various unnecessary items via click and collect). So really what it comes down to is that you can't socialise. Temporarily. Oh and that benefit that you talk about? That's the benefit of not dying. Not much benefit imho

That is really dismissive of the economic and social effects.

Unemployment is up massively.
People's incomes have been reduced.
Children's education has been significantly affected - if you can get online learning, it has been affected for a range of people - especially for those who struggle.
Businesses have shut down.

So it's more than just being able to socialise.

@formerbabe individuals living alone have been able to form a support bubble for sometime now...

There is no reason that anyone should be completely alone unless they don't have anyone at all in the world in which case they were lonely before covid too.

UK unemployment is predicted to reach 7.5% of the working age population this summer.

That is one hell of a price to pay.

@chomalungma yes, and what do you think would have been the impact on the economy etc if we had taken no action at all?

What you're essentially saying is that living in a pandemic is shit. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.

I think alot of this is taken out of context. Every day doctors have to decide if a patient will survive/have any quality of life if they go along with very invasive hard treatments or if it is time to let the patient pass with dignity. CPR is brutal, ventilation is brutal and it may be all in vein and drag out the suffering of all and have the same outcome as if they knew when to step back. Doctors are trained in making these calls. Covid has just made it talked about in.
There is no way I would wish cpr/ventilation on my terminal dm and I'm sure no doctor would. Yes its hard but we have to accept its not about who's life is more valuable but when its right to let go, we are not eternal.

There is no reason that anyone should be completely alone unless they don't have anyone at all in the world in which case they were lonely before covid too

Maybe they liked going out to social groups, being with other people etc and didn't just want one person in a bubble?

Education is still happening (I'm a teacher), just not in the way that it was before, you can still leave your house for reasons such as excersize, getting medical attention, buying food (and various unnecessary items via click and collect). So really what it comes down to is that you can't socialise. Temporarily. Oh and that benefit that you talk about? That's the benefit of not dying. Not much benefit imho

But socialisation is not an optional extra for children; it’s essential. Particularly so for children without siblings, or with a large sibling age gap. It IS damaging for them to go months without seeing another child in person. Can we accept the need for (temporary) lockdown without pretending that it’s consequence-free for kids?

[quote Perfect28]@formerbabe individuals living alone have been able to form a support bubble for sometime now...

There is no reason that anyone should be completely alone unless they don't have anyone at all in the world in which case they were lonely before covid too.[/quote]
For several months my dc only spoke to 3 other people in the flesh...(each other, dh and me)

I'm appalled that as a teacher you don't think the effects of this on children are worrying.

[quote Perfect28]@chomalungma yes, and what do you think would have been the impact on the economy etc if we had taken no action at all?

What you're essentially saying is that living in a pandemic is shit. I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.[/quote]
That's the question, isn't it...

What would have been the effect?

I don't know how you can calculate that - unless you put a 'value' on the lives lost, the lives damaged

I didn't say its not worrying, I just think the alternative is letting thousands more people die?!

It really is socialising over life.
I choose life.

It's pretty crap, yes. We would all like to be seeing more people, yes. But I would rather this than just allow a deadly virus to rip through our society.

Children are exempt from the 1:1 rule so a parent with a child could meet another parent and child outside.
Teenagers can meet one other friend outside for excersize like the rest of us.
People living alone can form bubbles.

If none of these things were true I could stretch myself to seeing your point of view. But they are.
So I repeat

Socialising vs living.

Without lockdown the NHS would become overwhelmed, even with 'the vulnerable' shielded (which is impossible anyway for various reasons). Which means that the 'healthy' thirty something cracking on with life who happens to get cancer that is perfectly curable can't get a diagnosis or treatment and their cancer becomes incurable. Which means that the bloke who was in a car accident on the way to work who had serious but treatable internal injuries dies because he couldn't be treated. Which means that the teenager with meningitis dies because they can't get treated in time.

For the poster who said 'well why haven't we been locked down since last March?' well the answer to that is obvious isn't it? Cases were low over the summer due to it being summer, due to lockdown getting the numbers low, and the NHS was able to cope, as it is most summers. It ain't summer now though!

Children are exempt from the 1:1 rule so a parent with a child could meet another parent and child outside

I don't think this is correct. Right I'm off to google

It really is socialising over life

No, it's not.

You have just acknowledged the economic effects. Who knows if it could have been worse if we hadn't locked down.

But you must know what the effects on all aspects of life such economic harm can do. On life and people's future lives

Children are exempt from the 1:1 rule so a parent with a child could meet another parent and child outside.

This is not true in England or Wales.

Children are exempt from the 1:1 rule so a parent with a child could meet another parent and child outside

Ok just checked...seems that children under five are exempt

And I'm not a massive lockdown fanatic or anything either - I understand there needs to be a balance. But we are in the middle of winter, a difficult time for the NHS anyway, and a vaccine is out there, there is loads of light at the end of the tunnel. Why would anyone be arguing to end lockdown at this moment in time, and risk so many more lives when we are so close to getting out of this now?

Without lockdown the NHS would become overwhelmed, even with 'the vulnerable' shielded (which is impossible anyway for various reasons). Which means that the 'healthy' thirty something cracking on with life who happens to get cancer that is perfectly curable can't get a diagnosis or treatment and their cancer becomes incurable. Which means that the bloke who was in a car accident on the way to work who had serious but treatable internal injuries dies because he couldn't be treated. Which means that the teenager with meningitis dies because they can't get treated in time

Like I said - there are obvious issues with the NHS being overloaded. There are also obvious issues with the economic and long term life issues of lockdown.

How do you balance the harm of the NHS being overloaded during a pandemic versus the harm of the long term social issues of a lockdown?

@formerbabe children under 5 are exempt.

[quote Perfect28]@fr0thandbubble If your job is essential, you can still do it. Education is still happening (I'm a teacher), just not in the way that it was before, you can still leave your house for reasons such as excersize, getting medical attention, buying food (and various unnecessary items via click and collect). So really what it comes down to is that you can't socialise. Temporarily. Oh and that benefit that you talk about? That's the benefit of not dying. Not much benefit imho.

So let's weigh it up
People die, but you get to see friends and family.

Mmm.

Now tell me that's not selfish [/quote]
Oh come on. The impact of the lockdowns has been a lot more far-reaching than the curtailment of people’s social lives. People have lost their jobs, their homes, their mental health, their right to form relationships, their right to try to have a baby, their lives even, in some cases (for example, where cancer treatment has been cancelled).

My view (and that of Lord Sumption) is basic utilitarianism - that society should function for the greatest good of the greatest number of people. To say that a fundamental part of any study of ethics is moronic or bonkers or selfish just makes you sound ignorant, to be honest. You might not agree with it and that’s fine but it’s a perfectly valid view and you should stop shouting down people just because they take a different view to you.

Children without siblings aged between 5 and say 12 (when they’re old enough to go out alone) are legally banned from meeting another child in person. If you think this won’t cause problems you’re either callous or lacking in imagination.

I am not arguing against ending lockdown.

But the debate is about 'value of lives' and how do you calculate the potential damage of an overloaded NHS, a pandemic killing lots of vulnerable people versus the effects of lockdown on people's lives and prospects.

Surely a 'value' is being put on people's lives then?

No I don't agree with utilitarianism because it's reductive and simplistic. Let's ignore or even cause harm to 49% of people because they are statistically the minority.

And no, @bookworm14 I'll repeat myself I didn't say it won't cause problems but those problems are certainly not scientifically proven or necessarily inevitable.
Death, however, there isn't much coming back from that...

@bookworm14

Children without siblings aged between 5 and say 12 (when they’re old enough to go out alone) are legally banned from meeting another child in person. If you think this won’t cause problems you’re either callous or lacking in imagination.

My children went out alone from the age of about eight. I think that's pretty normal so the age group you are talking about is probably 5 to 7. That is a problem but perhaps campaign about that rather than suggest lockdown should stop entirely.