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.

@chomalungma it's perfectly possible to attempt to calculate an economic value of a life. But economics is not science.

It's possible for anyone to make an unsubstantiated claim about a life's value. It's just not ethical to do so.

but those problems are certainly not scientifically proven or necessarily inevitable

How would you measure that? This hasn't happened before to any of us. You seem to disbelieve anything that isn't immediately provable by facts.

Death, however, there isn't much coming back from that

Death isn't and has never been unusual.

My children went out alone from the age of about eight

That is pretty young nowadays. My dcs school only allow children to walk home alone from year 5 but literally no parents allow them to anyway. My dc and none of their friends went out alone at 8.

They didn't go out alone I mean

@formerbabe Not believing emotional hyperbole without evidence... How terrible of me.

Did you see the number of excess deaths last year? We aren't just talking people dying, we are talking about many thousands of people dying before they would otherwise have died.

The logical conclusion of not caring about death as 'people die anyway' could be used to justify murder.

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.

I didn’t suggest lockdown should stop entirely; I just want people to stop pretending it’s consequence-free. And I think it would be very unusual for an eight year old to go out by themselves.

@perfect28 I am not causing harm to anyone - a virus is! And the government is imposing restrictions on everyone which ARE causing harm - real harm. And we are not talking about 49% are we? We are talking about a vanishingly small percentage of people who would be significantly affected by this virus - and as the average age of those dying from it is above the average life expectancy, what Lord Sumption is saying makes absolute sense.

Again, I am not saying you have to agree with this view but it is a perfectly valid view to have. I think it’s breathtakingly arrogant to call Lord Sumption a moron, bonkers and selfish!

Because if people say they're lonely, depressed and miserable and you say, prove it? They can't. I know my dc is sad, she cries most days now and says she misses her school and friends. What particular data would you like me to show you to prove she's struggling?

[quote Perfect28]@formerbabe Not believing emotional hyperbole without evidence... How terrible of me.

Did you see the number of excess deaths last year? We aren't just talking people dying, we are talking about many thousands of people dying before they would otherwise have died.

The logical conclusion of not caring about death as 'people die anyway' could be used to justify murder.[/quote]
No it couldn’t because murder is the act of purposefully killing someone!

No one is killing anyone here - people are catching a virus! It is a natural phenomenon which has been happening since the beginning of time!

The two really aren’t comparable but I think you probably know that!

@formerbabe

Because if people say they're lonely, depressed and miserable and you say, prove it? They can't. I know my dc is sad, she cries most days now and says she misses her school and friends. What particular data would you like me to show you to prove she's struggling?

You can form care bubbles in cases of mental illness. They’re different from support bubbles and exempt from household mixing rules. Nothing wrong with parents to two children who are struggling with depression to form a care bubble so the two children can bubble up to save their sanity.

I think that is the difficulty - utilitarianism is an enlightenment era philosophy - and a product of its own times and agenda and a reaction against early modern mysticism and religiosity. An attempt to impose rationality and quantifiability on the vicissitudes of human life and emotions.

But is a very blunt quantitively instrument - based on a false premise that we can somehow know, quantify and predict "happiness" and make judgments accordingly. But these don't necessarily have much to do with reality.

First of all, it presumes that "happiness" should be the goal of life. But there are other schools of thought which priorities other ideas - such as, thinking off the top of my head, honour, worship, service, productivity and all sorts of other things. I am not saying I agree - but there are other ways to order society.

Second "happiness" is notoriously difficult to quantify. What is happiness? Are you happy? Are you happier than your next door neighbour?

The reality is human experience is not linear, predictable, general; unfortunately it is complex, messy, and contradictory. We can't in reality make judgments based on "greatest happiness to the greatest number" without falling into the trap of omnipotence, thinking that we can somehow "decide" and "calculate". It is a false soothing to our consciences - a false justification not based on reality and pseudo-scientific.

It seems to me that the only thing to do is to treat the opportunity to continue living as morally the most important thing. If that means some people have to endure a hard time in order that others can have the opportunity to live, then that is how it has to be.

I am not saying it is fair (it is not - some people suffer much more than others under lockdown) nor easy (it is not!) but I just can not see that, (at least in a first world country with welfare system, free healthcare and free education) that my economic position/my children's schooling or even my mental health ... should take precedence over someone else's actual LIFE. I will have my life at the end of all this and still the opportunity to do something with it and make something of it, and to recover from the difficulties I have had to manage.

If we didn't have lockdown many more people would have not had that opportunity - as it is 100,000 have died and that figure would be much greater with no lockdown.

You can form care bubbles in cases of mental illness. They’re different from support bubbles and exempt from household mixing rules. Nothing wrong with parents to two children who are struggling with depression to form a care bubble so the two children can bubble up to save their sanity

That's interesting, thanks. Unfortunately, in real life, I've heard no one admit they're struggling. I read it all the time on these boards but outside of here, no one admits to it. I think people view it as a huge failing and judgment on them as parents to admit their children are finding this difficult.

@Fr0thandBubble I'll say it once more.. that 'minority' that you keep referring to = 20 million people.

They include those CEV:
have had an organ transplant
are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
have been told by a doctor you have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
have a condition that means you have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
are taking medicine that makes you much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
have a serious heart condition and are pregnant
have a problem with your spleen or your spleen has been removed (splenectomy)
are an adult with Down's syndrome
are an adult who is having dialysis or has severe (stage 5) long-term kidney disease
as well as those who are CV:
are 70 or older
have a lung condition that's not severe (such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis)
have heart disease (such as heart failure)
have diabetes
have chronic kidney disease
have liver disease (such as hepatitis)
have a condition affecting the brain or nerves (such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy)
have a condition that means they have a high risk of getting infections
are taking medicine that can affect the immune system (such as low doses of steroids)
are very obese (a BMI of 40 or above)
are pregnant

Clearly though, you're not in those category, so why would you give a toss?

[quote Perfect28]@Fr0thandBubble I'll say it once more.. that 'minority' that you keep referring to = 20 million people.

They include those CEV:
have had an organ transplant
are having chemotherapy or antibody treatment for cancer, including immunotherapy
are having an intense course of radiotherapy (radical radiotherapy) for lung cancer
are having targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system (such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors)
have blood or bone marrow cancer (such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma)
have had a bone marrow or stem cell transplant in the past 6 months, or are still taking immunosuppressant medicine
have been told by a doctor you have a severe lung condition (such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma or severe COPD)
have a condition that means you have a very high risk of getting infections (such as SCID or sickle cell)
are taking medicine that makes you much more likely to get infections (such as high doses of steroids or immunosuppressant medicine)
have a serious heart condition and are pregnant
have a problem with your spleen or your spleen has been removed (splenectomy)
are an adult with Down's syndrome
are an adult who is having dialysis or has severe (stage 5) long-term kidney disease
as well as those who are CV:
are 70 or older
have a lung condition that's not severe (such as asthma, COPD, emphysema or bronchitis)
have heart disease (such as heart failure)
have diabetes
have chronic kidney disease
have liver disease (such as hepatitis)
have a condition affecting the brain or nerves (such as Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy)
have a condition that means they have a high risk of getting infections
are taking medicine that can affect the immune system (such as low doses of steroids)
are very obese (a BMI of 40 or above)
are pregnant

Clearly though, you're not in those category, so why would you give a toss?[/quote]
They estimate that 20% of the country has had Covid by now. That’s nearly 20 million people. You do the maths.

Your hysterical arguments and shouting people down are not helpful.

@formerbabe Mental health is quantifiable because you can get a diagnosis. Interestingly there was a thread the other day of people saying how offensive it is to people with diagnosed MH conditions when people flippantly use terms like depressed, anxious, 'a little bit OCD/ autistic. I can't keep track of the number of people who have claimed that suicides have rocketed in the lockdown, without a single shred of evidence to back it up.

If we are going to debate, can it at least be factually based?

If we are going to debate, can it at least be factually based?

I'm a mother around her dc 24/7...I'm pretty tuned into their emotions. I know when they're feeling miserable without a doctor providing me with a formal diagnosis...

That 'minority' you refer to is about 20 million people who are in vulnerable catagories

A tangent, I know, but how the hell did we get to the position where the vulnerable - even though it includes many things - constitute around a third of the population?

Depressing, too, to see Lord Sumption referred to as "a moron". I realise it's pretty standard on here to fling insults about someone with whom you disagree, but "a moron" he's most certainly not

It's possible for anyone to make an unsubstantiated claim about a life's value. It's just not ethical to do so

Surely we have done that already.

A decision has been made that it is better for society if we lockdown - because it will reduce deaths and prevent the NHS being overwhelmed and all the consequences of that - and someone has decided that that decision is better than the economic and long term social effects of not locking down.

So someone has already made that decision.

How did they make it?

20% of UK population is just over 13 million, not 20 million. 'You do the maths'... brilliant. Just brilliant.

What was the point you were even trying to make there?

Also, I take a particularly dim view on people using the term 'hysterical', especially against women. Do you have zero historical understanding of that word?

And really, you believe copying and pasting from the NHS website is 'hysterical'...

@Fr0thandBubble

So is your argument 'shield the vulnerable' and let everyone else crack on? Even now, at this point?

@bookworm14

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.

I didn’t suggest lockdown should stop entirely; I just want people to stop pretending it’s consequence-free. And I think it would be very unusual for an eight year old to go out by themselves.

Everyone knows it's not consequence free. They just don't think the consequences of lockdown are worse than hundreds of thousands of people dying. The majority of people who are against lockdown on these threads don't say that they have lost their jobs or their homes but they talk rather nebulously about their children's mental health (because they can't play with little Johnny down the road) or ruined futures (because of a few months of online schooling) . It's hard to see it as anything other than attempt to justify their selfish views, particularly when at the same time they are so dismissive of the hundred thousand people in the UK and 2 million in the world who have lost their lives Covid so far.

@Perfect28 My point is, even if 20 million are classed as vulnerable, a very, very small percentage of those who caught it would be seriously affected by it - and that is borne out by current statistics.

@formerbabe
If you believe her to be depressed, why wouldn't you want to seek some professional help for her?

This is exactly what I mean, you're extrapolating your experience to everyone's experience, even when the facts/statistics are lacking. All you can really do is talk about your experience.

20% of UK population is just over 13 million, not 20 million. 'You do the maths'... brilliant. Just brilliant.

The 13 million is only the over 70s and extremely clinically vulnerable. Many people between the ages of 50 and 70 will also be vulnerable.

[quote Fr0thandBubble]@Perfect28 My point is, even if 20 million are classed as vulnerable, a very, very small percentage of those who caught it would be seriously affected by it - and that is borne out by current statistics.[/quote]
We don't know who they are though. It's not possible to shield 20 million.