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.

@Fr0thandBubble

Sorry but that's absolutely not true. What 'statistics' do you think you could provide to 'prove' such a ridiculous point? Feel free to post them! If everyone of those vulnerable people caught it, the impact would be devastating!

I'm starting to think your lack of empathy is bordering on sociopathic. Do you seriously have nobody in your life that you are worried about catching this virus? I mean even if you are so small minded that you can't think beyond your own immediate group of friends and family..

*So someone has already made that decision.

How did they make it?*

These are inherently political decisions. Scientists/doctors will always argue for lockdown on health grounds. Economists will argue against it on economic grounds. The two are not independent: we are able to afford an NHS because it is funded by tax revenues.

Gavin Barwell (Theresa May’s former adviser) made a very interesting point during the first lockdown. There are three ways that Covid kills
/harms you:

1. You catch it
2. The economic effects of COVID reduce your years of qualiy life (there is a well known correlation between poverty and lower life expectancy)
3. You don’t receive diagnosis or treatment for something else because of the COVID measures and this harms/kills you.

And his point was this: we hear the numbers for 1) daily. By area. By age group. But the statistics for 2) and 3) are much, much vaguer and often not talked about.

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 precisely this type of glib, unpleasant generalisation that people are finding so upsetting. It’s not about ‘not being able to play with little Johnny down the road’; it’s about not being able to see another child, at all, for months. You may choose not to believe me but my child absolutely is displaying signs of mental distress. All I can say is I hope that post-lockdown the government will put a comprehensive plan in place to tackle the effects on child mental health. I’m not holding my breath though.

@Jetatyeovilaerodrome Yes. My view is that the government’s role should be to inform people of the risks, bolster the NHS as far as possible, and then let people make their own choices.

I do not believe that it is right for the government to curtail everyone’s fundamental rights and freedoms for the benefit of a minority. If people want to do that, fine (and honestly I think many people would) - but the government shouldn’t make people.

I read in The Times a while ago, “never has so much been owed by so few to so many”. That is so true and, in my view, it is very wrong.

I think we have to be realistic. If there is a choice between a stage 4 cancer patient with a limited lifespan and a person who is healthy and fit then the choice is obvious. Same with a 70 year old and a child. It's not about valuing life it's about making practical decisions if they need to be made

These are inherently political decisions. Scientists/doctors will always argue for lockdown on health grounds. Economists will argue against it on economic grounds. The two are not independent: we are able to afford an NHS because it is funded by tax revenues

Economics and health are interlinked though - and not just because of tax revenues. These decisions have health consequences - we all know the health consequences of austerity.

My view is that the government’s role should be to inform people of the risks, bolster the NHS as far as possible, and then let people make their own choices.

I have some sympathy for this, @Fr0thandBubble - not least because I think it sets a hugely dangerous precedent for the future of civil rights and liberties. BUT - and it’s a big but - the practical implications of this are huge and the people on the front line of it are the NHS workers. And if we expect them to provide “service as usual” in the face of increased risk to themselves (and the high exposure many have had to the virus has almost certainly led to deaths of healthcare workers), then I think we do owe some degree of protection to them. Otherwise, you could easily see a situation in which hospitals are totally overwhelmed and doctors and nurses are leaving in droves (I know from talking to medic friends that there is already a sense of “we didn’t sign up for this”. And I can sympathise.)

Economics and health are interlinked though - and not just because of tax revenues. These decisions have health consequences - we all know the health consequences of austerity.

Absolutely. That was Barwell’s second point - the problem being that this is both much harder to quantify and not openly discussed, unlike the “daily cases any deaths” statistics.

[quote Perfect28]@Fr0thandBubble

Sorry but that's absolutely not true. What 'statistics' do you think you could provide to 'prove' such a ridiculous point? Feel free to post them! If everyone of those vulnerable people caught it, the impact would be devastating!

I'm starting to think your lack of empathy is bordering on sociopathic. Do you seriously have nobody in your life that you are worried about catching this virus? I mean even if you are so small minded that you can't think beyond your own immediate group of friends and family..[/quote]
It’s not hard, is it? If the estimate is that nearly 20 million have already had Covid, and 80K have died (average age, 81), that is a very small proportion and a very high average age of death. And let’s remember that 1.5K die every day of other causes. No doubt you will make a hysterical argument that I am callous for saying that that is a very small proportion of people. Perhaps you will say, “If it saves one life then it will have been worth it” (which I have heard from other people on here) but frankly, I disagree. Every one of those deaths is sad for the person dying and for their family and friends - but unfortunately people die, none of us is getting out of here alive, and it is not for the government to sacrifice other people’s fundamental rights and freedoms for a minority.

And, yes, my DH is extremely clinically vulnerable but he takes the same view as me - it is not for the government to tell other people to make such huge sacrifices for his sake.

@nataliaosipova I get the distinct impression that fr0th doesn't really care about the NHS staff. I would bet that in her view they can just leave their jobs if they can't cope. They probably have private healthcare anyway, so why should they care about the rest of us who rely on a National health service?

@Fr0thandBubble - agree! And that is what used to happen when we had pandemics. Our children will be paying for this financially, socially and mentally for decades.

@Perfect28 Actually, @nataliaosipova’s argument is sound, as is the argument that if the NHS is overwhelmed then that potentially affects everyone.

These are not easy questions. But my point from the beginning was that no one should be calling Lord Sumption a moron - like you did! His arguments are valid. And all you have done is be rude, hysterical, patronising and shout people down because they have the temerity to have a different point of view to yours!

Anyway, I’m meant to be working right now and so I’m going to sign out.

But @Fr0thandBubble you keep on asserting that this is about the amount of deaths, and that lockdown is about preventing deaths of a small amount of vulnerable and elderly people.

Many people here have patiently explained (again and again) that this is about the overwhelming of the NHS.

So basically what you are saying is, let people make their own choices; but the consequences of that would be utter carnage with many more knock on effects through society than that of lockdown: the breakdown of health services and mass sickness through the population, however you like to couch this in your 'vanishingly small' language it is a fact that many hundreds of thousands have been very ill, and hospitalised with this.

And if this breaks down many more hundreds of thousands will get sick, die or become disabled.

I don't know how many times people can say this.

It just completely and utterly baffles me when clearly intelligent people can't see the wider picture at play.

It’s precisely this type of glib, unpleasant generalisation that people are finding so upsetting. It’s not about ‘not being able to play with little Johnny down the road’; it’s about not being able to see another child, at all, for months. You may choose not to believe me but my child absolutely is displaying signs of mental distress. All I can say is I hope that post-lockdown the government will put a comprehensive plan in place to tackle the effects on child mental health. I’m not holding my breath though.

They can see other children if it is truly causing severe mental distress. Nobody is going to stop you . As I said, I would believe it if the people saying it won't at the same time weren't so dismissive of other people's (including clinically vulnerable children) actual lives. Your child will get over it. The children and people that die will not and neither were their bereaved relatives.

You see, I really do think civil liberties are really important, @Perfect28; history shows us the perils of not upholding them. And I am very worried about “creep” from all of this. So, as I say, I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the perspective of @Fr0thandBubble . Private healthcare is an interesting thing to raise here, actually - as it’s only actually any use for non-emergencies. Private healthcare doesn’t get you access to private A&E (such a thing wouldn’t be economically viable), so we all rely on it.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

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

I'd like to know the percentage of "vulnerable" in other European countries for comparison. I'd be surprised if its even half as much as in the UK.

Anyone with any alternative viewpoint to the strict lockdowns is at risk of being "cancelled" or labelled a murderer. I don't think Lord Sumption will be cancelled though, because he's already had a stellar career and has retired...

Lockdowns are an untested social experiment. No-one really knows for sure whether they work in saving lives, or whether they simply prolong the course of a virus. What they are very effective in doing though is preventing politicians being blamed.

I read that the ONS figures now show that there has been a reduction in British life expectancy of around a year since last March. Since the average age of death from covid hovers just above average life expectancy, logically Covid cannot have been the cause of this but there must be other reasons for this, most likely failure to diagnose and treat other conditions and MH problems.

I find that really shocking, and I think history will judge lockdowns really harshly as having contributed to more problems than they solved.

@Fr0thandBubble please, stop using the word hysterical. It is frankly insulting to all women.

You are using one estimated number (20 million) against a recorded number (89,000).
To be more accurate, you should use both recorded numbers. In the UK, there have been 3.4 million recorded cases. Of a proportion of recorded cases, the death rate is 2.6%
I'm just pointing this out as I'm sure you would be the first to protest against an estimated death figure being used. (It is widely accepted that deaths relating to covid far exceed the official figure).

Oh this is another classic. '1.5K People die every day of other causes', yes, and these deaths are on top of, not instead of, these deaths. If the NHS becomes overwhelmed, deaths will increase exponentially as those with previously treatable issues won't be able to access beds/drs.

Your child will get over it. The children and people that die will not and neither were their bereaved relatives

I've lost lots of relatives. All my grandparents and both parents by my early twenties.

Quite honestly, losing my grandparents was much easier than living the best part of a year in lockdown.

I hope everyone experiences losing their grandparents and parents... because the only alternative is dying before them, which is far far worse and not the natural order of things.

@formerbabe

Your child will get over it. The children and people that die will not and neither were their bereaved relatives

I've lost lots of relatives. All my grandparents and both parents by my early twenties.

Quite honestly, losing my grandparents was much easier than living the best part of a year in lockdown.

I hope everyone experiences losing their grandparents and parents... because the only alternative is dying before them, which is far far worse and not the natural order of things.

I'm sure losing your parents wasn't much easier than lockdown.

@GreenlandTheMovie

The only reason we have had to have lockdowns in this country is because of the number of people who would not follow sensible health advice for the benefit of all. We have a distinctly selfish society. If you consider other countries who have done far better without the need for lockdowns it's because their societies are far less individualistic. Kind of ironic that it's the very people that decry lockdowns that make them necessary in the first place.

I'm sure losing your parents wasn't much easier than lockdown

Well yes but only because I was a child in one case and still living at home and dependent.

I have no idea what it would be like if I was an adult... probably far easier.

But like I said, losing your parents is normal and it's better to experience that than for the roles to be reversed.

[quote Perfect28]@Fr0thandBubble please, stop using the word hysterical. It is frankly insulting to all women.

You are using one estimated number (20 million) against a recorded number (89,000).
To be more accurate, you should use both recorded numbers. In the UK, there have been 3.4 million recorded cases. Of a proportion of recorded cases, the death rate is 2.6%
I'm just pointing this out as I'm sure you would be the first to protest against an estimated death figure being used. (It is widely accepted that deaths relating to covid far exceed the official figure).

Oh this is another classic. '1.5K People die every day of other causes', yes, and these deaths are on top of, not instead of, these deaths. If the NHS becomes overwhelmed, deaths will increase exponentially as those with previously treatable issues won't be able to access beds/drs.[/quote]
Ugh - this is ludicrous! They say 1 in 3 who have Covid have no symptoms. So they wouldn’t even get tested. And at the beginning, they was no testing to be had! But you’re saying those people who weren’t confirmed cases shouldn’t be considered in calculating how many people it kills?

It is absolutely not widely accepted that there have been significantly more deaths from Covid than have been recorded! Some would argue quite the opposite as deaths were recorded as being down to Covid without any test being done!

I mean, come on.

Right, I really am dropping out now as I have to work!

Appeasing people like sumption and fr0th is the reason why we have had such half-assed measures in England that have both caused us to have amongst the worst death rate in the world and also prolonged economic damage. All that time spent lobbying against lockdowns is actually causing the most damage here.

Sumptions comments show a lack of understanding of medical ethics as applied to triage. He talks about an economic/policy measure (QALY) used, not without criticism, as a metric to compare different healthcare investments on a cost-benefit basis in a business case as if it applies in a clinical setting. Doctors and nurses will make assessments in the basis of clinical need as presented, not because of some policy pseudo-metric. Applying statistical observations to judge individual circumstances is discriminatory and hence why his comments to the cancer sufferer were insensitive, rude and based on faulty thinking.

@Madhairday

It's rife on here OP, implicit and explicit. I've been absolutely floored by some of the comments over the past few months about how elderly and sick people simply don't matter enough. Chilling stuff. As one of those pesky vulnerable I have lost a whole load of faith in humanity this year :(

I agree.