"Vulnerable people should be free to choose whether to protect themselves"

[KihoBebiluPute]

Lord Sumption has just been on Radio 4 asserting that the new rules are terrible and people should be free to choose for themselves whether or not to protect their health, and for some people it is more important to them to see family and friends and to get on with life as normal even if it means taking the risk to shorten ones life.

I cannot get over the selfish idiocy of this position. I recognise that people have the right to take choices that may shorten their own life, but choosing not to take precautions during a pandemic is not just risking your own life. When each vulnerable person gets seriously ill and needs to be hospitalised, they are risking the lives of the medical staff treating them, and the lives of everyone else needing hospital treatment whose care is incrementally reduced for each new patient - and if lots of people choose to take these risks then the numbers become overwhelming, so your choice not to protect yourself directly contributes to the deaths of others.

I can't support a system of refusing medical care to those who have deliberately endangered themselves. However, if we value the principle that illness is a matter of misfortune that should be treated sharing the costs across society as a whole, rather than a cost borne by the individual, then every member of society has a duty to keep themselves healthy as far as their individual circumstances allow, understanding that this will mean different things to different people. That principle needs to be part of our national culture more deeply ingrained than any religion. Lord Sumption's individualistic free-for-all is only compatible with a right-wing I'm-Alright-Jack privatised healthcare system where people pay their medical insurance premiums set according to the economics of how expensive their medical treatment is statistically likely to be, and then comfortably well-off Senior Judges can happily pay the eye-watering premiums that would be charged for those who choose not to look after themselves and can therefore expect to need ££££££££ medical care very shortly, and the poor get told that their policy isn't valid if they haven't taken every possible precaution.

I agree with him.

Have you actually listened to what he says? He is of the opinion that there is no possible action that will stop the spread of an endemic virus, you can only slow it down. I agree with him.

We did the lockdown. The vast majority of people were compliant, yet here we are again.

He is absolutely right. It would be different if we were talking about the bubonic plague, but COVID is not indiscriminate. It is very clear which individuals are at high risk. The vast majority are at no or very low risk.

It makes far more sense to offer those who are vulnerable the opportunity to stay at home funded and supported by the state, rather than shutting down the economy and forcing people to stop contributing to the economy who are at no risk.

Totally with him.

It is very clear which individuals are at high risk

Yes. In fact, there is far more detailed data on this that isn’t in the public domain. I have a friend who a data scientist in a large US healthcare company. They have very detailed algorithms worked up to determine the risk of any individual. These have not yet been made public knowledge, they are in negotiations with various governments at the minute.

Of course shielding should be voluntary.

I totally see his point too.

for some people it is more important to them to see family and friends and to get on with life as normal even if it means taking the risk to shorten ones life.

I’m not sure why this would be seen as a controversial point.

I agree with him. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop expecting the government to tell them what to do.

And people who do decide to shield on health grounds should be financially supported.

@Ecosse

He is absolutely right. It would be different if we were talking about the bubonic plague, but COVID is not indiscriminate. It is very clear which individuals are at high risk. The vast majority are at no or very low risk.

It makes far more sense to offer those who are vulnerable the opportunity to stay at home funded and supported by the state, rather than shutting down the economy and forcing people to stop contributing to the economy who are at no risk.

That’s not what he is saying.

He is saying that vulnerable people should be allowed freedom to live like everyone else. That they cannot be forced into isolation as a defined group or as individuals.

We cannot ask people to effectively imprison themselves indefinitely when they have done nothing wrong and who are not at high risk of spreading the disease (because they don’t have it or haven’t been in contact with anyone who has it).

We can ask people who are at risk of spreading the disease to isolate. When they test positive or come into contact with a positive case. The more you socialise the more you put yourself at risk of being positive or needing to isolate. That’s your choice under the rule of 6.

I agree with him too.

He is totally correct. And yes seeing family and not being isolated can be a massive boost to both mental and physical health so its not at all selfish to prioritise that as essential, pandemic or no pandemic. Then again are you one of these people who lives with your family so its fine but you think people who live alone should have no human contact?

I agree wholeheartedly with him. He wrote a great comment piece in The Times at the start of the pandemic, criticising the restrictions on civil liberties and he continues to make excellent points. I just wish the government would sit up and pay attention to what he's saying.

@TheKeatingFive

Totally with him.

It is very clear which individuals are at high risk

Yes. In fact, there is far more detailed data on this that isn’t in the public domain. I have a friend who a data scientist in a large US healthcare company. They have very detailed algorithms worked up to determine the risk of any individual. These have not yet been made public knowledge, they are in negotiations with various governments at the minute.

Again you need to actually read and understand what he is saying. Which isn’t that this group be forced into isolation.

You also need to question your faith in a US healthcare company. It doesn’t care about people on general or in person. They are about making money. They have no ethical or moral compass.

And people who do decide to shield on health grounds should be financially supported.

Well, only if they have actual need to shield on health grounds

Which isn’t that this group be forced into isolation

He’s saying more than that.

You also need to question your faith in a US healthcare company. It doesn’t care about people on general or in person. They are about making money. They have no ethical or moral compass.

Well good job they’re creating a tool, not making policy. They can determine your risk factor very precisely. That is extremely helpful at an individual level.

Of course they should be able to decide for themselves.

Can you blame anyone for choosing to have 6 months of seeing their loved ones over a year of seeing no one with just a house spider for company.

Theres a reason solitary is used as a punishment in prisons.

Totally agree with him. Eg the effects of isolation can be devastating for older people like my mam. At 80, she doesn't have long-term goals to keep her going and the day to day human contact that makes life otherwise bearable in the short term (which is what she realistically has left) has been taken away from her so she feels she has nothing left to live for.

It's not just a case of risking her / others' life if she gets Covid, but long term the effects of isolation eg cognitive and physical decline in the elderly that cost the NHS and social care huge sums. That money comes out of a finite pot (allegedly) so whose life is limited elsewhere - cancer treatment? Life-saving surgery? Other people with disabilities or who need daily care and can't have their needs met? It's not a straightforward problem.

"Lord" Sumpton reminds me of Kev, my milkman. He's an expert on Covid 19 and global Pandemics too. It's not just that they have in common, neither of them has any medical, scientific or public health qualifications, experience or expertise in any form what-so-ever either. But I guess being a retired Judge gets you on the radio, being a tattooed bull-shitting milkman doesn't.

You don’t need to be an expert on pandemics or Covid to say that some people would prefer human contact and a greater risk of contracting the disease, than to be isolated but safe.

People are acting like this is a controversial thing to say. I don’t understand that at all. Surely it’s obvious? Quality of life matters to people too.

@Ecosse in particular

I think those saying people have the right to choose are thinking that the majority of shielding people are reasonably elderly, lived a decent life before shielding and have no real reason to need to go out. My just 18ds had to shield due to being on heavy duty steroids - he has fairly recently diagnosed ulcerative colitis. He likely to need to be put on long term immunosuppressants in the very near future, which would be combined with steroids initially. When he isn't experiencing a flare he is totally well. When he is experiencing a flare he's poorly but once the steroids kick in (3/4 days) he's back to normal pretty much. He's 18!! He plays cricket, is taking a gap year after A levels and is, in every way a normal young person. Should he confine his life to the house because we all can't be sensible, keep to social distancing and wear masks?

I listened to him.

I think people should know that the rate of risk increases but then of course they can decide.

Shielding is voluntary anyway isn’t it

"so your choice not to protect yourself directly contributes to the deaths of others"

That's the situation every winter and to a lesser extent, all year round. So the teenage shitheads who wrap their cars around trees etc, take up the ventilators. The middle aged man, who'se had a building site accident may find there isn't one available. People who take drugs are filling up the MH services.

It's just starting to hit home that for many there won't be a family Christmas. For people who are in the last years of their life and are seeing the pubs full, that doesn't make sense.

My DD is trying to book the meal out for Christmas for her service users who need one-to-one care and venues aren't allowing it. The service users share a house and Staff members are on shift for 12 hours with each other. Absolutely their trip out should be able to go ahead.

We are removing disability and human rights and as said now that we have detailed data, it isn't justified. The UK is in the shit because we were so run down. People's quality of life shouldn't suffer further because the government decided over the years that our services wasn't worth investing in.

Medical Staff, via their union bodies are saying' not in my name' in terms of the proposed house arrest of 'vulnerable people', because there's no real concern about the welfare of HCPs. If there was the Poluce wouldn't be so underfunded that A&Es were carnage every weekend.

I live in an area were there is a lot of obesity. We've had six months to lose weight. Why because I'm vulnerable through no fault of my own health issues, should I be the one to implement personal responsibility? I also live in a high crime area, were SS involvement/prison is high. Why do they get to cost the country money via services and I'm not entitled to the same?

I provide childcare for two working families, so it wouldn't be a matter of providing me with the means to stay at home. I also provide care for two other people. I'm not usual. Take me out of society and five families need government support.

OP - This is the same as "asking" people not to smoke, to drink, to eat to excess, to take drugs. Everything in life is a choice, and society has to pick up the pieces regardless. The alternative is a police state.

TheKeatingFive ... so if you ignore all scentic, medical and government advice and deliberatly put yourself at risk of infection from Covid 19 then surely you must be prepared to extend the same choice to any NHS Critical Care nurse or medical practitioner as to whether they are prepared to risk their lives treating you. Quality of life matters to them too.