"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.

How short are peoples memories and how selfish are they?
The restrictions on meeting in groups are minor and will help curtail the spread.
No one has ever suggested that shielding was compulsory.
Good grief how ridiculous are we when we get in a tizzy over such things.

I absolutely agree with him too. This virus is going to be with us for a long time so the economy needs to be kept going for the sake of everyone.

If you have issues that cause you to be vulnerable beyond the norm, then it should be a choice that each individual makes as to how much interaction and with whom, you have.

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.

Well we don’t physically force anyone into work, do we?

I agree with him, as a vulnerable person myself it's not up to me to tell perfectly healthy, not-at-risk, mostly young people to stay at home.

Obviously if/when hospital rates go up and the NHS is under pressure, they could encouragemore vulnerable people to stay home more but no-one should be forced out of society.

I am being careful, as are many people like me. I'm lucky, in that financially I can afford to be. I do think those on the original shielding list should be helped financially to stay at home/work from home, if that is what they want.

I completely agree with Lord Sumption. A sensible, reasoned analysis.

Fine if people want to risk THEIR OWN health. Trouble is that Covid is highly contagious, so people who don't care about themselves are very high risk of passing it to other who do. Those that don't take precautions need to stay away from everyone else who does. I.e. do the simple things like respecting the 2 metre social distancing, wearing masks in public transport and shops, etc. People who don't want to catch Covid have just as much right to live relatively normal lives, i.e. go to work, go shopping, have days out etc and if people respect the guidance, it's relatively safe for them to do that.

I also think they need to redefine vulnerable and shielding.

Originally it was (I think) people with serious illnesses (transplant, autoimmune, cancer etc) and the very old. It shouldn't be everyone who is obese, or everyone with asthma. Those who should be supported financially are the most vulnerable to the virus, not those who are more than average vulnerable, if that makes sense.

I agree with him.

@RandomNameForRandomThreads

I also think they need to redefine vulnerable and shielding.

Originally it was (I think) people with serious illnesses (transplant, autoimmune, cancer etc) and the very old. It shouldn't be everyone who is obese, or everyone with asthma. Those who should be supported financially are the most vulnerable to the virus, not those who are more than average vulnerable, if that makes sense.

Random there are three levels, ECV (transplant etc), CV (eg diabetes etc) and raised risk (Eg BAME)

Iirc from NHS

I agree with him.

TheKeatingFive , if you are saying that you don't have to work for the NHS then have the courage to say so. I'm saying that they have plenty of patients to treat as it is, look at the current waiting list. If someone deliberately puts themselves at risk of infection , then they should have the same choice as to whether they risk their lives treating somebody. And anybody who is thinking of risking infection should do some research as to just what this virus can do to you. It's an horrific death.

I have not heard this yet but it sounds like he makes some interesting points.

It’s clear all of this response has gone beyond “flattening the curve” and not overwhelming the NHS to “as few people as possible getting ill”. You only need to look at the venom towards the disabled on here who can’t wear masks that it’s because people think they have an entitlement not to get it, which to me seems odd.

What I find interesting is how we’ve all been pushed over the years to look after our own health and take responsibility for ourselves (I don’t disagree) and any intervention is seen as the nanny state (even where it’s to reduce the impact on the NHS) but now the government are dictating to us what we need to do to protect our health and that of other people (as well as the NHS) and using quite draconian measures to enforce this.

If people are free to eat rubbish and drink excess alcohol for example despite the huge impact that has on the NHS - we accept people have the right to make their own choices about their health - why not on this? If people want to assume the risk of getting Covid and all that entails up to long Covid and death, why is that not their choice? Not saying I necessarily entirely agree, but it’s something I have been pondering

@RandomNameForRandomThreads

I also think they need to redefine vulnerable and shielding.

Originally it was (I think) people with serious illnesses (transplant, autoimmune, cancer etc) and the very old. It shouldn't be everyone who is obese, or everyone with asthma. Those who should be supported financially are the most vulnerable to the virus, not those who are more than average vulnerable, if that makes sense.

Yes, fully agree. But that was what "shielding" was about. It was the extremely clinically vulnerable who were advised to shield, not everyone who was vulnerable. My OH got the shielding letter because of his cancer. I have diabetes and high blood pressure but didn't get the shielding letter. Quite right too. My OH's cancer was a specific blood cell cancer that was mentioned as being of the highest risk re covid.

Hopefully, now that the scientists and medics know more about Covid, they should be able to be more specific about who is at the highest risk and hopefully maybe fine tune the shielding list to be more specific, maybe lower numbers.

The rest of the "vulnerable" i.e. overweight, diabetes, blood pressure, bame, men, etc etc., need to look after themselves, i.e. do what they can to avoid catching it, i.e. social distancing, not going to parties, washing hands etc.

There has to be a limit to who is supposed to shield in terms of financial and other support, etc. We really can't have millions of people claiming they can't go to work just because they've got diabetes. That's crazy. We just need to concentrate on supporting those most vulnerable - i.e. the extremely clinically vulnerable. Everyone else needs to get back to work, school, or whatever and take their own precautions to keep themselves and those around them as safe as reasonable.

@MadameBlobby

I have not heard this yet but it sounds like he makes some interesting points.

It’s clear all of this response has gone beyond “flattening the curve” and not overwhelming the NHS to “as few people as possible getting ill”. You only need to look at the venom towards the disabled on here who can’t wear masks that it’s because people think they have an entitlement not to get it, which to me seems odd.

What I find interesting is how we’ve all been pushed over the years to look after our own health and take responsibility for ourselves (I don’t disagree) and any intervention is seen as the nanny state (even where it’s to reduce the impact on the NHS) but now the government are dictating to us what we need to do to protect our health and that of other people (as well as the NHS) and using quite draconian measures to enforce this.

If people are free to eat rubbish and drink excess alcohol for example despite the huge impact that has on the NHS - we accept people have the right to make their own choices about their health - why not on this? If people want to assume the risk of getting Covid and all that entails up to long Covid and death, why is that not their choice? Not saying I necessarily entirely agree, but it’s something I have been pondering

Trouble is that however well we look after ourselves, and however much we avoid parties, wash our hands, etc., we can't control other people around us. We all deserve to live as normal a life as possible, and balance risks, but it's out of our control when some brain dead idiot ignores social distancing, comes right up to you in a shop and leans over you to reach a shelf and start coughing - we don't have eyes in the backs of our heads. The best we can do is shop at quieter times, but even then, what's to stop an idiot shopping at the same time. There's only so much we can do to protect ourselves when people around us don't give a toss.

Even those shielding can't avoid people. My MIL's boiler broke down and we called out British Gas. We told them she was old, vulnerable and shielding. They promised us their engineer would wear mask, gloves, wouldn't use the toilet, would stay in the kitchen etc. He turned up and did none of that. MIL stayed in the front room, and he came waltzing in to tell her what the problem was, no mask, no gloves, then he went to use the loo, before going back to the kitchen to fix it. Just what can you do when people around you won't take simple precautions to protect you?

I agree with everything he said. We seem to think we can and should be aiming for zero Covid deaths, but we accept on average 17000 deaths from flu each year in the U.K.

We need to be realistic about what’s possible while still having a functioning society.

My mum is vulnerable, she didn’t leave her flat for 12 weeks. But there’s no way she’d do that again. I’ll do all I can to protect her from unnecessary risk, but if she wants to see her grandchildren once a week then that’s her choice.

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 didn't hear this but, essentially I don't have a problem with it as long as their behaviour does not put the lives of others at risk.

Perhaps those people should have an advance directive in place so that HCP aren't put at risk in the event they contract the virus.

Well, he's right.

I agree with everything he said. We seem to think we can and should be aiming for zero Covid deaths, but we accept on average 17000 deaths from flu each year in the U.K.

This is the disconnect for me too.

These kind of calculators are already in the domain. This is the one the Nhs use to assess their employees -
alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/

if you are saying that you don't have to work for the NHS then have the courage to say so

Such dramatics, why would I be afraid to say so? My point is simply that NHS workers have the right to weigh up the risks versus benefits of their job and make a decision like anyone else.

It's an horrific death.

Death often is. No monopoly on that either.

Should he confine his life to the house because we all can't be sensible, keep to social distancing and wear masks?

Unfortunately those measures alone don’t contain this thing. The only thing that we know works is fairly strict lockdown.

@TheKeatingFive

Should he confine his life to the house because we all can't be sensible, keep to social distancing and wear masks?

Unfortunately those measures alone don’t contain this thing. The only thing that we know works is fairly strict lockdown.

no - extreme local lockdown like China seems to be the only thing that has worked, assuming their data are truthful. This is realistically only affordable where subsidised by a large economy that can run as usual in other parts of the country. Spain's cases are rising despite its strict lockdown, and even countries like S Korea and NZ have seen some cases return.

Well to clarify, fairly strict lockdowns work while they’re being imposed. They don’t work longer term.

I’m not sure what to make of the China situation. It’s certainly not in line with what’s happened elsewhere.

Totally agree with him.

I agree with you op, whole heartedly.