I'm surprised this hasn't had a mention, so just in case anyone missed it - here it is. The American journal is better laid out than that of the original Daily Mail.
// Neil Ferguson exercised his rights when not following the lockdown that he advocated. //
A must read.
https://www.aier.org/article/lord-sumption-the-lockdown-is-without-doubt-th...
// One of the more impressive observations of the Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke, in the interview in which he justified Sweden’s refusal to lock its people down, was not about epidemiology at all.
His point was that there are some things that may work and that a totalitarian state like China can do. But a country like Sweden with its long liberal tradition cannot do them unless it wants to become like China. //
We've all marveled how Sweden has dared to be different. A model to emulate ?
I guess you didn't listen to Sumption on the PM programme this afternoon? Must have been about 1730-ish if you want to look it up on . He's coming over as pretty extreme and couldn't/wouldn't answer the presenters point about South Korea.
> We've all marveled how Sweden has dared to be different. A model to emulate ?
You might have marveled at Sweden. Not everyone has though.
Deaths per million:
Sweden 322
Denmark 92
Finland 49
Norway 41
Anecdotally - I've got lots of Finnish friends having lived there a long time. Only one of my Finnish friends has lost someone to covid19 - his grandmother, who was one of the many thousands of Finns who emigrated to Sweden in the 1960s. She died last week in the Swedish care home where she lived. It has affected care homes for the elderly in both Finland and Norway, but clearly to nothing like the extent it has in Sweden.
"We've all marveled how Sweden has dared to be different. A model to emulate ?"
Yup, it's that scary.
>> You might have marveled at Sweden. Not everyone has though.
> Deaths per million:
> Sweden 322
> Denmark 92
> Finland 49
> Norway 41
I'm always surprised by the focus on the "cost" of Sweden's policies, presumably because all of the data on the "benefits" are anecdotal at this stage? I fear we are missing the point when we use "extra deaths" because they aren't "extra" in the conventional sense, just "earlier". When we consider the sanctity of human life do we consider it to trump all else, including the quality of it?
I remember a line from a song that went "I wish it had been easier, instead of any longer". I wonder what we have lost in our clamour to extend life. I don't think we know yet but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation and the ease with which we gave up our freedoms was remarkable and worrying because it demonstrates how easy it is for us to be coerced into such a state.
"It is not even the greatest public health crisis in our history. But the lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history."
With the speed it was spreading how long would it have been before it became the greatest public health crisis in history.
Sweden is facing the same recession that everyone else is facing so they haven't gained much for their extra deaths
https://www.ft.com/content/93105160-dcb4-4721-9e58-a7b262cd4b6e
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/sweden-predicts-recessio...
> I fear we are missing the point when we use "extra deaths" because they aren't "extra" in the conventional sense, just "earlier".
Arguably always true for anything that kills people, no matter their age. "We've all got to die of something", as smokers are so fond of saying. So I'm not sure how useful it is as a distinction for this disease.
In any case, I can see your point. Many of the people dying probably had relatively few years left anyway, though by no means all. We certainly shouldn't elevate the extension of life above all other considerations. But I think it's pretty clear at this point that if we allow the disease to spread completely unchecked, so that we retain our "liberty", then it would soon overwhelm the NHS to the point that vast numbers of people would die needlessly, some from Covid19 and others from numerous issues that could otherwise have been handled by an NHS not stretched to breaking point.
How often do so many countries, with such a variety of governments, all agree so closely on the need for a change as disruptive and economically crippling as these lockdowns? You have to be particularly contrarian to think they've all missed something obvious.
> With the speed it was spreading how long would it have been before it became the greatest public health crisis in history.
Sumption has not just challenged liberty versus mortality. He has also criticised the models and the stats on which your assertion rests - why I made reference to Ferguson.
And yes - TobyA - I heard him on the PM prog. Along with Jared Diamond - reminding us that covid-19 is not an existential threat - we should rather have real concern for climate and environmental issues.
And the reason I focused on 'China versus Sweden ' relates to this:
"... if, by any chance, mass surveillance develops in Europe, it will not have been for the coronavirus. The coronavirus will have been an excuse for this to happen". (from the tracking thread)
Don't just argue about where we are now. Why were so many countries coerced into lockdown - what longterm global trend is evolving out of this ?
The tone and content of that first paragraph of screams 'agenda'.
> Why were so many countries coerced into lockdown
I don't feel coerced into observing lockdown. On a personal level I consent to it and need no coercion because I feel that harsh though it is it was necessary. Obviously we need to watch like hawks to make sure this isn't used as a cover to remove other liberties but I'm fairly confident that won't happen or will be challenged if it does.
I've got a lot of time for Sumption and his points are often very subtle and therefore open to misinterpretation or coopting to other causes but at this point I'm starting to wonder if he's just not dealing very well with the situation.
> Why were so many countries coerced into lockdown
11 letters, first letter is a C.
Sumption seems to be implicitly weighing the actual deaths against the restriction of liberties, economic impact etc. What he should be doing is comparing the number of deaths had their not been lockdowns. I think there's been a bit too much use of logarithmic charts and a bit too little understanding of exponential rise.
Am I right in thinking this lockdown is costing you a lot of money?
Sumption is a legal guru not a scientist.
Yeah - I agree. Sumption keeps using terms like "Stasi-like house arrest", which seems to be massively over egging the pudding. He calls it the greatest infringement on our liberty in peace or wartime - again perhaps a de jure truth but not a defacto reality for at least the vast majority of us. I'm absolutely no fan of the current government at all, indeed I think their failings have led to many many unnecessary deaths, but between the welfare state we had coming in -far from perfect but very much there- plus the furlough scheme and promised support for self employed people, they are allowing for people to choose to stay to home for their own good and for the good of everyone else. The only police I've seen over the lockdown have been when I've been out on my daily walk or cycle ride. Many of them, particularly when I've been the only other person on the road, have given me a friendly wave or thumbs up. Of course some people are getting "policed" for breaking the law, but it's hardly East Berlin in the early 60s. No one is getting shot for leaving their house twice in a day.
Spot on question. Its understandable.
> "But the lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history."
Well, that part is obvious nonsense. Compared with being a Lutheran when Thomas More was Lord Chancellor, or a Protestant under Mary I? Or anyone who enjoyed a good time under Cromwell's Protectorate? Most obviously there were massive restrictions of personal freedoms during the Second World War - I'm not saying there weren't good reasons, but then there are excellent reasons now for a far less repressive restrictions.
Greatest infringement to liberty in peacetime or wartime?
It seems he's never heard of conscription where you could be packed off overseas until you were killed, wounded, taken prisoner or the war was over (unless required for occupation duties).
> Am I right in thinking this lockdown is costing you a lot of money?
It is costing a lot of people a lot of things. I think that was Lord Sumption's point - that we should at least be having a serious debate about the costs.
> I think that was Lord Sumption's point - that we should at least be having a serious debate about the costs.
I think Sumption's comments go well beyond a call for debate.
Also, I feel that debate has been happening from the word go and continues to happen. Govt, the media, social media have all been filled with discussion and acknowledgement of the serious harms associated with lockdown.
One shouldn't confuse the debate not going your way with the debate not having happened. I'm not saying you're doing this Robert but it's certainly something that's happening.
> >> You might have marveled at Sweden. Not everyone has though.
> I'm always surprised by the focus on the "cost" of Sweden's policies, presumably because all of the data on the "benefits" are anecdotal at this stage? I fear we are missing the point when we use "extra deaths" because they aren't "extra" in the conventional sense, just "earlier". When we consider the sanctity of human life do we consider it to trump all else, including the quality of it?
> I remember a line from a song that went "I wish it had been easier, instead of any longer". I wonder what we have lost in our clamour to extend life. I don't think we know yet but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation and the ease with which we gave up our freedoms was remarkable and worrying because it demonstrates how easy it is for us to be coerced into such a state.
If the dying from Covid-19 were easier we'd all probably be more phlegmatic about it. Even Trump managed to acknowledge that it wasn't a pleasant way to go. I'm 68. I don't want to die. I want to climb. "What do we say to the god of death? Not today"
> Greatest infringement to liberty in peacetime or wartime?
> It seems he's never heard of conscription where you could be packed off overseas until you were killed, wounded, taken prisoner or the war was over (unless required for occupation duties).
'Greatest' could be interpreted in different ways: due to transport and connectivity of our 21st century world, the viral threat has spread comprehensively into every corner (NB. I'm not a flat earther !) of the world, subsequent to which the majority ? of countries have accepted the same tactic of lockdown - restricting movements (but without threat to kill - noted) and ruining economies at the level of family, business and nation, and these effects are not yet measurable being in it's early stages; governments appear to be supportive but likely they have made promises they can't keep, for some after effects will be long-lasting.
NB. but interestingly the super wealthy are more than 'riding' the storm - you can hear them whooping joy as they surf the waves
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/the-billionaires-whose-weal...
Interesting document. Do you have supporting evidence that it represents genuine (majority) churcch opinion ? Could it be a spam against the church or a conspiracy smokescreen ?
> Am I right in thinking this lockdown is costing you a lot of money?
No. I've never had much to lose anyway. I am in a privileged position living in the country, largely self employed, small scale farming and self sufficient activities subsequent to spending all my savings back in 2004.
I think you should also include the Great British tradition of putting the poor into the Workhouse and the gems of English Justice that were the Debtor's Gaols of which Dickens wrote so much! Not to mention transportationor hanging of the lower classes for minor crimes against the sensibilities and property of the landowning classes.
Numbtion does not see himself having been on those ends of the stick.
It was good of them to highlight the most nutjob phrases in bold. Made it much easier to get a sense of the document by skim reading...
Yes I have found it surprising that the world has turned upside down for CV, yet people in comparison seemed pretty much incapable of making any meaningful lifestyle changes to combat climate change, and I know which one of these is the bigger threat for my children and the next generation.
> Interesting document. Do you have supporting evidence that it represents genuine (majority) churcch opinion ? Could it be a spam against the church or a conspiracy smokescreen ?
The majority of the Catholic church no idea, that 15 cardinals, archbishops and bishops (amongst others) signed it speaks volumes for the thinking in at least part of the upper hierarchy. Thr lack of strong rebuttal from the rest speaks for itself.
Looking into wikidepia, I looked at the page 'Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion', of which, I scrutinised RC reaction. Most notes centre on the way the church has adapted to and cooperated with the crisis ...
// Some priests began offering drive-thru confessions. // sounds like McDo's
but the last paragraph focused on RCs supports - perhaps - the minority view
// At that time, it was communism, and now it's the coronavirus. The situation is different, but the realities are much the same.”//
> Yes I have found it surprising that the world has turned upside down for CV, yet people in comparison seemed pretty much incapable of making any meaningful lifestyle changes to combat climate change, and I know which one of these is the bigger threat for my children and the next generation.
The "Elephant in the room" and a far bigger threat than CV. It will be interesting if any of the temporary changes which have had a positive effect re climate change will become permanent. Sadly I doubt it.
Not all hats are tinfoil, there's zuchetto and mitre as well
The Covid19 lockdown and consequences are unprecedented but comparison with wartime infringements of liberty is so STUPID it undermines the valid arguments against the lockdown.
In 2020 we don't have censorship, rationing, ID cards, blackout, billeting, requisitioning, directing labour into war production or conscription into a military with a 30% chance of death (my dad's infantry battalion of 600 landed in Normandy with 180 killed by end of war, other battalions had it worse).
The idea that 2020 is worse for liberty than war is IDIOTIC.
> Interesting document. Do you have supporting evidence that it represents genuine (majority) churcch opinion ? Could it be a spam against the church or a conspiracy smokescreen ?
The mainstream Vatican response (ie what the pope does) is
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-pope-francis-prayers-empty-st-p...
> Sweden is facing the same recession that everyone else is facing so they haven't gained much for their extra deaths
I don't doubt it. Sweden operates on a world stage and if the world is in recession it will face the same challenge. But I feel that Sweden will come out of this with a more robust social fabric, a lower increase in mental health issues and more inclusive decision making system.
> But I feel that Sweden will come out of this with a more robust social fabric, a lower increase in mental health issues and more inclusive decision making system.
Than who?
Have you read about Greece for example? They're doing amazing well considering how stressed their health service was from years of deep austerity before the pandemic. Their population is the same as Sweden's, but they are releasing their lockdown already after keeping deaths to 150. I really wish Sweden well, but equally I hope Greece continues to do so well, for the Greek people of course, but also because it might help poorer countries elsewhere in the world with a model to emulate.
> The mainstream Vatican response (ie what the pope does) is
Since the document was issued under the name of on of the Popes highest officials ( a personal ambassador) he's suspiciously slow to detatch himself from the contents. As the Pope has a direct line to God surely he can tell us whether it's a deranged rant or we really are part of a global plot to establish a " vile technological tyranny"?
'but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation'
I think this may actually be the most absurd statement I've ever seen on UKC.
Jeez, what is wrong with people at the moment?
jcm
> 'but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation'
> I think this may actually be the most absurd statement I've ever seen on UKC.
> Jeez, what is wrong with people at the moment?
> jcm
Glad to have that honour. But you'll need to expand rather than simply throw out insults.
> 'but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation'
On the topic of socialising, something we can all like ( ?! ) came out in another interview.
Sumption (71 yrs old) in the Express:
// Asked if he would visit a pub if it was open tomorrow he said that he would.
“Personally, if tomorrow morning pubs were opened, I would go to a crowded pub absolutely straight away, although I am in a vulnerable group." //
Ok, I'll try to answer the criticism on my own then.
I should perhaps have modified the statement to read "but the simple act of human socialising might now have been changed for generations.
I guess you could argue that we are in a constant state of flux anyway but I feel that this might be a fundamental shift.
I see people crossing the street from each other, I see (oddly) the avoidance of eye contact, I see a complete lack of physical embrace even among old friends, the handshake might be a lost greeting. These things are already happening. When restaurants and pubs open back up they won't have the same close contact nature that encouraged strangers to talk to one another. I'm not quite sure how large gatherings will move forwards but perhaps testing at the gates?
I get that it won't be entirely Orwellian but I think you will see differences that will be long lasting and significant.
> I see a complete lack of physical embrace even among old friends, the handshake might be a lost greeting. These things are already happening
Well, since we're not supposed to be meeting old friends, I guess you won't be seeing handshakes or hugs. Or you shouldn't be...
You seem to be suggesting that we won't socialise for generations to come (future generations might be tricky if we don't...).
Unless you believe the virus is insurmountable (a pretty pessimistic view), life will return pretty much to normal. We will still meet friends. We will go to the pub (admittedly, that was already declining amongst the young). We will still meet and talk bollocks.
I'm not in the UK, I'm in Canada, in a province that has started to open up. So I'm going off observations so far. I agree it is unlikely that we will stop socialising but there is a very definite weirdness, a change, to how people are interacting with each other and that is what I am suggesting will remain.
I'd love to be wrong, and you can all clamour to tell me how wrong I was when the UK re-opens and everything is the same as before (or gets there eventually). But my sense is that this pandemic may have permanently changed behaviours even after we have a vaccine and an effective treatment.
What about the loss of freedom of half a million plus people who would die and the several millions permanently disabled?
A few weeks of staying at home.
People have really lost the plot and become unbelievably selfish.
Entrenched in their way of life and unable to adapt to even the smallest of changes.
> What about the loss of freedom of half a million plus people who would die and the several millions permanently disabled?
> A few weeks of staying at home.
> People have really lost the plot and become unbelievably selfish.
> Entrenched in their way of life and unable to adapt to even the smallest of changes.
If only it were that simple. You have clearly failed to read the article. Trying to uncover and examine what is going on and what the long term effects might be is a long way from being "selfish". And as for losing the plot, I'd suggest that simply following a government edict because it says it will be good for you is definitely a foolhardy action.
Remember, politicians are not so much concerned with the number of deaths, but rather the type of deaths, which is why some of us want to explore the over all long term effects of these policies rather than the more simplistic measurement of Covid-19 related deaths.
I don’t think they’ll change permanently but I do think there will be a residual effect that will last for many months.
I hope you are right. And this from one of the most anti-social people on the planet
I like the level of human interaction we had prior to the pandemic but I accept that there is a normal level of change (use of internet, social media etc.) I just don't want fear to cause us to change in a more fundamental way.
I have read it and it is that simple. We all accept some loss of liberty every day of our lives. It’s what happens when we live with other people in a cohesive society.
A few months of lockdown to slow the progress of the disease and prevent far more deaths is warranted.
As for accepting loss of life fighting in a war to protect freedom! What nonsense is that? Hitler was creating a master race. He was completely unhinged and killing millions of people. No loss liberty, wholesale eugenics and genocide.
> I'd suggest that simply following a government edict because it says it will be good for you is definitely a foolhardy action.
Unsurprisingly, I'm not simply complying because that's what the government say. I'm using my knowledge of the problem, and that of those I trust to assess the government advice, and determine how best to behave.
My company, like plenty of others, had acted to send staff home well before the government 'lockdown' was imposed. Being an engineering company, we're capable of assessing the science and technology involved, and deciding for ourselves on the most appropriate action. It is entirely possible that we will delay return to work until some time after the government have said it is 'safe' to do so.
> I have read it and it is that simple. We all accept some loss of liberty every day of our lives. It’s what happens when we live with other people in a cohesive society.
But it is a balance. Would you accept, say, the loss of liberty experienced in North Korea?
> A few months of lockdown to slow the progress of the disease and prevent far more deaths is warranted.
Fully agree if it was clear that this would be the case. But it isn't clear.
> As for accepting loss of life fighting in a war to protect freedom! What nonsense is that? Hitler was creating a master race. He was completely unhinged and killing millions of people. No loss liberty, wholesale eugenics and genocide.
You've lost me?
I think companies who rely on specialists need to protect their investment, the workforce, no specialists, no company. And you can’t just go pick up some more trained specialists. A lot of people seem to be missing that.
“We went to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty. We allow cars on the roads because lives are worth losing for convenience. We travel by air although pollution kills.”
Cars kill 5 people a day, maybe less. Not several thousand.
South Korea? Freedom can be won and lost, life can’t. In what way do you envisage a U.K. government imposing a regime such as they have in South Korea. The U.K. is the seat of the world’s democracy. Labour are the socialists, not conservatives. Control of people is completely against their principles.
> Unsurprisingly, I'm not simply complying because that's what the government say. I'm using my knowledge of the problem, and that of those I trust to assess the government advice, and determine how best to behave.
Remember that Sweden made its decision based on factors other than the effects of the disease. It allowed its citizens to make their own judgement and many businesses chose to close. So, under the Swedish approach you would likely have come to the same conclusions.
> My company, like plenty of others, had acted to send staff home well before the government 'lockdown' was imposed. Being an engineering company, we're capable of assessing the science and technology involved, and deciding for ourselves on the most appropriate action. It is entirely possible that we will delay return to work until some time after the government have said it is 'safe' to do so.
As did mine. And we will be slow to get back to "normal" as many can still work from home. But not everyone has that luxury.
>Remember that Sweden made its decision based on factors other than the effects of the disease. It allowed its citizens to make their own judgement and many businesses chose to close. So, under the Swedish approach you would likely have come to the same conclusions.
Sweden have 3-4 times the death rates of their neighbouring countries!
>Fully agree if it was clear that this would be the case. But it isn't clear.
It is clear. Without lockdown we wouldn’t have been able to treat those that we have saved. Look at Italy. They were taking people off ventilators and giving them to younger people because they were running out. That was with lockdown.
> Cars kill 5 people a day, maybe less. Not several thousand.
Ah, ok, so its a scale thing?
> South Korea? Freedom can be won and lost, life can’t.
Life can't be lost?
>In what way do you envisage a U.K. government imposing a regime such as they have in South Korea. The U.K. is the seat of the world’s democracy. Labour are the socialists, not conservatives. Control of people is completely against their principles.
Ahem, I think you might have some things mixed up here.
> Sweden have 3-4 times the Covid - 19 death rates of their neighbouring countries!
There, fixed that for you.
> I remember a line from a song that went "I wish it had been easier, instead of any longer". I wonder what we have lost in our clamour to extend life. I don't think we know yet but just the simple human act of socialising might now have been lost for a generation and the ease with which we gave up our freedoms was remarkable and worrying because it demonstrates how easy it is for us to be coerced into such a state.
We're just weeks into this, still in firefighting mode, it's far too early to conclude that we'll no longer have social lives but if that's the reality we face when we've exhausted reasonable options then that is the time to decide whether we want a world with pubs or grandparents. Hopefully it won't come to that but for now we defer that choice and work through our options.
jk
> >Fully agree if it was clear that this would be the case. But it isn't clear.
> It is clear. Without lockdown we wouldn’t have been able to treat those that we have saved. Look at Italy. They were taking people off ventilators and giving them to younger people because they were running out. That was with lockdown.
But there were other approaches to flattening the curve that could have worked.
> We're just weeks into this, still in firefighting mode, it's far too early to conclude that we'll no longer have social lives but if that's the reality we face when we've exhausted reasonable options then that is the time to decide whether we want a world with pubs or grandparents. Hopefully it won't come to that but for now we defer that choice and work through our options.
> jk
C'mon John, you've over simplified the argument. Its a little more nuanced than that.
Yes. It’s a scale thing. You spend more money to save more lives. There becomes a point where you get diminishing returns.
No, life cannot be won and lost. Once it’s lost it’s lost, you can’t win it back.
Yes sorry. North Korea but that doesn’t change the sentiment.
Norway’s death rate is lower than normal.
> There were? What’s your plan? No use of hindsight
Umm, Sweden's perhaps?
> Yes. It’s a scale thing. You spend more money to save more lives. There becomes a point where you get diminishing returns.
> No, life cannot be won and lost. Once it’s lost it’s lost, you can’t win it back.
> Yes sorry. North Korea but that doesn’t change the sentiment.
On this, I think I might have to leave you to it. You aren't even answering your own points never mind mine.
Sweden have done the same as us. They haven’t escaped economic problems.
The only difference between the Swedish lockdown and ours was the Swedish people didn’t have it imposed on them. They were asked to stay at home. What did the British people do? They drove to the mountains, parks and beaches. That worked well didn’t it.
Next idea?
You mean you don’t like the answers I gave. I think they’re pretty self explanatory. Which ones are you having trouble with? .