So... Lord Sumption. I was watching on BBC News when he came on this afternoon, and am still reeling.
He makes two claims. Both are highly questionable. THREAD. 1/8
He makes two claims. Both are highly questionable. THREAD. 1/8
First, he claims that the virus is not a serious threat. There are always risks. Many of those dying would be dying anyway. The lockdown was unnecessary and misconceived. 2/8
Let's just say that there is a significant body of scientific opinion which runs counter to this claim. 3/8
Second, he claims that the lockdown should end. We should all be free to make our own choices, and our own evaluations of risk. Those who are risk averse, can, he says, avoid risks if they so choose. 4/8
Really? Is, I wonder, this choice available to workers, parents and children, household members of those who choose to go to crowded pubs? 5/8
What particularly worried me was the (lack of) connection between the two claims. Is his embrace of voluntarism dependent on his appraisal of the overall level of risk, or are the two independent? 6/8
Would, in other words, evidence of increases in the spread of infection, extra strain on the NHS, ever higher death tolls, be able to persuade him that he might be wrong? 7/8
If he's wrong about the seriousness of the threat, and I fear that he is, he (and the Govt (with its morally devolved 'common sense' message)) is spreading a very dangerous message. 8/8
