My goodness. Lord Sumption’s response to a woman with Stage 4 cancer asking why her life isn’t valuable is he didn’t say it isn’t valuable just “less valuable”. This is the figurehead of anti-lockdown movement - comes across as inhumane, almost grotesque
You can watch full debate below, it's actually really interesting. Lord Sumption robustly challenged. His key point seems to be about age. He says "it is absurd to say that the death of someone in their 80s is as tragic as someone in their 20s" (31:30) bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod…
Where there are scarce resources (e.g. donor organs) you do have to have these horrific debates about who get priority. But to use the argument that some people's live are "more valuable" to protect in the context of lockdown vs. no lockdown is I think extremely problematic
I think many people (me included) will watch and think I kind of understand his point on a philosophical level but my god someone with such a brutalist Ayn Randian view of society shouldn't be anywhere near policy
By the way, the next episode of @BHumanPodcast is about the rights of older people and we discuss exactly these points. Coming next week
This is a point I wanted to make but couldn't quite express it
Summary:
- No more Christmas bubbles (obvs)
- Now clear you can leave home to go to a library for digital access
- Sports venues can open for elite sport competition (!)
- Marriage now explicitly covers equal marriage (!)
- Canteens in colleges or student halls can open
I appreciate the police have a difficult job knowing what to do with this vague legislation but any political activity is protected by free speech rights and should not be limited by vague prohibitions (in fact if law is vague should be interpreted to protect speech not limit it)
If Covid-19 had emerged in a liberal democracy rather than China, and the first response had not been enforced lockdowns, which *appeared* to work, enforced lockdowns would not have become the worldwide norm: discuss
I am genuinely interested in the proposition - enforced lockdowns (forcing people by law to stay at home) were a new thing. Struck me listening my podcast with @adamgopnik that it was by no means inevitable Italy, France etc would follow suit podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bet…
I believe it was right to take novel and in some cases (travel quarantine, business closures, school closures) extreme measures to protect life. Covid is in many ways worse than any pandemic since Spanish flu. But enforced lockdowns should remain an open question
Home Secretary: "The rules are very simple and clear... only leave home for a very very limited number of reasons... outdoor recreation but in a very very restricted and limited way"
Outdoor recreation was removed as a reasonable excuse for leaving home in lockdown regulations🤦♂️
The Tier 4 regulations used to include a reasonable excuse of taking "open air recreation" but it was removed in the latest lockdown
I get that everyone makes mistakes but ministers really need to be across most basic points - and this is the most basic, particularly given the national discussions over what "exercise" is over recent days. I assume this was a slip but I think the Home Sec needs to correct it
I think the Cressida Dick is wrong to say that most people understand the rules. I made this video to help people understand the lockdown laws so they can follow them, but it’s not straightforward
Cressida Dick told Radio 4 that some people are outside without an “essential” reason. The legal requirement is a “reasonable excuse”. Just goes to show how misunderstood the rules are, contrary to her basic point!
But overall her points were fair - the vast majority of people are complying and the police don’t need extra powers especially a power of entry.