There is always more than one way of thinking about something

Status
Not open for further replies.
Docb

Docb

Moderator
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Anybody see the interview with Lord Sumption?

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC News - BBC News Special, Coronavirus Update, 17/05/2020

The latest news including a Downing Street news conference on the coronavirus pandemic.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

It starts about 11 minutes in.

A lot of people will go quite potty by what he says but it is what you get if you ask a very intelligent, logical, mind for their analysis of how to handle a pandemic.
 
I didn’t see it but I just watched on your link. I think the opinion he’s giving is a typical academic almost philosophical opinion about freedom. He has no medical knowledge and, being a QC, a lot of......specific experience at crafting arguments that might not have any basis in reality.

That’s my polite opinion above.
 
Curiously, the line of argument, the sacrifice of some for the greater good of the whole, is exactly that which justifies war, only in war it is the sacrifice of the young and not the old which is considered acceptable. War anniversaries we celebrate with bunting, ceremony, and tea in the street.

Don't you think that the logic is a bit awry somewhere?

By the way, I am not professing support for anything, it's just that I think that looking at a problem from all angles helps when trying to work out a way forward.
 
I didn’t read it so much as sacrifice - more a kind of selfishness and isolation by default. That is, ‘we’re all going to go out and about as we please and anyone worried about us spreading the virus, can just shut themselves away’.

My questions are: why should others shut themselves away so that he and his ilk can merrily spread a virus that we’re trying to control? Why are his rights more important than others’ rights? Why knowingly ‘spread a fire’ rather than working to damp it right down to a few hotspots?

Look at NZ. In my opinion, it’s better to aggressively control the spread rather than insist that we all proceed to spread it and anyone who doesn’t like it can ‘do one’. His attitude is pretty much the same as that of the louts you see out and about barging past people and not social distancing, and shouting that ‘no-one is going to tell me what to do’. He’s just dressed it up in posher language.

(And I understand you weren’t supporting him - just looking at all sides 🙂 )
 
Must admit I did not read it that way. His basic argument was that spreading the virus was inevitable once the containment strategy had been dropped. Most people contracting it would not be much inconvenienced. A number, principally the old with existing health problems, would be inconvenienced and many would succumb a bit sooner than they might otherwise have done. The main effect of a lockdown would be to ensure that the NHS could do what they could for this group by making sure they arrived in a steady stream, not a short term surge which could have overwhelmed it. In effect it gave them a better chance of helping those who might be successfully treated. The other side of the coin is that the disruption to society will have consequences for the health and well being of the vast number of people for whom the virus, if they become infected, will have little or no effect.

The conundrum is whether saving a few in the short term outweighs the harm done in the long term. The political argument says it does, the logical argument might say otherwise.

The part of his polemic I can see sense in is to allow people to do their own risk assessment, decide on the level of risk they are prepared to accept, and run their lives accordingly. I can also see that this can be seen to affect others and so must be thought about carefully.

Just don't think that the arguments are as clear cut as some make out, but you can say that about almost anything.
 
The part of his polemic I can see sense in is to allow people to do their own risk assessment, decide on the level of risk they are prepared to accept, and run their lives accordingly. I can also see that this can be seen to affect others and so must be thought about carefully.

Yes, that’s the crux of it. It’s a balance of personal freedoms with social responsibilities. I think we do already do our own risk assessments to some extent, eg if we’re happy going to the supermarket or whether we’d feel happier keeping to home deliveries, but that decision doesn’t impact on others really. Letting the virus run rampant does.

I also thought he was being pessimistic and rather fatalistic about the virus spreading. I think it can be contained with the proper measures. If it was contained and kept to low level localised hotspots, we could all get back to normal pretty much. So that would seem the most sensible option to me, and the most community-spirited.
 
Docb said:
Must admit I did not read it that way. His basic argument was that spreading the virus was inevitable once the containment strategy had been dropped. Most people contracting it would not be much inconvenienced. A number, principally the old with existing health problems, would be inconvenienced and many would succumb a bit sooner than they might otherwise have done. The main effect of a lockdown would be to ensure that the NHS could do what they could for this group by making sure they arrived in a steady stream, not a short term surge which could have overwhelmed it. In effect it gave them a better chance of helping those who might be successfully treated. The other side of the coin is that the disruption to society will have consequences for the health and well being of the vast number of people for whom the virus, if they become infected, will have little or no effect.

The conundrum is whether saving a few in the short term outweighs the harm done in the long term. The political argument says it does, the logical argument might say otherwise.

The part of his polemic I can see sense in is to allow people to do their own risk assessment, decide on the level of risk they are prepared to accept, and run their lives accordingly. I can also see that this can be seen to affect others and so must be thought about carefully.

Just don't think that the arguments are as clear cut as some make out, but you can say that about almost anything.
Click to expand...


The arguments may not be clear cut. Nonetheless, his arguments are dangerous. Many of the folk allowed to do their own risk assessment don’t have the knowledge or ability to consider a personal risk assessment, let alone the risk to others.

It depends on the position you start from - whether you think there is more value in letting the virus run its natural course, and keeping business running, or take the human view and prevent as many excess deaths as is possible in the circumstances. Both are perfectly valid positions, the outcomes are very different.
 
mikeyB said:
The arguments may not be clear cut. Nonetheless, his arguments are dangerous. Many of the folk allowed to do their own risk assessment don’t have the knowledge or ability to consider a personal risk assessment, let alone the risk to others.

It depends on the position you start from - whether you think there is more value in letting the virus run its natural course, and keeping business running, or take the human view and prevent as many excess deaths as is possible in the circumstances. Both are perfectly valid positions, the outcomes are very different.
Click to expand...

One thing about this: you're not going to get back to a normal level of economic activity for a *long* time while there's a lot of virus around, regardless of the formal lock-down status. Many, many people are going to continue isolating themselves to a greater or lesser extent, making and spending less money etc etc.

You see that even here in SA, where there's now no detectable virus and only a very soft lock-down. It's still very, very quiet, even by local standards.

And any thought that you can segregate populations into vulnerable and less-vulnerable, and effectively protect the former while letting virus run through the latter, is pretty much nonsense. I've seen this described as like trying to set-up a no-pee zone in a public swimming pool, and letting people pee everywhere in the pool outside the zone. If there's a lot of virus around, you won't be able to keep it out of the aged care facilities. See eg Sweden.
 
One of the problems of deciding whether or not to evaluate the risk for oneself, is that a lot of elderly with various forms of dementia don’t have the capacity to decide, so someone has to decide for them. And in a new situation, the decision has been (and I don’t see how it could be other) to preserve their life first and foremost, even if it means cutting them off from family visits, outings, etc, all the things that probably make their existence bearable. And the consequence is, everyone else in the same care home has to abide by those rules, to protect them.
I bet nobody who wrote a 'living will' before they became incapax thought to include the phrase 'and if there’s an untreatable virus that would kill me if I caught it, let me take the risk, and continue to see my friends and my family' But that’s something I’d now want written into anything I signed!
Of course, this means that if I was in a home, there would need to be separate 'shielding' and 'non-shielding' homes, to cater for people whichever risk decision they made.
 
Interesting points @Robin I have a relative in a nursing home and see it as the other way round, if that makes sense - that is, Fred Bloggs isn’t allowed any visitors now in order to protect other residents of the Home. Obviously it will protect him too, but the way it was framed to us was that it was for the protection of all residents. I’m sure some families did question thie No Visitors policy, but, as much as I miss visiting my relative, I’m glad the Home has been strict about this. Again, I see this as ‘for the community good’ - the community being the Home in this instance.

Also, there are many much younger people who lack capacity to make a decision about this and are in residential care, and, again, the decision made on their behalf is for the good of others not just themselves. Personal freedom shouldn’t come at the expense of others - especially when there are other feasible options.
 
mikeyB said:
The arguments may not be clear cut. Nonetheless, his arguments are dangerous. Many of the folk allowed to do their own risk assessment don’t have the knowledge or ability to consider a personal risk assessment, let alone the risk to others.

It depends on the position you start from - whether you think there is more value in letting the virus run its natural course, and keeping business running, or take the human view and prevent as many excess deaths as is possible in the circumstances. Both are perfectly valid positions, the outcomes are very different.
Click to expand...
Mikey,

Do you remember the BBC documentary The Assent Of Man?

The first 3 minute intro by Jacob Bronowski in Episode 1 talks about how all living creatures on earth work with and fit into nature, for example a turtle waiting months for a high tide to take its eggs out to sea. Man being the exception, he wants to change and conquer nature to suit his own needs. One could take this same principle to the latest COVID19 virus. Man doesn't accept nature and is trying to conquer a virus and its natural course of events.

My observation with the way this current flu pandemic it is being currently dealt with (lockdown and destroying the economy and people livelihoods) is that next time, people may not be so willing to accept this strategy and demand that everything stay open and accept the risks that nature intends?

n.b. I am not saying I agree either way with his views, i'm just repeating what he said.

 
Last edited:
But wasn’t Bronowski saying that Man’s ability to do this was “brilliant” and had led to our ascent? That it was what differentiated us from other animals? I’ve heard of the programme and seen a few clips but not watched it. I thought it was about scientific achievements? Surely controlling this latest pandemic would add to those achievements? Is that not what he meant?

I don’t think many people reject science and medicine and are happy to let Nature take it’s course. If it was so, we wouldnt treat cancer, diabetes, heart disease, appendicitis, etc.

Most people also seem to be reasonably happy with lockdown and worried about the virus. Articles have talked about fears about Coronavirus and how some people will still be cautious even if lockdown stops. That’s not a small number of people IMO.

As an aside, most people “willing to accept the risks” wouldn’t be so keen if they or someone they cared about died or became seriously ill.
 
When lionesses hunt, one of them jumps out on a group of possible dinners and drives them towards where the rest of the pack is waiting. Some dinners run in the required direction, some form ranks and charge the single animal to chase it away. Some charge, grab the tail and smash the skull as a warning that times are changing.
I think that the Human population is still evolving to some extent - and also its demographic will be altered by the virus - its main effect though is to remove people who are probably unlikely to reproduce in future. The effects of the change in demographic will be sadly interesting to see, and will probably change how some families can live - childcare by grandparents being something which will alter I am sure.
Times are changing.
 
Inka said:
But wasn’t Bronowski saying that Man’s ability to do this was “brilliant” and had led to our ascent? That it was what differentiated us from other animals? I’ve heard of the programme and seen a few clips but not watched it. I thought it was about scientific achievements? Surely controlling this latest pandemic would add to those achievements? Is that not what he meant?

I don’t think many people reject science and medicine and are happy to let Nature take it’s course. If it was so, we wouldnt treat cancer, diabetes, heart disease, appendicitis, etc.

Most people also seem to be reasonably happy with lockdown and worried about the virus. Articles have talked about fears about Coronavirus and how some people will still be cautious even if lockdown stops. That’s not a small number of people IMO.

As an aside, most people “willing to accept the risks” wouldn’t be so keen if they or someone they cared about died or became seriously ill.
Click to expand...
Hi Inka,

A lot of environmentalists have said that the industrial revolution was the "worst thing to happen to our planet, with all the pollution, waste, use of resources etc which, as the years pass, more and more people are coming around to that way of thinking. Others would say "the industrial revolution was one of man's greatest achievements and a sign of man's assent".

Its a bit like man vs nature.

Which reminds of the Easter Island scenario. Man had changed the environment to suit his needs to such an extent, that they removed all trees from the island and left no living plants and they all died.

I guess there is only so far you can push nature before it pushes back.
 
Last edited:
That Easter Island scenario is still debated. The inhabitants lived long enough to make those eerie statues looking out to sea. They arrived on the island by boat. Maybe they built those statues to look over them as they sailed off to a new life.

Where are the bodies?
 
Surely it started off as 'human kind' and it was the way of humankind to want to shorten everything so it ended up as mankind.
 
Easter Island had a culture for a while but, being an island, the eco-system was fragile and that affected the population. But many of those remaining simply emigrated. It wasn’t Nature getting her own back, it was over-use of resources. If I mis-budget my food supply and run out of things to eat, then it’s my fault not Tesco getting its own back.

I feel questions of conservation and climate protection - interesting and crucial as they are - are separate from the discussion of Covid and lockdown. I don’t think many people are going to ‘let Nature take it’s course’ and refuse medical treatment if they need it or put themselves at unnecessary risk. Of course, some people might say they would, but if they got Covid and we’re seriously ill, they’d be as keen to get medical help as anyone. It’s all bluff and bravado.
 
Inka said:
Easter Island had a culture for a while but, being an island, the eco-system was fragile and that affected the population. But many of those remaining simply emigrated. It wasn’t Nature getting her own back, it was over-use of resources. If I mis-budget my food supply and run out of things to eat, then it’s my fault not Tesco getting its own back.

I feel questions of conservation and climate protection - interesting and crucial as they are - are separate from the discussion of Covid and lockdown. I don’t think many people are going to ‘let Nature take it’s course’ and refuse medical treatment if they need it or put themselves at unnecessary risk. Of course, some people might say they would, but if they got Covid and we’re seriously ill, they’d be as keen to get medical help as anyone. It’s all bluff and bravado.
Click to expand...
Hi Inka,

I wholeheartedly agree with the points you make. Of course, man will always put his needs before anything or any other creature, hence why vaccines/drugs etc are tested on animals first, so they can do the suffering for us.

Man puts man first. He seems unable or unwilling to accept that there are things bigger than himself, a bigger picture.

I read a good book last year, sapiens a history of mankind. The author makes the case that humans always put themselves first, regardless of the implications for other animals or the environment. Yuval Noah points out in his book, about for example testing on rats. Rats do have feelings, do suffer and are intelligent, sentient creatures.

I do think there is a valid point made in his book. Each to there own though. I'm not here to change anybody's mind or opinion. I'm not going to criticise or insult anyone.

Like the thread started out, there's more than one way about thinking about something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top