Jump to content

UK politics - Dry Your Eyes Mate, ...


Lykos

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ants said:

I don't normally defend HOI, but if he was saying young people/children are more valuable and should be saved before older people, that isn't eugenics.  That's actually a pretty widely held belief.  You know, woman & children first, updated for the 21st millenia to children first? 

Yeah, I watched it. He's full of shit.

He starts off by claiming that lockdowns are proven to be ineffective (???). He says the old and the vulnerable should just isolate and let everyone else go about their business.

He says the monetary cost of lockdown is not worth it. It is also an attack on the most fundamental part of being human.

*Spocky sees a familiar theme developing*

He claims that only a tiny fraction of people are at any real risk from Covid

Then he says, “I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value.”

Gasps in the audience.

Nicky Campbell asks him to clarify.

He goes on to say that his children and grandchildren's lives are worth more than his own (and by extension, the lives of all our elders), because they have more time left. He says 'the concept of quality of life ahead is absolutely essential when measuring the value of these types of thing'.

He then confirms that this also applies to a young woman with bowel cancer.

Throughout the discussion, the word 'eugenics' is used multiple times.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just add that most of the stuff Spockydog lists above is stuff Sumption has said at various points throughout the pandemic too. I guess this program just served to consolidate them. I haven't watched it yet but all sounds pretty consistent with his publicly expressed views prior to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ants said:

It's funny; you particularly would jump on anyone using stereotypes when it comes to individuals.  It seems ones about insurance companies are just fine. 

As I said earlier, insurance companies have a well deserved reputation for fuckery and skulduggery. Having been screwed over when I was burgled in 1999, and then two years later when a lorry went into the back of my car whilst stationery at a zebra crossing, my own personal experience conforms to the stereotype.

And a corporation is not an individual.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I watched it. He's full of shit.

He starts off by claiming that lockdowns are proven to be ineffective (???). He says the old and the vulnerable should just isolate and let everyone else go about their business.

He says the monetary cost of lockdown is not worth it. It is also an attack on the most fundamental part of being human.

*Spocky sees a familiar theme developing*

He claims that only a tiny fraction of people are at any real risk from Covid

Then he says, “I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value.”

Gasps in the audience.

Nicky Campbell asks him to clarify.

He goes on to say that his children and grandchildren's lives are worth more than his own (and by extension, the lives of all our elders), because they have more time left. He says 'the concept of quality of life ahead is absolutely essential when measuring the value of these types of thing'.

He then confirms that this also applies to a young woman with bowel cancer.

Throughout the discussion, the word 'eugenics' is used multiple times.

Good on you for watching it and not making assumptions.  Helps us all out.  Certainly sounds like he's an asshole.  And if he used the word eugenics, then that is pretty much that.  I don't disagree with him that some lives are worth more, but that quality of life thing is BS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

As I said earlier, insurance companies have a well deserved reputation for fuckery and skulduggery. Having been screwed over when I was burgled in 1999, and then two years later when a lorry went into the back of my car whilst stationery at a zebra crossing, my own personal experience conforms to the stereotype.

And a corporation is not an individual.

Ah anecdotes.  Where its impossible to know whether you are totally correct, or if you misunderstood the contract you signed.  I agree corporations aren't individuals; I'm not sure why that allows them to be pasted by negative stereotypes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, ants said:

Ah anecdotes.  Where its impossible to know whether you are totally correct, or if you misunderstood the contract you signed.  I agree corporations aren't individuals; I'm not sure why that allows them to be pasted by negative stereotypes.  

Re the burglary, I can't really remember the numbers, but I do remember my fiancé being reduced to tears following our meeting with the loss adjuster.

I paid £8000 cash for a Seat Leon in 2000. The following year it was written off, and I received just £3000 to buy another car. Believe me, those numbers are fucking seared into my memory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I watched it. He's full of shit.

He starts off by claiming that lockdowns are proven to be ineffective (???). He says the old and the vulnerable should just isolate and let everyone else go about their business.

He says the monetary cost of lockdown is not worth it. It is also an attack on the most fundamental part of being human.

*Spocky sees a familiar theme developing*

He claims that only a tiny fraction of people are at any real risk from Covid

Then he says, “I don’t accept that all lives are of equal value.”

Gasps in the audience.

Nicky Campbell asks him to clarify.

He goes on to say that his children and grandchildren's lives are worth more than his own (and by extension, the lives of all our elders), because they have more time left. He says 'the concept of quality of life ahead is absolutely essential when measuring the value of these types of thing'.

He then confirms that this also applies to a young woman with bowel cancer.

Throughout the discussion, the word 'eugenics' is used multiple times.

 

 

So I’ve seen it now, and yes this is pretty much the context of the discussion. Overall I think his use of the ‘some lives are more valuable than others’ idea is pretty clumsy and doesn’t really push his argument forward at all, in fact it just turns people against him. 
 

I also think it is bizarre he should clarify Campbell at the very point he’s referring to a woman with cancer, there is no way that is going to come across well. 
 

Having said that, the context of the discussion was around Lockdowns. His argument is that lockdowns are harmful to everyone , but the disease is only harmful a vulnerable proportion of society. It’s extremely harmful to very old people, and especially to very old people who are close to dying anyway ( I’m paraphrasing him here). In this way we are sacrificing the lives of the young to save the lives of the very old and infirm.

Basically he’s saying that young people have their whole lives ahead of them and so should be considered more valuable than very old people who might only have a few months left. It sounds heartless but in this way he’s simply being pragmatic. Ants mentions the ‘women and children first’ analogy and it’s pretty much that. 

He even says his own life is worth less than his grandchildren. 

I also didn’t hear him mention eugenics. When did that happen?

So I think context matters here, I think his words seem harsh and clumsy, especially in the face of a woman with cancer, but given the context I don’t think it’s anything like ‘eugenics’ or what Spocky is insinuating. 
 

From Sumptions perspective Lockdowns don’t work ( he has evidence and I know there is evidence out there that questions the effectiveness of lockdowns, it’s a really debatable topic) and thinks we are destroying lives and killing people by continuing to lock down for so long. I do think there was an argument to be had as to whether that was the right approach when the disease is so selective about who it kills.
 

I say ‘was’ because the vaccine has changed that and I can’t see any real argument for not locking down until the vulnerable are vaccinated now. Given that it looks like the UK is almost leading the world in Vaccination speed that might not be too long, so it gives us an exit strategy at least.

I also at some point want to know why it has proven so completely impossible to protect the vulnerable. The age range of people dying hasn’t changed much over the course of this pandemic, but it’s older people who should have been shielded. It doesn’t appear to have worked. Why not? Why are there still massive outbreaks in care homes for instance. That is mind blowing to me.

Overall though, Sumption doesn’t use the ‘some lives’ argument to help himself. Even if his point is that Lockdowns are too high a price vs more targeted protection, even that argument should be about saving everyone’s lives, not letting old people die. That’s where he’s totally missing the point.  He’s a wierd old guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Sumption seems to be forgetting is that if his grandkid is hit by a car or urgently needs their appendix out, and the hospitals are overwhelmed with covid cases, they’re fucked too.

Not just bed numbers, but staff able to treat patients. As I posted last week, 12 staff (8 nurses, 2 anaethitists, 2 surgeons)  were forced to isolate for 10 days due to being exposed to a patient who tested positive the following day. This is the dept that deals with everything from the neck up (apart from ENT (ears nose throat).

So if this dept, which covers a third of Scotland, has too few staff to do its function, there goes the ability to deal with brain tumours, head injuries etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that: there is a weird tendency on the part of anti-lockdown folks to treat death, and only death, as the sole negative outcome associated with COVID-19 infection.

If younger people get sick, they may still need medical attention, and at pandemic infection rates that's going to tie up a lot of hospital space, and make the return to 'normal' life that the anti-lockdowners want effectively impossible. Attendance at workplaces, educational institutions, public events, would all be decimated anyway, as those with COVID-19 and those at high risk stay away in droves.

Not to mention the long term health impacts, which we are still discovering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-55586994
 

That’s not really true though, there is still a massive difference in the ages of people who are admitted to hospital. The graph on the above link says it all. Those in the 15-44 age range barely register as a blip and the older you get the more likely you are to have to go to hospital.

The same is true for intensive care.

The virus really does affect older groups on a completely different manner than younger ones, we’ve known that from the beginning and nothing appears to have changed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

but the disease is only harmful a vulnerable proportion of society.

So he's an idiot then. 

It's also one thing to say that younger lives are more valuable than older lives, its another thing entirely to say younger people being able to live normally for 12 months is more important than older people's lives.  

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-55586994
 

That’s not really true though, there is still a massive difference in the ages of people who are admitted to hospital. The graph on the above link says it all. Those in the 15-44 age range barely register as a blip and the older you get the more likely you are to have to go to hospital.

The same is true for intensive care.

The virus really does affect older groups on a completely different manner than younger ones, we’ve known that from the beginning and nothing appears to have changed there.

Well, unless you're just going to shoot the elderly, let them die, and not try and save them at all, then even if you let it run riot as that guy wants then the beds are gone.

And there is more and more emerging indicators that getting COVID, even for younger people not hospitalised, has long-term negative effects on your health. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ants said:

So he's an idiot then. 

It's also one thing to say that younger lives are more valuable than older lives, its another thing entirely to say younger people being able to live normally for 12 months is more important than older people's lives.  

Well, unless you're just going to shoot the elderly, let them die, and not try and save them at all, then even if you let it run riot as that guy wants then the beds are gone.

And there is more and more emerging indicators that getting COVID, even for younger people not hospitalised, has long-term negative effects on your health. 

Well that isn’t really the point he’s making ( or he should be making, I think he’s done a very bad job here) 

The point is that you focus efforts on protecting the elderly and making sure they don’t come into contact with the virus, and younger people can pretty much get on with their lives. That should in principle mean that hospitals have more than enough capacity because young people rarely become ill and older people won’t get the virus.

Unfortunately for some reason that has seems to be an impossible goal to meet. Older people are still catching the virus somehow, in a way that I still have don’t think there is a proper explanation for. Whether is a real lack of isolation, poor care in Care homes, multi generational households not able to follow guidelines. I don’t know. 
 

So instead we are locking everyone down, and still having the old people getting the virus. This for me is the one thing that is going to need a real retrospective when this is over, how did we fail to protect the vulnerable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It doesn’t appear to have worked. Why not? Why are there still massive outbreaks in care homes for instance. That is mind blowing to me.

It's probably because a lot of young people work in care homes and the test are only effective after a certain time, so it's possible for you to test negative, only to test positive 2 days later all the while being already be infectious. That's my understanding, im not an expert though.

 

On the eugenics debate. In some regions this debate is already much further, in that it has arrived in the hospitals in the form of triage. The question, whose life you're going to save always implies that there's someone who's not going to be saved because your limited ressources are cannot save both. It's a terrible choice, and to me it seems obvious that lockdown is a small price to avoid this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be worth drawing attention to this research:

Around a quarter of over-60s are not self-isolating at all if they show symptoms. Many may be unable to, of course. I'm not blaming them, necessarily. But this does help to show why the idea of simply 'walling off' the vulnerable is a nonsense. People do not work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB: This is behind a paywall, so I can't read the article itself

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/17/almost-third-recovered-covid-patients-return-hospital-five-months/

 

Okay, Metro are also covering it
https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/18/one-in-eight-recovered-covid-patients-die-within-140-days-13920415/

 

Quote

A third of people who recovered after suffering from severe Covid were readmitted to hospital within five months with complications including heart problems, diabetes and chronic liver and kidney conditions.

New research has shown the devastating long term impact of the virus with one in eight people dying within five months of diagnosis.

The University of Leicester and the Office for National Statistics found that out of 47,780 people discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4% were back in hospital within 140 days and 12.3% died.

Covid survivors were three and half times more likely to be readmitted to hospital and die compared to other conditions.

The "If you're not dead, you're fine" really is terrible mis-information. It's called "mild" if you're not hospitalised - that doesn't make "mild" in any way, shape or form, just means that you can live without needing oxygen on tap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Might be worth drawing attention to this research:

Around a quarter of over-60s are not self-isolating at all if they show symptoms. Many may be unable to, of course. I'm not blaming them, necessarily. But this does help to show why the idea of simply 'walling off' the vulnerable is a nonsense. People do not work that way.

What this really shows is that not enough effort has been spent on protecting and isolating the elderly. If they can’t isolate, then why not? Surely as a society we should be doing everything possible to make that easier for them?

If they don’t even know they need to isolate then same issue 

If they refuse to isolate, which I think might be real problem, some old people don’t want to spend their last few years locked up alone, then that is still something we need to deal with.

None of this is really an argument for locking everyone down, if anything it’s an argument for concentrating resources on protecting those people who are in genuine danger of the virus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I also didn’t hear him mention eugenics. When did that happen?

Well, if you had watched the entire discussion like I did, you would have seen him rolling his eyes and batting away accusations of eugenics several times, from different members of the panel/audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I’m not sure how an inaccurate accusation of advocating eugenics is evidence that he’s advocating eugenics.

Look, whilst he's not talking about sterilising anyone, he's basically advocating a cull of the old and sick. 

Smells like eugenics to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...