This morning.
The Seanad.
At the Special Committee Covid-19 Response, Labour TD Duncan Smith (top) had the following exchange with lockdown critic and retired UK Supreme Court judge Lord Jonathon Sumption (above).
Duncan Smith: “Lord Sumption, you’re on record as having admitted to not obeying Covid regulations when they began to reach a “level of absurdity” in your words. So, what was your threshold for what became an absurd regulation to which that you would no longer comply?”
Lord Sumption: “What I was referring to was the fact that the lockdown, the lockdown had originally been justified on the grounds that it was necessary in order to enable the intensive care capacity of the National Health Service (NHS) to catch up. And, although I disagreed with that, I thought that at least that was a serious justification which was a perfectly defensible position.
“The position was reached by the end of April, early May, when the NHS confirmed the intensive care capacity had caught up. And nonetheless, the Government, at a very critical moment decided that it would continue with the regulations. Although, on the Government’s own epidemiological, it seems very difficult to identify any legitimate purpose to it.
“It seems to me that there comes a point when the moral force of the law disappears and at that point had been reached by then. Of course, anybody who decides not to comply with the law has got to be prepared to take the consequences. But you cannot have… the reality is that coercion only works if a sufficient number of people accept the moral force of what the (UK) government is doing. And we have reached the stage in the United Kingdom where the level of acceptance, what the government is doing, is at a fairly low level.”
Smith: “Do you have a concern…but do you have a concern that when people of power or influence or privilege, of however you want to put it, decide at a certain point in their own heads that they’re not going to obey lockdown laws or regulations, that the impact that that’s going to have? And, in particular, are you concerned that whatever valid questions there are, and there are a lot in relation to the legislative framework on which the response to Covid-19 is based, that they can be subverted by elements in society that are not, have no interest in democracy, the far-right elements, conspiratorial elements, anti-health elements?
“Do you have any concern that actions such as yours and actions of others are lost and are then corrupted by those forces?”
Sumption: “Of course I do. However, I think that one has to remember that sometimes you make a decision for perfectly responsible and morally defensible grounds which other people, who are a lot less careful about [inaudible], will take advantage of. I don’t think that it is a sufficient reason for keeping silent about what I personally and what other people regard as a moral constitutional outrage.
“Sometimes you have to put up with the fact that a lot of unpleasant people might agree with you in the interests of truth and [inaudible].”
Smith: “You know, that’s your opinion in terms of being a holder of the truth there. I would disagree because we’re talking about a lockdown as something that is to be feared. And no one wants to go into lockdown. But I remember lockdown, a lot of people remember lockdown here. And it was a perfectly understandable response to a crisis that was scaring the life out of people all over the world. And a lot of people felt safe during that lockdown and it did serve to reduce the numbers.
“Now, we can’t live in lockdown forever and the challenge now for Ireland and the UK and everywhere else is to get back to some form of normality across all levels whilst living with this virus. So do you think that discussing lockdown in those fearful terms and talking about, you know, democracy being threatened and the rise of despots, do you think that’s a proportional narrative to the reality of what’s going on politically in our region or throughout the world?”
Sumption: “Yes I do. I think that the way in which we govern ourselves is a great deal more important than the way in which we react to any particular crisis because that will live with us forever whereas the way in which we respond to particular crises may be mistaken, may be misguided and the consequences will not live with us forever.
“I don’t accept your starting premise that the lockdown saves significant numbers of lives. I think that, in the long term, it will be found to have saved very few lives because [inaudible] infection rates simply rebounced afterwards. I also think that in areas like dementia, mental health and delayed diagnosis of treatments of cancer, that deaths occasioned by the lockdown may, in the end, not fall far short of the deaths occasioned by the disease.
“So my answer to your question is, in part, that I think that history will look back on this as a monument of collective hysteria and governmental folly.
“Now that’s a view that many people would reject. I take it that you would reject it. But it is a view that others hold and that I hold.”
Smith: “It is a view that I would reject. But thank you for your contribution this morning.”
Previously: Lord of Misrule
ah yes, the ‘dominic cummings’ defence, aka cartman’s ‘ah do what ah want’ spiel.
There’s no stopping it now
For this and other recent posts it looks like Bodger is straining to build a case of Government over-reach in the midst of a global pandemic.
Poor little Joe. Can’t accept other people’s opinions.
Oh Rob, now you’re just embarrassing yourself.
poor Pat, who isn’t capable of forming one on his own
I was only discussing this with herself last night.
Imagine if what we were bracing ourselves for in April came to pass.
That is; an indiscriminate deadly virus began to infect and kill thousands / tens of thousands of people all around us. Your neighbours, your friends, your partner, your children, your cat, your budgie. Even Gwyneth Paltrow. All dead. Very, very frightening.
That didn’t happen. That isn’t going to happen and yet we are still being terrorised with this phantom menace.
A colossal mistake was made and continues to be made.
Caveat: If you’re one of the 1.5 million with underlying health issues. Look after yourself because it could kill you and so could Scarlet fever or chicken pox or the flu or septicaemia or indeed any bacterial infection.
You should always look after yourself
But frank. There isn’t a pandemic of any of those things you mentioned right now is there? Only the COVID.
The question remains, what capacity does our health service have now, that it did not have prior to Covid?
The idea of lockdown was to buy time to cope with the cases presented.
I suspect our health service is just not up to the task and NPHET are well aware of that hence our lag behind the rest of Europe
Basically he was against the lockdown in any circumstances. He grudgingly accepted it so that the NHS wasn’t swamped – once there are enough hospital beds for people to die in then that was okay.
The evidence seems to show that the delay in the UK lockdown cost thousands of lives – I doubt that the deaths, injury, and distress that he believes are caused by the lockdown will, in the long run, come close to the deaths, injury, and distress caused by Covid-19. Obviously there are negative effects of a lockdown but the vast majority seem to see the sense of obeying the restrictions until a vaccine is found. If no vaccine is developed then a different strategy would need to be developed.
When I think of the difficulties and restrictions encountered by my grandparents who lived through the Emergency (including the glimmerman barging into houses) I wonder about people who seem to take the herd immunity/Dominic Cummings approach of wanting to let Covid-19 run rampant to see what happens so they are not inconvenienced.
Also as millionaire with, presumably, a large house who can afford the best healthcare presumably (despite his age) the good Lord has a better chance of surviving Covid-19 then his less fortunate contemporaries.
Supreme Court judge v Internet Edge lord Brian.
I had to look up “edge lord”. I am obviously out of touch…
‘but the vast majority seem to see the sense of obeying the restrictions until a vaccine is found’
I can only speak of my own acquaintances but I have only spoken/corresponded with one person to date who fits into that – she is waiting for a vaccine before she get back to normal. I can accept, though, that there are a lot more people who would agree. Many, but by no means the vast majority, of those who contribute to the Broadsheet discussions seem to come within, or at least close to, that bracket. A sizable number certainly do not!
However, most of the people I have discussed it with are just doing what they are told because they have to. Some have, indeed, been quite frightened by what was put out officially, particularly in the earlier days, but are becoming less and less impressed with the continuing restrictions (and the illogicalities within these) and are not at all in favour of their being continued until there is a vaccine. They want to get back to normal.
I have found people, including some in the medical field, with strong objections to everything that has happened, including lockdown, and people with objections to some measures and not others. I have also found that people are choosing which restrictions to obey and which not to obey and where they obey them and where they don’t. Even my friend who is waiting for the vaccine broke the travelling distance rules, when they were in place – though this was to go somewhere she considered ‘safer’ to walk than her quiet country road where she might meet someone.
I think Lord Sumption’s views will resonate with quite a number of people and these will certainly not all be millionaires. You don’t have to be rich to be able to make the same analysis that he has done.
“wait until a vaccine is found”.
Crikey O’Flipping Reilly.
It’s almost 20 years since SARS and there is no vaccine why do you think a vaccine for SARS Cov2 will be found??
Since the ancient Egyptians in 1550BC we have searched for a vaccine for coronaviruses. Why oh why would you think it can be done now??
Fair points. And certainly there is a difference between generally obeying the restrictions and agreeing with them. Most people are still generally obeying the rules although, as in your friend’s case, people will bend the rules at times. There is a certain element of common sense and not taking the mick – compared to the way restrictions were imposed in France (as a French friend noted you don’t have a friendly chat with a French policeman or woman – you do what they say quickly or face the consequences).
My main issue is that the alternative to deciding to end restrictions will be a potentially very large number of deaths (although I do take on board the mental health and other issues caused by lockdowns). This is a difficult balance to strike especially as it is impossible to know if the restrictions saved your friend’s life or just caused her worry and inconvenience.
Initially there was understandable fear – the reality was a deadly new virus was infecting and killing thousands of people and we knew very little about it. If you had an underlying condition (or like my 90 something grandfather) then a certain level of fear can help a person decide to take protective actions. However, long-term fear is definitely not good. I am not fearful, I obey the restrictions as best as I can, in the same way I wear a seatbelt when I’m in a car. My grandfather will die, probably after a period of intense pain, without his family to hold him, if he catches Covid-19. I can understand a higher level of worry in his circumstances. He is not afraid of dying – just of dying in a horribly preventable way.
I would agree with you that Lord Sumption’s views are definitely held by many (including my next door neighbours who I will guess are not millionaires). His views are not limited by income even if he would receive better medical care than many if he is unfortunate enough to catch the virus.
I know someone still bleaching her post and leaving them in the garage for three days pre opening…..Mad stuff.
WHY did I read post as butt?
QED