It struck me over the weekend just how brutal our society is becoming. Take this tweet, and the video to which it refers, as an example:
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 valuableâ€. This is the figurehead of anti-lockdown movement - comes across as inhumane, almost grotesque pic.twitter.com/PfTz0WZvYW
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) January 17, 2021
It is fairly staggering for someone to say, quite blatantly, that some lives are ‘less valuable', and even more so to the face of a person they are describing as such.
Saying that, I am not naive. I am aware that decisions are made on a routine basis that take into account the value of life. For example, decisions on whether to address accident black spots are taken on the basis of the likely risk to be eliminated, with the value of life being factored in. But the point in that case is that the life considered to be saved is generic: the risk is across the population as a whole. The risk being appraised is not of a particular life. It is a random life. Like many, I feel uncomfortable with such economic reasoning, but it is a fundamentally different approach to the basis of decision making to which Lord Sumption, an arch anti-lockdown campaigner, refers. He is suggesting particular lives are of lesser worth. I profoundly disagree.
The objection to lockdown campaigners is not from the left alone, either. This Tweet is from Neil O'Brien, who is a Tory MP:
The below is wrong at several levels. In England and Wales, 65,000 aged 65+ have died with it, plus over 7,400 working age people. Many had prior medical conditions, but we don't hold their lives to be valueless because Britain isn't a fascist state. https://t.co/ZLCoPhv2g8
— Neil O'Brien MP (@NeilDotObrien) December 26, 2020
O'Brien is right to challenge the facts. He was also right to challenge, as he did in comments later in the thread, the claim that ‘prior medical conditions' were a factor to take into account. Included in their number were asthma and mental health conditions. I gather high blood pressure and cholesterol also count. These things are very far from uncommon in the population as a whole, and the last two most especially in those over 50. But those making such claims do not make that clear.
Instead they offer what appears to be a profoundly eugenic view of life. There is a ‘pure' form, blessed upon some of the young and economically active, plus those (maybe) of good fortune amongst the more elderly (where ‘fortune' might very well have an economic overtone), and then there are the rest, who are in this world view of marginal value, as Lord Sumption explicitly suggested.
The kindest description I saw yesterday of Sumption's comment was that it was a naive, school debating society, form of utilitarianism. I would add that it is one from which the very essence of empathy has been removed to justify a callous economic ethic of indifference. O'Brien got it right. The implication that there is lower life has deep political connotation to it, with profoundly uncomfortable overtones to it.
There is in Sumption's claim, the essence of the Great Barrington Declaration. It too assumed that lives could be divided between those worth saving or not. Those not worth saving were to be removed from Covid infected society, to be locked away from view for the duration of the pandemic, so that those of pure form might continue life unhindered by those of lesser worth, even if they happened to be their parents, siblings or even offspring. The assumption was that the ‘pure' would be happy with this, and would indifferently wait to see who if the impure might make it through to the end when the goal of herd immunity had been achieved, when the survivors amongst the impure might be welcomed back, like the survivors of The Hunger Games.
The ethic implicit in these claims is profoundly unacceptable, but the likes of Sumption and Toby Young, plus some media presenters, feel able to make them. They represent a worldview that is not just indifferent to many, but that is a profound threat to large numbers of people. And that threat only grows. There is, of course, truth in the progression that starts ‘first they came for....'. That progression can start with claims like these at present.
We totter on the brink of extremism at present. Covid has presented an opportunity to those of such views that they seek to exploit. The universal right to be treated equally has to be proclaimed again, and again, without fear. There are no such things as ‘less valuable' lives. Sumption is wrong. His worldview takes us in a very dangerous direction. It has to be called out. O'Brien did that. So do I. We cannot tolerate views that suggest we live in a fascist society.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But the old and vulnerable are getting the vaccine first so their lives and well being are being prioritised..also thank god we were able to get the vaccine early and weren’t held up by EU bureaucracy…so the Govt isn’t the one on the brink of extremism..
The EU delayed nothing
Please do not peddle utter nonsense here
“The EU delayed nothing.Please do not peddle utter nonsense here”
Err.. the evidence is blindingly obvious
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/06/eu-approves-moderna-vaccine-tensions-slow-rollout
You mean they did the job properly rather than play politics, requiring a few more days in the process?
Please grow up
You’re joking right?
It’s a huge scandal that the EU decided that that there should be a joint vaccination strategy, which delayed the authorization of certain vaccines and meant that the EU was in charge of purchasing. Which meant they didn’t order enough, what they did order they ordered too late and because of EU political machinations ordered a lot of vaccine from Sanofi which won’t be ready for a very long time.
This is all well publicized. Or how else do you explain that the UK has managed to vaccinate more people than the rest of the EU put together, and the EU vaccination program has been a total failure?
It is forcing EU countries to buy their vaccines on the side – which the EU are now trying to take them to court for breaking EU solidarity rules for doing – just to show how much the EU actually cares about its citizens.
The EU delay was days
The vaccinations have been ordered in bulk and at lower price than to the UK
And the EU is actually vaccinating – our policy is single does which is not proven to vaccinate at all
So they are vaccinating and we are doing politics
I know which option I would prefer
The EU have still only authorized the Morderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines, and they did it much slower than the UK.
They have ordered 2 billion vaccines in total, but only 700m of the ones they have approved – and are low down in the delivery queue because they spent so long haggling over price. And there I thought you were saying you can’t put a price on lives – yet the EU clearly have.
Of that 2 billion over half of the vaccine they have ordered hasn’t got close to passing clinical trials yet. SO won’t be available till the end of the year at best.
The UK has given 6.4m vaccines as of yesterday. The whole of the EU has managed 4.8m. And that includes vaccines bought outside the EU program.
The UK is delaying the second dose for lower risk groups, because the first dose in roughly 90% effective, rather than 94% effective. Over 80s are are already receiving second doses here. The EU hasn’t even got started on their second doses yet.
The EU has made a disastrous mess of the whole thing, and it is literally costing people their lives. Yet for some reason you are trying to claim that the EU is doing a better job than the UK. Why, because you love the EU and hate the Tories? You have to be willfully blind, plain stupid or some sort of weird hypocritical propagandist to think that what you are saying is true.
Let’s be clear why they have not done AstraZenecca – it is because the research on it was flawed and revisions are not yet complete
And you think saying so is wrong?
I am deeply worried about its use because it ahs not been proven to be efficacious as yet
But you think that roe important than jabs in arms
How wrong you are
Just stick to the facts. They make my case
Oh, and we approved Moderna in the last few days as well and they approved Pfizer days after us, so politely, stop being crass
And stop lying too: over 80s are getting second does when GPs ignore government instructions not to deliver them
And your research data is wrong
Nut most of all – you’re lying about UK doses because the UK will not release the data on vaccinations (double dose make a vaccination)
Ok so be clear. You are entirely supportive of the EU’s record on procurement and rollout of the vaccine.. I find that astonishing as the member states are up in arms.. also why concern yourself with cost when people’s lives are at risk.. and don’t you say everything is political?..all of this tells us you are dogmatic and blinkered in your support of the EU regardless of the evidence
I am quite sure the EU could do better
But at least there is an epidemiological reason for what they are doing
We are gambling politically instead
I make clear, ours is the deeply flawed policy. That is objective appraisal and nothing to do with EU sentiment
The US would side with the EU, and has, even under Trump
I applaud the speed of the UK regulator in approving the vaccines – possible of course under the EU regulations anyway, although I remain concerned about what corners might have been cut to get us there quicker than everyone else. I am particularly concerned about the risks involve in the UK rolling out a vaccination regimen (two doses separated by months) that was never tested. It would be unfortunate if the proven 90% effective vaccine turned out to be much less effective in practice because of the way it is used (perhaps many people will think they have vaccine protection from the first vaccination shot won’t, or perhaps it wears off quicker than expected because the second shot is delayed: much like the problems with the (mis)use of the lateral flow test with its many false negatives). More unfortunate if the partial vaccination programme encourages the virus to mutate in a way that defeats the vaccine. Perhaps the vaccine can be tweaked to catch up, just like the flu vaccine, but that will involve another delay of months. Meanwhile thousands more will be infected. Perhaps they won’t die but who knows what the long term health impacts will be.
Other EU countries could have done the same but decided to wait together for the EMA (which used to be based in the UK, of course, but moved hundreds of staff to Amsterdam in 2019). They got there a few days later. And now it is all about production and distribution. How much is produced in the UK and how much in the EU? We have bought millions of doses, and so has the EU, but the production facilities are limited. When will they arrive, and who will get them first?
While we crow about the success of our vaccination programme (so far, 3.8 million first doses in 6 weeks, about 6% of the population; but only 0.5 million second doses) we are still in the midst of a third national lockdown and a second peak which is demonstrably worse than the first one, with over 1,000 a deaths day.
Remind me: how is our test, track and trace system doing? We have needed that throughout, and will still need until almost everyone is vaccinated, assuming a level of “community immunity” even exists. In the last week of December, the last statistics available, 85% of those testing positive were referred to contact tracing; of them 85% were reached (so that is 72% of the positive tests); and of them, 90% of their identified contacts were reached. So about 2/3.
Initial tests suggest that delay in the second does for a bit longer than 21 days may be OK in the under 80s
Above that age, the evidence is that in 21 days antibodies have not been created
In other words, the delay renders the effect null and void
And they are the ones getting it right now
Both my 80+ year old parents have had their second jabs. Nothing to do with the GPs. The UK just happens to be the most efficient in Europe to be rolling out the vaccine.
No vaccine is 100 effective, and the A has been shown to be more effective than most, even without the second jab. The AZ vaccine is 90% effective on a single dose, which is almost as good as the 94% with the second jab. EU countries are doing exactly the same thing by the way – just not bothering with the second jab at all because they are so far behind and so short of vaccine thanks to the EUs wondrous bureaucratic might.
I will just say this to make it very clear. Nobody in the EU is getting their second jabs at the moment. None. Zero.
But it seems the EU didn’t want to use the AZ vaccine is because it was developed in the UK, and the EU made a political decision to focus on vaccines developed in the EU. Like the Sanofi one, which isn’t close to working yet.
As for vaccine statistics:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
The UK total is now 2 days out of date.
Stop being a shill and face reality – the UK is doing far better on this than the EU and it is the EU itself which has been the cause of much of the issue in Europe with respect to vaccine supply.
With respect – this is just political rhetoric and has nothing to do with the facts.
The comments on AZ show that.
And the reason why there are no second jabs in the EU is that there aren’t 21 days elapsed as yet for that to happen.
Please don’t call again
Some sources, please, for the contention that any of the current vaccines are 90%+ effective on a single dose. Who conducted the trials on single dose vaccines and when? How many people were in those trials? Over what period are you measuring “effectiveness”? How long does it take for immunity to develop after the shot, and how long it last once it has?
I’ve see numbers of around 50% to 60% quoted for both Pfizer and O/AZ – for example, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210114-covid-19-how-effective-is-a-single-vaccine-dose
The evidence presented for the approval for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was that it was 62% effective for two doses (which to be fair is pretty good, compared to for example a flu vaccine, but this novel coronavirus is at least ten times worse than flu: even if the vaccines give a fair protection against infection and then against severe acute symptoms, we won’t know enough about how infectious people might be and what the long term implications might be).
I saw a study yesterday, but the result was not 90%. Rather it was on whether effective after 21 days.
I will go back and look
So far its the only trial there is
RThe sample was small but the outcome troubling
Try here https://twitter.com/GuptaR_lab/status/1350131626240598019?s=03
This is what I referred to
Crumbs, small numbers (23 in the study, 8 aged under 80 and 15 over 80) but that is both rather comforting (all of those aged under 80 showed an antibody response three weeks after the first Pfizer dose, consistent with the 90%+ claim) and rather worrying (half of those aged 80 or more showed no response, consistent with a 50% claim). Blended, it is about 70%. It would be interesting to see results say 6, 9 and 12 weeks after the first dose.
It would be unfortunate if the vaccine was relatively unsuccessful with the very people it is supposed to protect, but worked well with those less in need of the protection. Those assuming they are protected by the vaccine after three weeks may have a very unpleasant surprise.
Indeed….
And this morning has another worrying study
The uk approval is an emergency one, if you wish to suggest that the EU delayed its emergency approval for too long, you also argue that the UK delayed its emergency approval for too long, why didn’t we roll out even sooner?
The reality is that these vaccines have been produced much faster than ever before and everyone who receives them is benefitting from a short circuited temporary approval process, whichever country you live in.
It seems clear that, in the minds of our apparently ‘ruling elite’ that some are most definitely more equal than others. The criteria by which judgements are made are, however, obscure.
As a related aside, may I ask if I am alone in finding the common use of the phrase “herd immunity” in relation to human society both distasteful and degrading?
I find it repugnant
It belongs in veterinary medicine
Thanks for articulating my views on the matter of Lord Sumption. I feel it is also another sign that liberalism, from a philosophical point of view no longer dominates the politics of the British Establishment. I am surprised that those who hold with liberal values are not fighting tooth and nail for their values. Perhaps it is because they have coded business elites as part of the meritocracy, rather than as oligarchs holding much the same position of aristocrats in the past.
Life is full of “trade offs” and it is inevitable that there will be disagreements but a few thoughts occur to me.
First, Lord Sumption, Toby Young et al. imply that the curtailment of freedoms by lockdown rules are such an important point of principle that getting rid of them trumps everything else. In truth, for some, they are inconvenient but not a disaster; for others that really ARE suffering hardship it is not about the theoretical issues of freedom but about economics. In short, if you deliver a good economic support mechanism then nearly everyone would embrace lockdown to save lives; very few would wish to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their friends and neighbours on this “freedom” issue.
Second, the idea that there is a trade-off between economy and health has been proved wrong. When Boris articulated the balancing act between physical and economic health he was right……. but, oh so wrong. Right in the sense that there is a balance but wrong in that the balance maximised damage to BOTH physical and economic health. Only countries that have controlled the disease have had economic recovery.
Third, to be fair to Lord Sumption, there are a lot of complicated issues related to how we deal with death – issues that we, as a society have avoided. I suspect he and I would disagree but all I would say is that, whatever the merits of his views, he chose the wrong time and place (during a pandemic on a TV debate) to raise sensitive issues.
I completely agree with you, Richard.
I’d add that ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ style thinking extends to the environment, thus hindering efforts to reverse climate change, and save the planet from another mass extinction event.
The marginally hopeful aspect of this, Richard, is that Neil O’Brien is the new co-chair of the Conservative Party’s Policy Board, so he may have some influence, though people are quick to point out that this is separate from the Downing St Policy Board. Saying that, he was the former director of the Policy Exchange and a SpAd to George Osborne. This rebuttal augurs well, though.
Lord Sumption makes too many ASS – sumptions.
Yes! He’s an ass! That’s what I’m getting at if I may.
I too find the thinking behind this anti-social. Some of us think that it is worth destroying life and habitats to get at minerals and oil in order to make money. We find that easy because as Mark Carney has pointed out, we never bothered to value habitat it as it is in monetary terms before we change it for ever and for the worse.
Some are happy to let people die to save money and allocate savings to those who might live longer on the false basis that money is in short supply (only because it is being held back on purpose).
I find too many people having pride in their so-called ‘rationality’ in these matters – it’s cool to be detached and ‘objective’ . Randian ‘objectivity’ like this is far from objective as we know because as she said herself, man’s only objective is to his own self interest – not others. How can such an abuse of language exist calling that philosophy ‘objectivism’? The arrogance!!
Obviously ASS-sumption just wants to corner all the health care resources for himself and his family or those he considers worthy.
This thinking flies in the face of human history BTW which Rand, von Hayek and Buchanan chose to re-write. We are probably the most successful mammal on the planet because we also do know how to stick together and work together (yes, we know how to kill each other too unfortunately and f**k each other over but we are a complex being).
Too many politicians forget our complexity as a species and over simplify us into false choices and consciousnesses that enable us to choose death over life, and if not that, suffering (or both).
No wonder politics and politicians are thought of as so low. Rightly so in my opinion. How can we reform such a bleak vision of politics?
BTW – I note my mate Paul Embery opening appearing again on Twitter. I’m reading his book ‘Despised’ that apparently some in Labour think would be a good basis for future policy. Hmmm……..I’ve not finished it yet but I have a number of concerns.
One wonders how Lord Sumption became a high court judge if he shows such partiallty about the value of different people’s lives. Where is the equality before the law if he holds such blatantly anti-humane views?
The one with the greatest chance of surviving the operation
Age is only one of the factors involved in that
If you are not aware of that fact, don’t ask the question
I have been married to a doctor for more than 20 years
I know what triage is
I know that it involves an appraisal of multiple co-morbidities
Your question focussed on one variable, which was an insufficient basis for the decision to be made
My answer was in that case 100% the right one and yours was that of a person who did not even appreciate what they were asking
The right answer was clearly if the co-morbidities in the older person were higher all other things being equal the younger person would get it
But actually you ignored the real answer – which was that there might be a better recipient on the list than these two.
If you have demonstrated your decision-making abilities with that question and you really are a doctor, heaven help your patients because you are really very, very bad at it.
I suggest you start to think
So now you disclose that the question was rigged by you
I now suggest you’re not just a terrible decision-maker, you’re also a charlatan for not disclosing information
Again, I make the point that I really hope you are not a doctor because your ethics stink
I really don’t give a flying one what Richard’s job title is. Who cares? And it’s not the subject of this discussion (or at least it damn well shouldn’t be).
Rajiev’s position is flawed, and fatally so. The ethical proposition appears to be “is one life worth less or more than another”. Rajiev introduces a scenario involving an organ transplant and then holds that a value judgement must be made on the lives of the potential recipients in order to decide. This is, of course, utter and complete bullshit. The judgement is absolutely NOTHING to do with the value of the patient’s lives. It is quite obviously a judgement on the likely success of the operation and its longer term effects – so it’s a judgment on the value of the kidney. Now, clearly, if on patient was someone who, for one reason or another was likely to survive only 6 months post op (Rajiev fixates on age here, but there are many reasons why that might be the case), and another was likely to live another 30 years (say), then on that basis alone it would seem the correct decision to offer the organ to the second patient. However this is NOT because their life is worth less that the first patient, not by ANY metric. It is simply on the basis of the best use of the resources available. Getting 6 months out of a kidney when you could have got 30 years out of it would be a poor decision under almost any circumstances. But that’s a judgement on the value of the kidney, not the recipient patient.
It’s not even a fine distinction. It’s medical economics, as opposed to the kind of nonsense spouted by Rajiev who, whether (s)he likes to admit it or not, seems to uphold the basic tenets of Eugenics. And Rajiev, God help us all, is a doctor.
Rajiev is also presenting a straw man. There is not simply one vaccine and two patients. The scenario (s)he presents bears no resemblance whatsoever to the current situation. People who present a straw man usually do so to score some kind of point over their debating opponent rather than resolveing the proposition. In this case, Rajiev’s entire purpose seems to have been to dispute Richard’s academic credentials – something which Rajiev brought up, by the way, NOT Richard – and possibly to excuse eugenic thinking by implying that we all secretly hold the view that each life is worth more or less than another, don’t we? So really, what’s so wrong with using that as the basis for policy?
Like I said at the top of the post, I don’t care at all what Richard’s job title is. Arguing about it does nothing other than serve intellectual snobbery. If I say 2+2=4, the fact that I’m not a maths teacher doesn’t mean I’m not correct. If you pay more attention to the clothes than the man, then frankly I have little respect for you. Try listening to what is actually being said rather than fixating on who is saying it and you might actually start to grow a bit.
As for the second thing (the excusing of eugenic thinking)… newsflash, Rajiev. I don’t think like that… nor does anyone I know whom I would call a friend. Not only is it offensive on every single level to rank one’s fellows like cattle against whatever arbitrary metric you’re using to define “worth” (whatever the hell that means), but it’s intellectually lazy. But then with you, I’m seeing a pattern forming.
So, and I’m going to say this as politely as I possibly can… take your inhumane eugenicist views, shove them up your arse and fuck off back under your stone, you nauseating little Nazi prick.
Thanks
I discussed this with a doctor
They laughed at Rajeev’s logic
Lord Sumption was never a High Court judge. He was appointed direct from private practice as a very successful barrister to the Supreme Court in 2012 (the last time that happened, with the House of Lords judicial committee, was in 1948 and 1949 I believe). I defer to the judgment of others, but I think his relatively short judicial career was reasonably successful too.
He was a deputy (that is, part time, junior) High Court judge from 1992, but as he never served as a full time trial judge on the High Court, or in the Court of Appeal, he does not seem to have been encultured to keep his political views to himself, and we can see him now for the right-wing libertarian that he is. He is a clever guy, but seems to be somewhat lacking in empathy and discretion. (Imagine, telling a person with terminal cancer, to their face, that they have “less value” than others – than him presumably: there is something to be said for intellectual rigour but it is very cold and unfeeling. I wonder if he will decline medical care when his time comes, when a few more weeks or months of his life has no further value.)
All I’ll say on the “greater value” point is that we like to say that all lives have equal value, but we don’t act that way. If we did, the QALY would play no role in determining who gets what healthcare, and poverty and deprivation would not exist. As the doctor pointed out above, decisions are made all the time about who gets treatment and who doesn’t, and uncomfortable as it might be that necessarily means a judgement as to “value”.
Most of us fall far short of loving our neighbour as ourself (let alone loving people that we never see or hear as our friends and family).
Is it just impossible for you to admit that the EU have totally screwed up, and the UK Conservative government have done a good job?
No
They haven’t
The Tories are screwing up
Have you noticed the deaths? Please stop making wholly false claims
It is maybe the case that very few have dealt with Covid 100 per cent effectively even in mainland Europe (but there’s examples out there of good practice by countries).
However, here in the UK we simply haven’t dealt with it very well. Not only have we had people in denial (Johnson early last year), but people who should know better breaking the rules (Cummings) and setting a bad example. And what about that ‘protective ring’ put around care homes that never ever really was?
We came out of lock down too early and even encouraged people to go out and eat to support businesses BEFORE there was a vaccine. Since then, we’ve decided to enact a load of responsive lockdowns (just waiting for things to get worse rather than being pro-active – oh so intelligent!). And confusion has reigned.
And then, like some eager to please, desperate to be loved boss, there was the debacle of Christmas itself and Boris wanting to be Santa Claus. And now we have a lockdown without daring to call it one. And have thought it OK to send kids to school without vaccinating the sodding teachers or hospital staff who are meant to look after us.
And all of this without even mentioning the appalling response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the way it has made people and business suffer by not supporting them financially.
The other thing is this: we have been in a very leaky lockdown/covid crisis – particularly at airports and air travel. Securing our borders? Really? It’s our lax rules at airports that I’d like some information on as I’m sure air travel has been a major area of infection nationally and god forbid internationally.
Nathan the EU may have cocked up – gloat if you will. But you and I don’t live in the EU anymore – others have taken that status off us.
So all I’m interested in is what has been cracking off here? And it all happened if you remember in 2020 you know!
And its not been very good to my eyes. And I want the Government made fully accountable. That’s what I want. Because it’s happened on their watch – no one else’s!
In all that long argument, nobody raised the possibility of worth in other categories. Here are a few off the top of my head; IQ, affability, education, experience capable of benefitting the community, specific expertise, respectability.
I shall be 80 in June, if I live so long. My life is valuable to my wife – because of my pension 😉 . It is of little real value now.
Of course different people have different “values”. It is glaringly obvious!
Just hope that you are not the one having to make a decision on whom not to save.
UK Covid deaths are more numerous per capita than those in the USA – and we have all been very critical of Trumps Covid performance.
I’m not surprised Lord Sumption thinks it, but I am surprised he said it!!!!!!
Is it a commonly held view by his socioeconomic group?
Enlightening 🙂