Jump to content

Interesting Covid interview


Recommended Posts

You know Asp, I gave up after a couple of minutes of that. The guy clearly has his own thoughts about how things should be done and no doubt there’ll be many that would agree with him but letting people make up their own minds in the situation we’re in is just asking for trouble. The way I see it is that we’re all in this together and it would be totally pointless for people to be making sacrifices while others are carrying on like there’s no problem. It’s a totally selfish approach typical of how so many think today.

Things are getting better and throwing caution to the wind at the last moment would be crazy. Sorry if I missed the point but there’s a limit to the amount of opinionated crap that I can listen to. We elected a government to make the hard decisions that we can’t make and they together with the best medical and scientific people we have are the ones to advise us.


Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 6:04 PM, asperity said:


What do you think?

As usual Sumption makes his arguments very clearly as one would expect from an experienced and successful Barrister. He made a number of points, indeed too many to cover. Hover his key point was that the government was using a one size fits all strategy. He made this point because he has arrived at a conclusion that people should make their own assessment of risks. He has recently suggested that the vaccinated should be freed from restrictions and has been pursuing this line in other interviews,

He further asserts that the government is not following scientific advice as laid out in the Civil Threat Analysis 2017 which mirrors the plan from the RKI in Germany.

On this subject he lacks the advice that he received in his former role from expert litigants. The lockdown absolutely did change according to vulnerability of individuals and classes of people, shielding and care home visit bans are example of exactly that. He also fails to appreciate that there is an ongoing problem in the non-vulnerable population, Neil did offer him a prompt to see this problem but Sumption failed to take it. We have found out that there are mutations that crop up regularly which can escape the antibodies produced by vaccines. The rate of mutation emergence and spread are both proportional to case numbers. Therefore the number of cases must still be controlled in the non-vulnerable population to protect the vulnerable vaccinated population. By now it is well understood that protecting the vulnerable especially the groups with incomplete vaccination is not totally possible. 

The outcome is that any person's evaluation of their risk is not the same as an evaluation of the risk that the person presents to the the vulnerable in society either directly or indirectly. That is why the government will continue to intervene until the risk of vaccine escape is low. Logically that is until 21 days after the last person in JCVI groups 1 to 9 has had a second jab. Even then if we get imports of escape variant which would fuel an increase in cases as happened after the summer holidays in 2020 there is likely to be possible intervention until the whole population has received a further jab to give protection against the variants which can escape the current vaccine. The issue again is that the risk is that be behaviour of the non-vulnerable affects the vulnerable, dealing with that problem is what government is supposed to do.

The stuff about the 2017 plan is specious, the 2017 plan is is the detail based on the behaviour of the flu virus, that is in the title. From the moment we found out that it was a Beta-Coronavirus and the transmission from Italy was faster than expected the whole flu plan was not applicable. It had different R value assumptions, its asymptomatic transmission period was different, the cells it attacked and it's symptoms made all of the analysis void. Fortunately we had a new CMO in Whitty who was actually well qualified to deal with creating a new plan for the new circumstance. 

I think Sumption is misunderstanding the evidence and I believe it is relatively clear that Andrew Neil shared that analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I wanted advice on civil liberties, then he’d certainly be the man to ask but being a former supreme court judge doesn’t make him any more qualified than me when it comes to issuing medical advice.

His focus is entirely on the rights of the individual, but he’d do well to remember these rights came about by successive generations working together against a common enemy in much the same way as we’re trying to do now with this virus. I believe there are times when the public welfare has to temporarily take priority over civil liberties and I believe that the overwhelming majority of people would share this view.


Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...