Allowed on boat...

[Triassic]

Sumption: What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions.

Is this not exactly what we would all like? Who can take issue with that statement?

Are we really becoming a population that requires a set of traffic lights at every junction because we are so incapable of looking both ways and deciding when it is safe to pull out that we need a green light to tell us?

Unfortunately it seems so. Be it the taxi driver who comes back from a holiday in Italy at the height of the outbreak there and then complains because nobody told him he shouldn't go straight back to work, the people who the day after the government issued guidelines on social distancing, staying at home unless essential and avoiding travel packed the tube trains as they normally do and then complained that it wasn't their fault because there were so few trains?

Are these individuals really incapable of looking at what the scientists are saying and deciding what to do for themselves?

I personally think it's a crying shame responsible individuals can't make their way safely down to their boats and enjoy self isolation in safety but it's those with a lack of personal responsibility that are dictating we can't. The sort of people who complain there isn't a set of traffic lights at every junction..........

 

[PaulRainbow]

Are we really becoming a population that requires a set of traffic lights at every junction because we are so incapable of looking both ways and deciding when it is safe to pull out that we need a green light to tell us?

Funny you should say that.

You come to cross the road at one of those crossings controlled by lights, someone has pressed the button but the little man is still red, so they all stand there, waiting. There is not a car in sight, so you calmly walk across the road, looking back they are all still standing there, programmed.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Funny you should say that.

You come to cross the road at one of those crossings controlled by lights, someone has pressed the button but the little man is still red, so they all stand there, waiting. There is not a car in sight, so you calmly walk across the road, looking back they are all still standing there, programmed.

Programmed because they have had the experience of a driver swooping down at 50 mph in a 30 zone, nearly knocked off a bike by a motorist too impatient to slow down to pass a cyclist at the recommended distance or roaring past or by a horse putting the rider in jeopardy but also considerate enough not to make a motorist stop when there is no one to cross. They might, of course be German: in their country it is an offence to cross a road at lights unless you have a green light.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

Are these individuals really incapable of looking at what the scientists are saying and deciding what to do for themselves?

Okay then, show us how this works in practice: A viral pandemic breaks out in Asia. As we've seen, different scientific experts think there are a range of options for tackling it. As none of us wants to "resign our liberty into the hands of scientists", we all studiously read up about these various options. As we have been told by Lord Sumption, this is our "right and duty" so we buckle down and "see what the scientists have said and analyse it for ourselves" before drawing "common sense conclusions".

Do you think we will all come to support the same option, or will we need to have a 65 million person meet up on Zoom and thrash out a compromise? Perhaps hold a referendum? Or will these well informed citizens all have the liberty to persue whichever approach they have deduced will be the most effective? Will those who have favoured herd immunity be allowed to roam around in contact with those who thought isolation might be better? Surely our citizens in uniform wouldn't be asked to keep the various approaches apart? Will these citizens have to provide their own medical cover from those who support their chosen strategy?

And why stop there; if it's wrong to "resign our liberty into the hands of scientists", why not other experts? Perhaps we should all have the choice of which economic experts to believe and set our own tax rates and spending regimes?

Lord Sumption says "the police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences". Well they weren't were they? They were actually trying to get people to comply with the requiements of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. These were laws passed by Parliament by our elected MPs. It might not be very clear and well written, but it is full of requirements for it to be reviewed and has a sunset clause that sees it expire if not voted to continue. Our role as citizens is to monitor this process, kick up stink if we think it's being abused (extending the Easter recess without instigating on-line PM questions?) and if we're not happy with the Government's handling of it all, chuck them out at the next election. This is totally different from the position in Hungary where the PM has used the situation to grab exclusive executive powers without anytime limit.

 

[PaulRainbow]

Programmed because they have had the experience of a driver swooping down at 50 mph in a 30 zone, nearly knocked off a bike by a motorist too impatient to slow down to pass a cyclist at the recommended distance or roaring past or by a horse putting the rider in jeopardy but also considerate enough not to make a motorist stop when there is no one to cross. They might, of course be German: in their country it is an offence to cross a road at lights unless you have a green light.

It should be possible to make a decision of when/if it's safe to cross the road. If not, wait for the little green man to tell you.

 

[ex-Gladys]

Sumption: What I say to them is I am not a scientist but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions.

I was educated as a scientist (Physicist). The problem with Sumption's statement is that "every citizen" in general cannot be bothered to examine and evaluate the underpinning data, and will only listen to the headline. I DO examine the data and draw my own conclusion, which is usually that the experts (in the case of Covid 19) are evaluating and offering well supported advice.

Most people have no clue of the use of the science of statistics on the data, hence we are getting completely inane questions from journo's about "why the death rate in Germany is lower than that in the UK". It's completely obvious. The population of the tests in each country is COMPLETELY different. The UK is only testing people who are seriously ill enough to be admitted to hospital. Germany is not(allegedly the early test were carried out on people returning from skiing holidays - therefore the population being tested would be generally "healthier" than the UK population being tested). Thus the death rate in the UK will be higher than that in Germany

It's worth noting that I have worded the paragraph immediately above very carefully to try to avoid interpretation as much as possible. The press are not as careful.

 

[Old Harry]

It should be possible to make a decision of when/if it's safe to cross the road. If not, wait for the little green man to tell you.

What gets my goat is, staying behind a cyclist, on a r/h bend, on exit they can see the road is clear BUT, wont wave you on, you have to wait until you can see its clear. 30 yrs ago a cyclist had consideration for considerate motorists

 

[Dee Bee]

Lord Sumption says "the police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences". Well they weren't were they? They were actually trying to get people to comply with the requiements of the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. These were laws passed by Parliament by our elected MPs. It might not be very clear and well written, but it is full of requirements for it to be reviewed and has a sunset clause that sees it expire if not voted to continue.

I think that you have missed the point. Sumption's point was that there are no police powers granted within the regulations cited above that prevent citizens travelling to excercise. He would not object to the police say breaking up crowds as the regulations grant the power to the police to prevent crowds of more than two assembling. On this point, he was merely stating that police should follow the law not ministerial wishes which seems to me a pretty sound viewpoint. This seems to me utterly unobjectionable and the main problem for the police is that laws passed in a hurry are usually bad laws. It rem,ains open to the government to amend the laws to give police the powers they are assuming but it is not for the police to assume them unilaterally.

 

[Triassic]

Okay then, show us how this works in practice: A viral pandemic breaks out in Asia. ......

OK, I'll keep this short, I'm sure people have just about had enough of my rants.....

We all saw the news of the outbreak of Covid-19, but it came from China and we are all a bit sceptical about anything from them. I took an interest in it because I'm married to a GP and she knew what this could mean. We watched the news and also looked behind the headlines at the supporting facts. As soon as the outbreak in Italy occurred we both knew it would get to the UK, there is just no way something like that can be contained. We immediately stopped eating out and started to treat everything outside our home as potentially infected, and anything coming in was sterilised. By the time the government announced it's guidance we were well ahead of the game and pretty much didn't have to change anything we were doing. When the legislation was passed and the restrictions became compulsory the only impact it had on me was that I stopped riding my motorcycle recreationally, and I realised I wouldn't be going sailing as early as I had hoped. That was it.

Now I confess I'm lucky to be able to adapt so easily but the facts are that if the government had done nothing then I would still have done everything I did and my life at the moment would be pretty much as it is. This is because I don't look to the government or anyone else to keep me safe, I look at the facts of life and make my own decisions.

The governments job is not to keep you safe, it is to provide you with the means that you can do so. A society exists through both common values and it's ability to integrate different views. It is everyones responsibility to contribute to that society for the common good otherwise it simply breaks down.

The government has done it's best to provide everyone with an opportunity to come through this outbreak as safely as possible, it's not been perfect, but it has put help in place. It is all of our duty to take advantage of that help and get through this as a society. This is the duty Sumption is referring to, why do you think people need to be forced to save themselves?

 

[Motor_Sailor]

. . . why do you think people need to be forced to save themselves?

I have no idea. Obviously, whilst everything sounds pretty tickety-boo in Triassic-ville, down here on planet earth it's not quite so rosy. Two weekends ago the government explained the situation and asked people not to go to pubs, not to go to work if possible, to stay at home, to maintain social distancing, with the result that millions took it as a bank holiday and congregated en-mass in the national parks, beaches, pubs and parks. Not surprisingly, two days later they made these 'requests' law including Section 6-(1) which said: "During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without a reasonable excuse." It then went on to define what a reasonable excuse might be, but sadly in such a way that it was unclear whether leaving "to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;" meant the exercise should start at the door or after driving somewhere by car. After the furore following the 'bank holiday weekend', the tightest interpretation of this sentence wasn't unreasonable, and one some Police forces understandably took.

But for Lord Sumption to single out the use of a drone to film people off walking for the day along Curber Edge as "Derbyshire police have shamed our policing traditions" is as silly as it is hyperbolic and unhelpful. Where is his outrage about the Police helicopters filming from above, the use of face recognition cameras at demonstrations, CCTV on every street corner, number plate recognition cameras in position going in and out of motorway service centres, etc, etc?

The only plausible excuse for his Lordship's disproportiate response was that he's akin to the stereotypical high court judge and lacks any grip of reality: he's heard about 'drone strikes' from the televisual newsreels, and thinks that Derbyshire Police have been raining Hellfire missiles down on these walkers from their Reaper Drones at 10,000ft.

 

[Triassic]

And your point is? I asked why you, that's you Motor Sailor, think people should be forced to save themselves.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

Well apart from in the alt-right libertarian world of Triassic-ville, name one other country where the government would say "okay everyone - a pandemic is on its way. It has the potential to kill half a million people here in the UK. Here's all the medical literature - have a good read and work out how best to behave. Good Luck".

 

[Triassic]

Well apart from in the alt-right libertarian world of Triassic-ville,........

That's the second time you've used that term, do you have an issue with how I live my life?

I appreciate I do have some things others do not, but I don't come from a particularly advantaged background, my wife and I have everything we have through our own hard work and neither of us have any particular political affiliations, either one way or another. I do acknowledge that we have used our collective knowledge and experience to see the circumstances we find ourselves in now coming a little before the majority of others but you really ought to have caught up by now.

I asked you whether you think people should be forced to save themselves because I wanted to try and understand your argument. You seem to be suggesting the general population can't be trusted to make day to day decisions concerning their safety and advocating an almost Janet and John instruction booklet be issued by the government as to how we should lead our lives? Or are you? You replied you had "No idea" when I first asked but I thought for someone who is so critical of Lord Sumption there must be some substance behind your view so gave you another chance. This time you responded with (I assume) a hypothetical question asking me to name a country that has left it's population to it.... Well that certainly isn't the UK is it? The government issued some pretty clear guidelines to the public, explaining why they were necessary and asking people to follow them. The fact that some chose to pretty much ignore them didn't really come as a surprise, I think I've explained that already earlier...., and it was followed up by some legislation, and I think I've discussed that as well.....

I believe I saw a report today that suggested around three quarters of the UK population are by and large complying with the Lockdown regulations (I think I'm supposed to put a link to sources, but can't find the original article, hopefully this will do....
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8pn01r8lcv/YouGov daily coronavirus tracker 23 Mar - 30 Mar.pdf)

I would suggest that shows what the government has done is on the whole pretty successful in getting the message across. Time of course will tell if it's the right message.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

I'm sorry I can't follow your wandering arguments. I only used 'Triassic-ville' as shorthand for your world. A world I have never criticised. And if you have managed with your GP wife to stay ahead of the curve in your decisions about all this, then that's tickety-boo.

But it is delusional to think that every household in the country could follow your example and as a nation, collectively provide an effective response to this pandemic without government input. I therefore have taken issue with Lord Sumptions claim that although "not a scientist, it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyse it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions". I would use myself as an example - I believe I have the ability to read about pandemics, but when an expert says that 'sheltering at home' is the best response, I take their word for it; there's not a snow balls chance in hell I'm going to be able to learn enough to construct a counter argument in favour of say 'herd immunity'. It's just bizarre, as is comparing it to someone deciding whether to cross the road against the the red light. Reductio ad absurdum in the extreme.

So I do believe the state has a roll in protecting it's citizens and would refute your claim that "the government's job is not to keep you safe". If that wasn't their role, then why do they maintain an army, ban drugs, impose speed limits, lock away dangerous individuals? And why did they hold Exercise Cygnus to test their preparations against a pandemic? They obviously think it's a role for them, as does every other democratic government.

Finally I have never said I wanted a Janet and John booklet about anything. If what we're doing is the best plan experts can come up with, then I'm happy to go along with the restrictions as they are, for no other reason than I know no better. If however in the fullness of time, it all proves to be completely over the top or woefully inadequate, then the reckoning will happen.

 

[Tomahawk]

The government maintains an army to look after itself ... A fact draw in into very sharp relief by the speed with which the British Army was disarmed after the end of WW2. In something like a few days the entire army handed back their weapons to the armouries.

The reason? To prevent the army from being able to mutiny with their weapons.

 

[Triassic]

As it's pretty much just you and me batting this back and forth Motor Sailor (no offence Tomahawk) I won't bother with lengthy quotes, I'm sure folk can follow this if they want to.

Implying I'm living in a different world simply because I don't agree with you isn't exactly polite is it? Nor is it delusional to expect people to be able to follow the government guidelines which is all we are doing. I simply said I appreciate it might be easier for me than some, and that even without them we would be pretty much doing the same thing. This simply demonstrates that I happen to agree with the guidelines, because I understand the need for them. Again I may have an advantage over some in that respect given our backgrounds, but it's not as if the information hasn't been freely available to the general public for some time is it and the vast majority of people out there certainly appear to have caught on.

If you are going to quote me then at least address the complete argument. I said "The governments job is not to keep you safe, it is to provide you with the means that you can do so", and I stand by that. Sure they equip an Army, but it is you and me who stand in the trenches, pull a trigger and don't come home. They set speed limits, but it is up to you and me to follow them to promote safety. Do you not see the subtle difference. The government can make as many laws as they like but they make no difference unless the population follow them. This is again an example of the "duty" that Lord Sumption is referring to. The government had provided the means for us all to stand a chance of defeating this virus but it is up to us, the population, to act and actually beat it.

If you believe it is not your responsibility to beat this virus and that it is up to the government to safeguard you no matter how stupid you choose to be then you have finally answered my question. Thank you.

 

[Old Harry]

The government maintains an army to look after itself ... A fact draw in into very sharp relief by the speed with which the British Army was disarmed after the end of WW2. In something like a few days the entire army handed back their weapons to the armouries.

The reason? To prevent the army from being able to mutiny with their weapons.

Diametrically opposed the the USA system, The citizens are armed to protect themselves FROM governments

 

[Biggles Wader]

Diametrically opposed the the USA system, The citizens are armed to protect themselves FROM governments

And look what good it does them. The citizens kill each other in huge numbers but still get Trump for government. Double fail!

 

[photodog]

As it's pretty much just you and me batting this back and forth Motor Sailor (no offence Tomahawk) I won't bother with lengthy quotes, I'm sure folk can follow this if they want to.

Implying I'm living in a different world simply because I don't agree with you isn't exactly polite is it? Nor is it delusional to expect people to be able to follow the government guidelines which is all we are doing. I simply said I appreciate it might be easier for me than some, and that even without them we would be pretty much doing the same thing. This simply demonstrates that I happen to agree with the guidelines, because I understand the need for them. Again I may have an advantage over some in that respect given our backgrounds, but it's not as if the information hasn't been freely available to the general public for some time is it and the vast majority of people out there certainly appear to have caught on.

If you are going to quote me then at least address the complete argument. I said "The governments job is not to keep you safe, it is to provide you with the means that you can do so", and I stand by that. Sure they equip an Army, but it is you and me who stand in the trenches, pull a trigger and don't come home. They set speed limits, but it is up to you and me to follow them to promote safety. Do you not see the subtle difference. The government can make as many laws as they like but they make no difference unless the population follow them. This is again an example of the "duty" that Lord Sumption is referring to. The government had provided the means for us all to stand a chance of defeating this virus but it is up to us, the population, to act and actually beat it.

If you believe it is not your responsibility to beat this virus and that it is up to the government to safeguard you no matter how stupid you choose to be then you have finally answered my question. Thank you.

your making very poor judgements around people’s ability to judge risk, by equating your ability to do so, with everyone else... and overlooking the impact of an individuals failure to do so On wider society, and thus misinterpreting the resultant responsibility of the state.

the state In a democracy Does have as its ultimate responsibility the safety of its citizens, not to protect you from yourself, but to protect others from you ... and The best way for the state to do that, is to remove from you the right to make your own judgements around risk, which is why the state enacts laws around risk.

laws are not their to protect the stupid from their own stupidity, they are their to protect the innocent.

your arguement that we can choose to follow the law or not, ignores the fact that the state can apply substantial sanctions if we choose not too... such that your ability to “take responsibility” for your own risk taking is removed.

The governments ultimate job is to keep you safe, And this isn’t about nannying you, it’s about ensuring others do not harm you... and to do that, they do restrict your responsibilities to Make decisions, and reserve that right for the state, and back that up with substantial sanctions to remove your ability to do so.

Your argument that somehow we have the right to make the decision about taking the actions to solve this problem are flawed, and you misinterpret lord Sumption... we don’t have a responsibility to safeguard ourselves , We have a Legally binding responsibility to the state, and to act within the law for the good of our fellow citizens. And in this case, the state had not made the laws such that the state could bind people too Via the use of compulsion... ie the police.

his comments in regards to “common sense” are just that, common sense, and they do not confer Or imply any particular legal rights or responsibilities of the individual, or reflect the nature of the states responsibility to the individual.

Our entire legal system is a reflection of one basic fact... people cannot judge risk such as to ensure they cause no harm.

the states very existence, is to provide a enviroment where it’s citizens can thrive, free of the risk from poor decisions by third parties.

 

[Tomahawk]

Comon sense?
Polishing my boat in a boat yard separated from the nearest person by a good number of yards carries absolute minimum risk of infecting or being infected. Ditto, lycra louts on cycles by themselves.

Riding your bike with your mates from across the town... Or gathering for a cup of tea with everyone else in the boatyard is very high risk.

Sadly because of small the moron contingent, everyine is lumped into the moron category.