Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
QPR999 said:
Here's the transcript ...

The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.


Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A 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. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.

Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.
Click to expand...

Have to say that I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop, ELLERS, Tramore Ranger and 1 other person
QPR999 said:
Here's the transcript ...

The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it's not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It's usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated. That's what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don't pause to ask whether the action will work. They don't ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognise here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.


Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

Q At a time like this as you acknowledge , citizens do look to the state for protection, for assistance, we shouldn't be surprised then if the state takes on new powers, that is what it has been asked to do, almost demanded of it.

A Yes that is absolutely true. We should not be surprised. But we have to recognise that this is how societies become despotisms. And we also have to recognise this is a process which leads naturally to exaggeration. The symptoms of coronavirus are clearly serious for those with other significant medical conditions especially if they're old. There are exceptional cases in which young people have been struck down, which have had a lot of publicity, but the numbers are pretty small. The Italian evidence for instance suggests that only 12% of deaths is it possible to say coronavirus was the main cause of death. So yes this is serious and yes it's understandable that people cry out to the government. But the real question is : Is this serious enough to warrant putting most of our population into house imprisonment, wrecking our economy for an indefinite period, destroying businesses that honest and hardworking people have taken years to build up , saddling future generations with debt, depression, stress, heart attacks, suicides and unbelievable distress inflicted on millions of people who are not especially vulnerable and will suffer only mild symptoms or none at all, like the Health Secretary and the Prime Minister.

Q The executive, the government, is all of a sudden really rather powerful and really rather unscrutinised. Parliament is in recess, it's due to come back in late April, we're not quite sure whether it will or not, the Prime Minister is closeted away, communicating via his phone, there is not a lot in the way of scrutiny is there?

A No. Certainly there's not a lot in the way of institutional scrutiny. The Press has engaged in a fair amount of scrutiny, there has been some good and challenging journalism, but mostly the Press has, I think, echoed and indeed amplified the general panic.

Q The restrictions in movement have also changed the relationship between the police and those whose, in name, they serve. The police are naming and shaming citizens for travelling at what they see as the wrong time or driving to the wrong place. Does that set alarm bells ringing for you, as a former senior member of the judiciary?

A Well, I have to say, it does. I mean, the tradition of policing in this country is that policemen are citizens in uniform. They are not members of a disciplined hierarchy operating just at the government's command. Yet in some parts of the country the police have been trying to stop people from doing things like travelling to take exercise in the open country which are not contrary to the regulations, simply because ministers have said that they would prefer us not to. The police have no power to enforce ministers' preferences, but only legal regulations which don't go anything like as far as the government's guidance. I have to say that the behaviour of the Derbyshire police in trying to shame people into using their undoubted right to take exercise in the country and wrecking beauty spots in the Fells so that people don't want to go there, is frankly disgraceful.

This is what a police state is like. It's a state in which the government can issue orders or express preferences with no legal authority and the police will enforce ministers' wishes. I have to say that most police forces have behaved in a thoroughly sensible and moderate fashion. Derbyshire Police have shamed our policing traditions. There is a natural tendency of course, and a strong temptation for the police to lose sight of their real functions and turn themselves from citizens in uniform into glorified school prefects. I think it's really sad that the Derbyshire Police have failed to resist that.

Q There will be people listening who admire your legal wisdom but will also say, well, he's not an epidemiologist, he doesn't know how disease spreads, he doesn't understand the risks to the health service if this thing gets out of control. What do you say to them?

A 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. We are all perfectly capable of doing that and there's no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties and it's rather important, in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them.

Q Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, speaking to me earlier.
Click to expand...
See my response to Woody for my irrational issues with anything this bloke has to say, which makes it impossible for me to be objective about his opinions. Though I am relieved that nowadays he thinks we all have the critical faculties to draw conclusions from science, as he certainly didn’t used to.
As I said to Woody this blind spot my problem.
Woodyhoopleson said:
We were just discussing his words and thoughts over dinner. I read your post out and you got a yay from my daughter.

Didn’t know that, cheers.
Click to expand...
I am genuinely flattered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop, Tramore Ranger and QPR999
Staines R's said:
Thanks mate.....first job done...elderly faller....nice easy start to the shift.
Click to expand...

Do you know if there's an age defining point where instead of someone simply ... falling or fell over to they've had a fall?

For example ... Jim was six sheets to the wind last night and fell over and broke his collarbone on his way home from the boozer.

Poor old Mary at number one has been taken into hospital. She had a fall last night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tramore Ranger, sb_73 and Staines R's
QPR999 said:
Do you know if there's an age defining point where instead of someone simply ... falling or fell over to they've had a fall?

For example ... Jim was six sheets to the wind last night and fell over and broke his collarbone on his way home from the boozer.

Poor old Mary at number one has been taken into hospital. She had a fall last night.
Click to expand...

Never thought of it like that 9’s.....now I’m gonna be pondering on it all night now. At the moment I’m erring on the side of that they are they same thing whatever age....but could change the later it gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tramore Ranger and QPR999
QPR999 said:
Do you know if there's an age defining point where instead of someone simply ... falling or fell over to they've had a fall?

For example ... Jim was six sheets to the wind last night and fell over and broke his collarbone on his way home from the boozer.

Poor old Mary at number one has been taken into hospital. She had a fall last night.
Click to expand...

When you reach a certain age ie old you'll know the difference ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR999 and Staines R's
Stroller said:
That's what many people are asking themselves. I doubt that it is.


So do I.
Click to expand...
Well, I think this viewpoint is getting a hefty amount of airtime. If Sumption is right that the government was scared by public outcry into acting the way it did, presumably a lot of noise in the other direction can scare it back
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
sb_73 said:
Well, I think this viewpoint is getting a hefty amount of airtime. If Sumption is right that the government was scared by public outcry into acting the way it did, presumably a lot of noise in the other direction can scare it back
Click to expand...

Their preferred option is pretty terrifying IMO.
 
West WindsR said:
Their preferred option is pretty terrifying IMO.
Click to expand...
From one perspective yes. From another it makes perfect sense.

I have no idea what I would do if I were making the decisions (unless of course Johnson et al have access to data that hasn’t been shared with the rest of us). I can critique arguments and the people who make them until the cows come home, but it doesn’t really help. My job isn’t at risk, I’m still getting paid, I have no right to criticise or contradict people who can see their future going down the pan, or who are unsure how they are going to eat next week. Especially when I read that you are expected to burn what savings you have before the government will support you, even though it is the government which has made it impossible for you to support yourself. Similarly, although I have an elderly (healthy) Mum, I don’t have the same fear for vulnerable loved ones as others do, and it would be insensitive in the extreme to downplay these concerns.

In short I’m a ****ing chocolate fire guard.

The only thing I am sure of is that we need to be throwing resource at the NHS and other care workers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, rangercol, QPR999 and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back