Lord Sumption has written an impressive piece in the Telegraph criticising the Government’s application of the so-called “precautionary principle” (assuming the worst when there is little evidence) and highlighting that the extreme measures taken in the hope of reducing the Covid death toll should have been based on “good reasons backed by evidence” which they weren’t, obviously.
The “sunk cost fallacy” is a well-known source of distortion in human decision-making. A decision is made which has destructive implications. The limited benefits and immense collateral damage gradually become apparent.
It is next to impossible for those involved in the decision to change their minds. No one wants to admit that it might all have been for nothing, even if that is the truth. They have invested too much in the decision to reverse out of the cul-de-sac. So they press on, more to avoid blame than to serve the public interest. This is what has happened to governments across Europe and to the dug-in body of specialists who advise them. Their recipe is simple: if lockdowns haven’t worked, there is nothing wrong with the concept. We just need more of them.
The former Supreme Court judge points to the “Overview of the Evidence” published by the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART) last week, which he thinks is an impressive document. “We cannot contribute to the science, but we can at least understand it,” he writes. “Those who are unwilling to do even that much have no moral right to demand coercive measures against their fellow citizens.”
The HART overview concludes that lockdowns “must never be repeated”. They “serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms“. It calls for a return to the pandemic plans prepared over a decade for just this sort of event by the UK and other governments and endorsed by the WHO. They were based on two principles. Avoid coercion and don’t go for one size-fits-all measures like lockdowns when the risks affect different groups differently. They recommended balanced public health guidance, no border closures and targeted action to assist those who are most vulnerable. These principles were abruptly jettisoned a year ago. They were replaced by an untried experiment, which there was neither time nor research to consider properly.
Lord Sumption says that the HART paper covers three core points which the proponents of lockdowns have never been able to answer. These are: the availability of international comparisons which show no relationship between the stringency of lockdown and the level of Covid infections or deaths; the unwillingness of governments to confront the collateral costs of locking down; and the fact that the burden of the lockdown has fallen mainly on those who are the least vulnerable to COVID-19.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“calls for a return to the pandemic plans prepared over a decade for just this sort of event by the UK and other governments and endorsed by the WHO”
in a nutshell
There is another issue I have been considering
For most people this is a mild disease. For a small proportion of the population it is quite dangerous. Many within that small population also don’t want restrictions – they will take their own measures, accept the risk or they don’t see why their grandkids should suffer to ‘protect’ them. Another cohort of vulnerable people do want society wide restrictions. I don’t care about those peoples’ rights in the same way they don’t care about mine. I regard those people as dangerous extremists and have no sympathy at all with them.
“For a small proportion of the population it is quite dangerous.”
I would revise that : “For a small and vulnerable proportion of the population, there is a moderate – somewhat higher – risk of it proving fatal. It should be noted, however, that this is no higher than the risks to that group from many other causes – and the mean age of Covid victims is actually higher than that for the population as a whole. “
The point is – we are not in Ebola territory.
Couldn’t resist commenting on this as I had read it in Telegraph.
HART is a mixed bunch, not that I disagree with their conclusions, but Sumption should have picked a better ‘hook’.
But my real reason for commenting is to draw attention to the comment section on the article, all 1,000 or so of them. There you can read the success of the governments policy of divide and conquer. The chasm between opposing views is getting deeper and wider as each day goes by. It reflects the same sort of divide created by Trump/Democrat in the US. ‘libertarian’ versus ‘totalitarian’. Individuals might paint it differently for their position, but in the round that is where the divide lies. ‘individual versus stateist’ is another description. And through this divide rides the new capitalists, the resource-constrained biotech fascist totalitarians, who are putting in place the means to rule and plunder for the foreseable future across the anglosphere.
Its mainly the reaction to this obvious policy that really annoys me about this site. You have to be on one side or the other, straddling it by being against lockdowns but not against state enforced vaccinations leaves you castrated.
You are saying that you are in favour of enforced vaccinations. How would you do that exactly? Are you going to tie us all down and jab us?
I think peyrole was saying the opposite.
… and I haven’t actually come across any examples of those who are against lockdowns but in favour of enforced or coerced vaccination, even if some think that vaccination might be a worthwhile compromise.
the editors of this site, for instance, or at the very least they are not exactly voluminous in their opposition to existing UK government vaccine policy.
Actually Toby Young said this: “If you’ve been vaccinated or had the disease, why should you not travel?” He may have mis-spoken, but that means the vaccinated or those with natural immunity should be allowed to travel abroad while the unvaccinated stay at home. That is the definition of coercion. Very disappointing from the founder of this website. Sadly many, many people who claim to be against lockdowns continue to spread the lie that with foreign travel covid 19 is ‘a bit like yellow fever’ so it’s OK to have to take a jab to travel.
so do I
“HART is a mixed bunch“
Specifics of that as an objection, rather than as a compliment?
The key strength is that they are a ‘mixed bunch’ – unlike SAGE which is a peculiar, unrepresentative bunch of essentially poor scientists (I distinguish between an aptitude in a narrow discipline and a convincing grasp of essential scientific logic), over-weighted towards mathematical modellers ad compromised pole-climbers who strive to fit data to wild preconceptions.
In the snobbish land of ‘show me your qualifications,publications, positions of authority held’ etc etc they are not exactly over abundant. Which means they are easily dismissed, not right of course, but then that is not the world we live in.
And yes I totally agree with your comments about SAGE and its sub-committes which almost bereft of useful experience but top heavy with modellers, mathematicians, pyschologists etc. But then I doubt that is an accident, it was designed for a certain outcome.