Lord Sumption has been a rare shaft of light over the last year. There certainly ought to be mass civil disobedience in the fact of the despotic measures taken by our evil government, but the vast majority of people seem to be willingly compliant. And now that those in power know how compliant most people are, many more freedoms will be stolen from us.
There has been mass civil disobedience from day one, especially in certain parts of the country and amongst certain communities. Any correlation with severe outbreaks of disease is, of course, coincidental.
Yes, I think it should be more a case of the individual making their own risk assessment. But some things are common sense without the government having to say so: e.g. not shouting or speaking in a raised voice to someone in a supermarket (or in a restaurant or pub when they do reopen) without a mask on at a distance of only one or two feet away, as that could spread Covid even if the person is asymptomatic.
People need to take off the masks. They are a symbol of subservience and compliance. Science is simple really. You breath in oxygen and you breath our carbon dioxide (waste matter). So, by wearing a mask, you are seriously compromising your immune system. Oh the irony. I wish people would get educated, then this would be over tomorrow!
I’ve never worn a mask, and I never will. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
People need to wake up to the fact that we have a rogue government in power and Labour, under Starmer (think Rotherham) are no better! Wakey wakey people!!
I do wish you could exercise your immune system without insisting on exercising mine by your presence.
In fact, the sooner you exercise your immune system beyond that point of no return the sooner other people who are not like you – will be safer and less fearful
As for your conflicting choice between dying on your feet or living on your knees, be my guest! Lonely are the brave!
Should we stop wearing our seatbelts too? What about abiding by the speed limit? Queing for anything? Let’s dump all health and safety regulation ‘individuals can do their own risk assessment’
It’s a matter of balance. Masks are minimal intervention / cost / loss of liberty with a reasonable prospect of benefit.
There have been no outbreaks of severe disease outside of care homes and hospitals. Covid is what every other year we’d call a cold. Though this year they’ve subsumed flu under Covid, which is severe though we don’t normally bat an eyelid over it.
Really, Sean? There are some intelligent arguments to be put for what I take to be your point of view and Irene Polikoff has done a good job of it above. But you are weakening your own case’s credibility when you tell what are obvious lies.
The data, when looking at deaths show the vast majority of deaths are in hospitals and care homes. If Hancock was a true leader he would have enforced the prophylactics and treatments for covid to prevent 80 odd percent of people getting into hospital in the first place.
Cases are irrelevant as most of us recover or don’t even get ill.
Yes fear is the great motivator and he says so in this interview. It appears we are going at any length to prevent even one covid death but meanwhile many others are dying from other things. It is truly bizarre.
Yes and this fear is being aided and abetted by much of our mainstream media, and quite often by the BBC with their listing of Covid infection and death statistics on every showing of their TV News.
In a state of fear, we are more easily manipulated and more compliant. Ask the Psychologists (from the Tavistock Institute) on the Sage Group who have been advising the government on inducing fear in the populace and gain compliance.
This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram experiment from 1962 except now it’s happening for real! There has been a deliberate campaign of fear orchestrated from the very beginning to coerce people into taking experimental MNRA gene therapy jabs. The consequence of this irresponsible and criminal act will be seen for years to come.”The MNRA vaccines will override your innate immune system rendering it useless in future to future covid attacks.This is a threat to humanity!” These are not my words but the words of Dr Guurt Vanden Bossche one of the most eminent vaccine designers in the world. It seems Boris Johnson will have his wish and start reducing the world’s poputation by starting with the UK population.
Vaccine passports I believe are a very bad idea. What this government is doing breaks almost every rule in the Nurenburg code on vaccines.
The degree of compliance is very hard to judge. All I am certain of is that, immediately after the start of the Jan 2021 lockdown, our local busy secondary road was about as busy as I have ever seen it. Maybe we have an awful lot of keyworkers or an awful lot of hypocrites in my area.
I think most people have twigged by now that the whole thing is a giant racket. Quite frankly, I don’t know what took them so long.
Apparently quite a lot of people who are furloughed have been taking up second jobs. And why not? If the govt is dumb enough to give out free money while you do nothing, why not take a another job as well?
Give it time, Fraser. Tik-tok. Don’t forget there is the Worldwide freedom march coming up on the 20th March.
Alka Hughes-Hallett
3 years ago
A bit disappointing. It started of well but it appears his resistance is strong on lockdown alone. He simply seems to despite that particular lack of freedom . He does not think that that vaccine passports are sinister so long as the lockdown can end. On the other hand he recounts how wartime passports became purposeless after some time. Does he think vaccine passports will go the same way?
Also how will disobedience work with them? It is not an insignificant issue. To be coerced into taking a foreign substance into your body by preventing one being able to do all the things one calls normal!
It appears that for LS tyranny stops when lockdown ends because he feels the pain of lockdown. Beyond that …. every person for him/herself.
I agree. I was also disappointed that his argument for vaccine passports was that we basically have to cede bodily autonomy (in practice, given that anyone unvaccinated would become an outcast) to assuage the fears of others. If it were guaranteed that the vaccine stopped transmission, this would be an argument; however, as things appear to stand at the moment, if the vaccinated can still catch Covid and pass it on, such fears are in fact irrational.
A good interview, though – thanks, Freddie!
Oh, I agree, on a philosophical level. Just pointing out that the basis upon which Lord Sumption expects us to give up one of our fundamental civil liberties is actually irrational.
That is not the case for tourist receiving countries as mine, Greece. We don’t want summer visitors getting severely ill hence overloading our health care system.
For that reason I believe we have the right to require vaccine passports from our guests
Rather a spurious argument as the vaccines are not shown to stop transmission nor catching covid. The vast majority of people going on hols to Greece will, at worse get a sniffle. And in the season that most will go on hols will be high vit D season – summer. Covid is seasonal.
With the MNRA gene therapy jabs the vaccinated are more like to get sick than the unvaccinated as their innate immune system becomes rendered impotent to fighting certain diseases.
Vaccines do generally inhibit transmission. Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?
The Government has been (unusually) conservative about claiming the Covid vaccines inhibit transmission while the results of research are awaited, but it very probably does.
However, once the great majority of adults in the country are vaccinated, the utility of certificates for domestic purposes seems rather low.
“ Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?”
Because those are actual vaccines, non of the current crop of COVID medications fulfil the definition of a vaccine, or certainly what used to be considered the definition, despite the continued use of the word. As an aside, I had the AstraZeneca variant 2 days ago; I have lived and worked all over the world so I’ve had my fare share of inoculations, never have I been given one which didn’t come with a list of side effects and a path for reporting any side effects experienced until now.
The leaflet you get with it in the UK tells you the side effects to expect and where to report them.
I got mine yesterday and was feverish overnight, now just a bit tired and H̴͉̘̽̈́̽A̵̠̦͚̒͝Í̴͍̞͖̿̓L̸̫̪͎͌͊̽ B̵͙̠̿͒Ì̴̢͎̐L̴̢͓̽̓͘L̸͎͍͘͝ G̸̺̺̦͑͊̐A̸̺̞̝͋͌͊T̵̟̼̦͛̐̔E̴͎͚͙͐͛̈́S̵̺͍͕̐̀̈́.̴̡̞̟̽̈́͛ B̵̫̼̟̈́̽̕U̵̘̟̫͌͝I̴̢̡͇̒͌͝L̵̟̦͙͑̐̕D̸̫͖̓̚͠ T̴̟͉̈́̐̓H̸͍̘̻̀͆͊É̸̙̼͓̒ 5̸̢̝͉͌̀̾G̸̢͇̺͌̾̐ M̴̡̝̐̔͐A̵͔͖̾͐̚S̴̢͓͉̾̾͘T̸̞̪́̐̽͜ T̴̺͚̒̈́̕͜O̵̻̫͍͊͊ H̵̡̙͚̽͆̕Ë̵̼͎́͛͛L̸͓̙͌̕͝L̴̫͉̀̈́̕͜V̵̠̺̔͐͝E̴̢̼͑̐͌N̸̢͖̘͆̀́.̴͇̝͓̿͋̔.
Same here, and I’m aware of some of the potentially vulnerable who have had them (at least the first dose). It had a positive psychological effect, at least. I’m familiar with the 12 page leaflet that comes through the post encouraging their use, and have decided not to for the time being. The leaflet is a classic marketing one, or like a candidate’s leaflet (albeit with no name or address for the Agent!).
I don’t believe this, it reads like paid trolling to me. As a contemporaneous response pointed out, it’s a lie to claim that vaccine recipients are not advised of side effects, millions of leaflets handed out to each one of them demonstrate otherwise. It’s also a straight lie to assert that there is no path for asserting side effects, it’s called the Yellow Card Scheme – as I feel sure this liar knows. “I have lived and worked all over the world” – yeah, sure you have.
Dougie “ Vaccines do generally inhibit transmission. Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?”
Yellow fever can only be caught from mosquitos, it cannot be transmitted person-to-person.
Where is the data on the efficacy of vaccination (each type) and actually getting the disease? (I’m in US but the data from anywhere might be insightful.) Is there data on level or efficacy of antibodies in an individual in either of these situations? What about someone who got covid-19 and then was vaccinated? If there is a 99% survival rate of those under 80 yrs (pick your age), why take the risk of these rapidly created vaccines, before taking the risk of covid-19? And there are risks of the vaccine- not saying the risks are small or large, but they are not zero.
The known risks are ‘pretty low’, but for most of us short term adverse events are more than we’d get from covid. My neighbour had astra vax last week then spent two days feeling awful. A bit worse than when he caught covid last year. Problem is, when we started mass vaxxing the deaths rocketed up, especially in care homes and now they’re dropping along with ‘cases’. Hancock hails this as a massive vax success. He seems to ignore the fact that the same is happening all around the world, whether vaccination has progressed or not, whether countries are locked down or not. It’s called seasonality.
The longer term adverse events are unknown. The potential binding antibody problem and the scenario that the Belgian doc Dr Geert Vanden Bossche outlines being just two. Let’s hope they don’t come to fruition or at least not across all those vaccinated or else we’re right in the mire.
It’s my belief this is a deliberate attempt to CULL the ederly and the long term sick. I hope I’m wrong but Boris Johnson made his view on this pretty clear in an article he wrote back in 2007! https://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/10/25/global-population-control/
Even known cheap ways of treating the disease were kept from our doctors. That’s what’s criminal in all this. Many who died could easily have been treated at a cost of about £20 pounds per patient and no need for hospitalisation. Unfortunately those wanting to share this were silenced!
If you have had Covid then your body has already built up an immunity with your innate immune system. In this case you should NOT be given the vaccines. Prof Delores Cahill says that if you take the vaccine in this case your innate immune already has already protected you. If you are given a MNRA jab my understanding is your innate immune protection is overriden. The next time you come in contact with another Covid variant could be deadly as your own immune system could end up destroying your own internal organs.
You’re comparing apples wih oranges.’Probably’ …..the mainsream narrative from the start.
The risk to you or me, unless in that small group and obese from covid are virtually nil. Less than a cold or flu. Certainly less than heart disease or cancers. What’s the problem?
That’s because the MNRA gene therapy jabs are not by definition vaccines. They are potentially lethal to those receiving them as their innate immune system has been bypassed. These jabs do not inhibit prevention or transmission.
He also pulls his punches by saying that he won’t stand up and speak in Trafalgar Square or wherever. The fact is that unless or until people with his influence stand up to be counted in that way, there is no hope.
I echo this comment of yours. I was a bit surprised that he would just passively disobey. I think we have reached a point that we need to take it to the streets.
He began advocating not following the law by signing up to Lady Brenda Hale’s statement on PM Johnson’s prorogation of parliament. There is a glaring error in its first paragraph; inadequate evidence to prove the allegation; serious non-sequiturs; sloppy argumentation, and not least a judgement which was unconstitutional. Lady Hale is a militant judge, an oxymoron if ever there was one. He seems to sympathize.
He’s right. We need a pragmatic solution to get us back to normal. Those that accept greater risk to do so like myself should be able to choose a quick exit strategy. I go to my clinics in person and to my London office by public transport. Those who want to stay locked away are free to do so. That’s civil liberty. Either way the good Lord’s last sentence is the key – ‘you have to stand up and be counted.’
But there is barely any risk for most people, who have good metabolic health and under 70. Trouble is many people have poor metabolic health (obesity, low vitamin D, diabetes, lack of exercise, poor diet, smokers, high blood pressure etc.). But that’s not personally my fault and I go to great lengths to avoid all those things so why should arbitrary lockdown apply to me.
In many cases it’s our health system that has failed the people with pretty poor treatment. An Eastern European doctor who I met, and worked for the NHS said “The level of health care in the NHS is very LOW level.” Having had the services of several Traditional Chinese Medical Doctors who are usually trained in Western & TCM. For long term chronic problems Western medicine is almost impotent!! What a sad reflection on what our once great institution the NHS has become. I’m not blaming the people who work for it!
Thank you for your excellent work, Professor Sikora.
This interview was fascinating. Lord Sumption talks about a very British civil disobedience in which individuals begin to make their own judgements. Such as inviting friends around for a drink, or dinner. But Lord Sumption also says that most people support Draconian lockdown restrictions and that they have been manipulated into that by State fear mongering. Those therefore who do exercise their discretion can expect to be denounced, anonymously, by their fellow citizens, who will report them to the police. They can then expect a visit by the police, who will not content themselves with a mere warning, but who can be expected to be pretty direct. My wife recently took our dog for a walk at the local beach, which is vast. There were only eight cars. The risk of Covid in a strong easterly wind on the East Coast is zero. Yet there was someone filming them. The entrance to the drive leading to the beach carries a government sign with the injunction “stay at home”, notwithstanding our apparent right to some exercise. I think that the public health response to Covid will not just have damaged democracy and our civil liberties. There will be societal damage as well. I opened a business in East Berlin shortly after the wall came down. Most of my staff were East Germans. I was very aware of the legacy of the Stasi and the veritable army of IMs or informelle Mitarbeiter (informal staff members), namely snitches and narks who denounced their fellow citizens, and even family members, for transgressions against state orthodoxy. It leaves a very enduring mark.
Yeah these snitchers were encouraged by the communists so that they could control the people. There are some in the UK who do it who imagine that they serve the government but all it is is imposing their views and trying to control other people. It would be different if they were stealing or causing damage.
The name Karol Sikora is well known even in my home country at the tip of Africa. Thank you for your well reasoned and informed push back against mainstream fear mongering, draconian measures employed, liberties lost and ultimately destruction of countries.
Spot on! I cannot fathom why the fearful are being given centre stage and are being made to seem right across the board. Our species never would have come this far had the fearful run the tribes or instructed their people to stay in caves.
Lord Sumption says that people should be able to make their own risk assessments. Does this mean allowing those under the age of 60 to generally go back to work and supporting those older with help and advice to look after themselves? What happens if they still make inappropriate decisions? Would the NHS be overloaded? Some under 60 are vulnerable due to obesity etc. How would employers and fellow employees react if such people were allowed to furlough? Would they be victimised?
I agree that the effect on the young has been terrible and they should have stayed at school, but what would happen if some teachers just refused to go and teach due to fear for themselves?
I have considerable sympathy with Lord Sumption’s and Karol Sikora’s views, but just worry about the unintended consequences…
The ‘unintended consequences’ of lockdowns are horrendous as made clear in many papers.
If people choose to be obese, any reason I should be locking myself in prison for them? Are we now tring to stop people getting ill?
Ask Hancock why he has not been promoting and forcing th nhs to use well established and efficacious treatments and prophylactics to stop people getting il and into hospital in the first place. Vit D, HCQ/zinc, Budesonide, Ivermectin, Vit C etc are all proven to prevent/treat covid when used at the correct time for the treatment in the correct dosage.
Thank you Dr Sikora for your brave work to debunk the covid scam ! I cant but sayhow sad i am to see the civil rights everywhere being dismantled or reversed into more of a totalitarian dictatorship under disguise of emergency … now the governments can make new laws and regulations with no opposition or critics in the name of the covid measure concensus ….
Good for you! Look at Dr Zelenko in the USA. Treating patients in the USA whilst he has cancer and taking treatment for it. A ‘high risk’ if ever there was one. He has faith in his own prophylactic and treatment protocol.
Fran Martinez
3 years ago
This was dissapointing indeed, but it goes to show how little most people understand how this vaccine works and how the media keeps it vague as to keep perpetuating the misunderstanding.
Yes this is not the type of vaccine that people have become accustomed to. But of course, media, government or health policy people are not explaining that for all the world to see. This experimental jab is a way for government and public health to back themselves out of the great hole they have created but it is a barbaric idea.
Agree with you, Elizabeth, to an extent, but I think it’s going too far to say it’s a barbaric idea otherwise why have a good 75 to 80% taken up the vaccine so far that has been offered? Did anyone say that the flu vaccine was a barbaric idea? The trials indeed have taken only a year, or slightly less, but almost all of major scientists and epidemiologists think it is perfectly safe. However, I do agree with Trish Castle that no-one should be coerced into having one and nor should there be vaccines passports in this country. Agree that this government are trying to back themselves out of a ‘great hole’.
I know I’m digressing a bit, but if the government had closed our borders for a month or two (which should have been not difficult as the UK is an island) in the early stages of the pandemic – say from early February until early April 2020 – and banned Brits from holidaying abroad, then we wouldn’t have had the need for a vaccine (or not a widely used one anyway, and we could have developed one over a longer period of time to be used as an optional booster). The reason Johnson’s government didn’t do this is, I think, that they knew they would be perceived as ‘isolationist’ after the behaviour of Brexiter members of the cabinet – which I think is almost all of the current ministers – during our Brexit process, and they wanted somehow to counteract this.
“The trials indeed have taken only a year, or slightly less, but almost all of major scientists and epidemiologists think it is perfectly safe.” There are many senior scientists who dissent but their views will not be represented in mainstream media. The most prominent perhaps is BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi.
Thanks for that name and association. Reading some of Doshi’s articles has shifted my assessment, not to the opposite extreme but at least to more uncertainty for now. Now that I’m more aware of the complications he brings up, I can be more alert to the need for more information in either direction. Previously I had thought it well enough settled and not needing further investigation (we all have to allocate our attention and prioritize following some questions over others).
Opinions should be constantly subject to possible reassessment with new information.
What exactly are ‘major Scientists and Epidemiologists’? First epidemiologists have no special knowledge of the techniques employed in vaccination, especially these new concepts (the same is true in reverse of Fauci). Second, what ‘major’ generally means are either Science Bureaucrats (who are not Scientists in general, whatever their degree), or Scientists beholden to the ‘establishment’, in this case the Multinational Pharma Giants. Medicine has been corrupted by money.
THINK. Vaccines are generally tested for at least 8 years once they get to that point. Great analogy someone gave me – difference between fully testing a vehicle and all of the individual components and driving it round the block and saying ‘it didnt break down’
Meanwhile in the real world… It’s fine for you to suggest eight years of testing is the norm and, I guess, desirable, although why eight years and not nine or twenty, I don’t know. But you do need to consider what economists would call the opportunity of cost of such a long delay – a lot more people dying and/or a lot more social restrictions and economic damage over a longer period. Then you need to balance the risk of early vaccine deployment against the benefits.
The ‘benefits’ are great profits for the pharmaceutical companies only. What is the point in taking a jab for a disease with a fatality rate of 0.2% at most?There are spikes in death rates around the world as a result of injection programmes, all Covid19 ‘vaccines’ are still experimental.
Your 0.2% number is total misinformation. As Sumption alluded to, best estimate from Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter et al is that fatality rate is around 1% overall in UK.
The HIN1 vaccine became available within a year of that outbreak, in 2009. I got the vaccine (along with an ordinary annual flu shot) that fall, when I was working at a university in China; it was made available free for all staff, but was voluntary. I found out later that only about a quarter of the Chinese staff had gotten either vaccine.
I saw a really good meme which said – Rat turns to his friend and says “hey, you gonna take the vaccine?” to which he replied “I’ll wait and see how the human trials go first” This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious!
So which countries did close their borders from early February 2020? None that I can think so. So your reason for why the UK did not does not sound very credible, to put it mildly.
Australia. I’m here, we closed the borders, and Australia now doesn’t have Covid, I am not in lockdown, there is some vaccine thing vaguely going on (the prime minister had it the other day) that I don’t really have to bother about, and life is more or less back to normal.
Meanwhile back in the UK (where I grew up, left ~20 years ago) millions upon millions of people continued to come and go and now, even with all this vaccine program, you’ll be locked up for months still.
I have no political axe to grind (I am a progressive conservative, or vice versa, i.e. I disagree with everyone…) But the simple, irrefutable observation here is that the country that stopped people coming and going doesn’t have the problem, while the country that talked and talked about “taking control of our borders” but didn’t actually do it when it counted is screwed. (Not the only one of course, but one of the hardest hit.)
I am truly sad for what I see happening in my once proud land of birth. But the results are in, and the conclusion is clear – the choice was lock down your borders or lock up your population, and I’m happy and lucky to be in a country that did the former.
Yep, you can discuss and debate the severity of the “tactical” lockdowns in response to the tiny number of cases that have happened recently in Oz and NZ. Fact remains, these have been (a) much shorter and less restrictive than countries that didn’t control their borders and (b) only required when there were problems in those border controls – i.e. “quarantine leaks”. There are many in Australia that wonder why we don’t use the existing – and expensive – infrastructure in remote areas to process inbound arrivals, instead of quarantining them in the middle of our most populous cities and have to panic every time the inbound travellers get frisky with the quarantine staff.
Both Britain and Australia are islands, albeit on different scales and proximities, but one used its island status to advantage, the other – after years of rhetoric about controlling borders – didn’t.
Setting aside the efficacy of strict lockdowns for the moment, Australia has come under sharp criticism for human rights violations stemming from intense efforts to control the populace. Remember when police were filmed arresting a pregnant woman for incitment due to organizing an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook? Rights should not be completely abandoned during a pandemic.
Interesting. But what about opening the borders again? Only allowed for corona-free people? So, the question is: what thoughts do you have about corona and the future? Irrefutable observations deep into the future? Being immunized by vaccins?
One slight problem, Tim, is that sooner or later as you open up your country again (assuming you don’t want to remain isolated for ever on your wonderful continent!), the virus will return. However, our experience here of the vaccines so far is astonishingly positive as they presumably will be for Australia, too. Then we all must return to the norm, viz. that life is not a zero risk business: we will have to go back to living that life with an acceptable level of risk.
“However, our experience here of the vaccines so far is astonishingly positive as they presumably will be for Australia, too”.
Easy tiger, we have no idea how these vaccines will perform, and in the case of the mRNA vaccines, they are not vaccines per se, but operating systems. They have been duplicitously labelled ‘vaccines’ to get round the FDA laws, moreover, they are being prescribed under ’emergency’ protocols.
As far as I am aware, there have been at least two major real world surveys which have shown a minimum of an 85% protection against serious illness and/or death for both the Pfizer and the Astra Zeneca. There has also been clear evidence published that shows the vaccine shows that should a vaccinated person become infected, even asymptomatically, they do not pass on the virus. Lastly, what term you use is purely a matter of semantics as the result is the same!
Life pretty much back to normal??? You can’t leave the country without Soviet Union style approval from the government. Most which are being rejected. Your basic human rights of freedom of movement is severely restricted. 40,000 Australian citizens stranded abroad as entry is massively restricted. States have closed borders to other australian states. Life back to normal??? I think you have forgotten what normal really was my friend.
In all this talk about closing borders, the point seems to be missed that this pandemic originated in a single city in a single country: Wuhan, China.
I first read about the outbreak in Wuhan on or around January 1, 2020. At that time, all the confirmed cases were still in that area.
Why didn’t China halt international travel out of the country, or at least out of Hubei province, as soon as the severity of the outbreak was known?
We are all screwed. Look what microsoft has done. Bill Gates has been telling lies. We are all getting the covid passes. Not just to travel. To go to school. To go to work. etc. They are rolling it out now. Watch the top video. Kids are going to have to get their testing tracker to attend Los Angeles public schools. Brought to you buy Microsoft! https://achieve.lausd.net/covidresources Los Angeles Unified Daily Pass
David Dreebin,
I am shocked to read how wrongly you are informed.
There is no virus.
The CDC nor anyone else has proven the virus to exist.
The so called PCR test is not a test.
It is fake- fraudulent.
No one has ever contracted the cv.
No one has ever died from the cv.
Everything you hear on MSM is lies and propaganda.
Everything you need to know about the covid fraud is here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/8aesRBKk7luP/
Your source, please. All I could find was that one “75-year-old with cancer and history of heart attacks” died 2 hours after vaccination. His death is considered unrelated to vaccination.
I think you’re missing the point, David. In my opinion, this is all about money, and lots of it. You only have to do a little digging into Chris Whitty’s background to realise that there is a major conflict of interest with his position. This is about big Profits for big Pharma and nothing else. Sadly, we are their guinea pigs! What could possibly go wrong?
What on earth is barbaric about it? Are all vaccines therefore ‘barbaric’? Polio, ‘flu, yellow fever et al? What is about these vaccines that have caused so many to leap onto barmy conspiracy theory bandwagons?
Nit picking there Fran. The issue is huge, you worry about the minutia.
A Spetzari
3 years ago
I do not believe that there is a moral obligation to obey the law… You have to have a high degree of respect, both for the object that the law is trying to achieve, and for the way that it’s been achieved. Some laws invite breach. I think this is one of them.”
This is a very important distinction and nuanced point. Apartheid, Jim Crow and countless other heinous crimes in history have all been legal. Whilst I am certainly not comparing lockdown laws to those ones, it is an important distinction about legality and what the right thing to do is when laws are questionable.
As is adultery (currently legal and widely not considered moral)
Stephen Kennedy
3 years ago
There is a lot of good sense here, but supporting ‘Covid Passports’ is not one of them. First that will result in tremendous coercion to obey. Second, one does not need to be an ‘Anti-Vaxxer’ (a term of propaganda and coercion itself) to wish to decline an experimental technology (I have a lot more expertise here, than Lord Sumption) for an illness, depending on your age that is of no risk. Forcing a 20-year old to get a vaccine for this is criminal. And, he seems to not realize that this will lead to every citizen of every age getting a couple of new vaccine shots … maybe every 3 months for the rest of their lives. This is a road we must NOT go down.
The logic is plainly moving towards a
permanent vaccination model. You get Version 1 early in 2021. But, of course, as new strains of COVID appear, you will have to get Version 2 late in 2021, Version 3 in the spring of 2022, etc. No wonder Bill Gates is involved. It’s like a dream software marketing strategy where everyone is forced to buy Office and every new version for the rest of eternity.
Irene Polikoff
3 years ago
The vaccine situation can be explained easily. Just like the mask situation. One can only wonder why there is lack of clear scientific information in the media on either of these topics. There are sterilizing vaccines and protective vaccines. Sterilizing vaccines kill the virus so a vaccinated person never becomes infected. Protective vaccines (a very common type) do not prevent a person from becoming infected, they prevent a person from becoming sick from the infection. Thus, a vaccinated person could carry a virus and, potentially, infect others. However, because they are vaccinated, their body will kill the virus pretty quickly. Thus, the time during which they may be infected (and infectious) is considerably shorter than the unvaccinated person. They are also likely to be less infectious during this time than unvaccinated people.
Once Covid vaccines are broadly available, whether they are sterilizing or only protective, shouldn’t really matter from the public health policy prospective. It is up to each individual to decide if they want to use a vaccine to protect themselves. It is not a responsibility of a person to protect other people by getting vaccinated. Other people can protect themselves. Yes, there may be a very tiny category of people who, for some medical reason, can’t take a vaccine. This is the case with any vaccine. The right of the other 99+ % percent of people to make their personal health decisions should not be subservient to the notion of possibly protecting this tiny minority. Public health policies are not and can not be about 100% protection for everyone. When I make my health decisions, I am focused on myself and my health. If this could be interpreted as me “being selfish”, I have a well founded legal and moral right to be selfish when making my health decisions.
Given that this disease has 99.5% to 99.998% survival rate for those under 65 and that, at least in the UK and the US, vaccine is now well available for the over 65 crowd (and quite a number of other categories of people as well), it is shocking and a clear violation of basic human rights for governments to claim they can mandate what people are able to do based on their vaccination status or, more generally, to limit anyone’s rights on the grounds of Covid pandemic. Whatever slim excuse they had before is now completely gone.
“There are sterilizing vaccines and protective vaccines. Sterilizing vaccines kill the virus so a vaccinated person never becomes infected. Protective vaccines (a very common type) do not prevent a person from becoming infected, they prevent a person from becoming sick from the infection.” This is not quite right. A vaccine induces an immune reaction – an entirely ‘natural’ phenomenon. The nature of the immune reaction – the type and ‘accuracy’ of the antibodies produced – is what determines the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Last month I studied ‘the ethics of vaccination’. In there your point of view is more less explored. I make it short: to protect the vulnerable it can be demanded by government that the environment of the vulnerable should be immunized by vaccins to prevent the vulnerable will die or getting ill. A rather complex situation. Complex, as it is bind to the believe how the world should be, being sure that vaccination does what is promised and all hidden assumptions not mentioned. I am still reflecting about it.
Absolutely spot on Trish. This whole point seems so blindingly obvious to me that I don’t understand how Lord Sumption could miss it. As he seems so incredibly astute in many other areas it actually makes me question my own view – am I missing something?
It was also disappointing to hear him refer to those not wishing to take the covid “vaccine” as anti-vaxxers. I believe most people that have issues with the covid “vaccines” have had all the regular childhood vaccines and have had their children vaccinated. If you are at very limited risk, why would you take any drug to combat that limited risk if that drug itself has a degree of risk (as ALL drugs do)? As you have stated, if those at risk have taken the vaccine (and assuming it protects the recipient – i.e. “works”) then the whole argument of taking it “for the greater good” flies out of the window.
I am not sure that he was using ‘anti-vaxxer’ in the way you think. I think he was being very specific referring to people who are against taking this vaccine, not meaning those people who have some conspiratorial view about all vaccines. In the same way as ‘anti-lockdown’ in this context refers specifically to the Covid lockdown rather than other examples of people being deprived of their liberty. I might be wrong but that is my view. It was an unfortunate choice of words and nothing more.
Absolutely spot on you David. I would not be seen as the “anti-vaxxer” stereotype at all – I am grateful for my childhood vaccines and would have liked to have had the opportunity of a measles vaccines as that particular illness nearly killed me, and I have all my children vaccinated for all the illnesses of childhood – and yet I still disagree that this so-called vaccine is necessary. Lord Sumption had me wholeheartedly on side in his views on liberty etc, but on the vaccine (and he did look somewhat sheepish when he spoke about this I thought) he appears to have retreated to the typical mindset of the scared elderly person so prevalent at the moment. His apparent resignation about the associated loss of liberty and rights in the face of mandatory injections and health passports was very confusing. Like you David, from such an intellectual, informed man it makes me think, am I missing something here? Please Lord Sumption, can you clarify why this inconsistency in your views that seems so glaring to us?
Absolutely spot on you David. I would not be seen as the “anti-vaxxer” stereotype at all – I am grateful for my childhood vaccines and would have liked to have had the opportunity of a measles vaccines as that particular illness nearly killed me,
That may be true of you, but most of the people on here are full on tin-foil hat wearers whom I suspect share links to Unherd articles mentioning vaccines on their own forums and “brigade” them. In particular Elizabeth W, Sean L and John Stone are conspiracists who think Bill Gates controls the world from his secret underground lair. It’s unfortunate that we can no longer click on people’s names to see their other comments, otherwise it’d be more obvious the sort of astro-turfing that’s going on.
Take your hand and slap yourself hard around the face – wake up. You’ve been brainwashed by the MSM. Look up Operation Mockingbird and stay off of the MSM to get better informed!
Also, people who use the phrase “MSM” are almost invariably nutters.
I looked up Operation Mockingbird and learned it’s a favourite of the Q nutters. Are you one of them, by any chance?
You’ve been brainwashed by the MSM
I’ll have you know I am fully protected by MindGuard, an elegant software solution which is much superior to your own outdated hardware (i.e. that tin-foil hat).
I totally agree with your comments, Sarah. And why take a vaccine for a disease which you have a 99.7% chance of recovery from if you are in good health to begin with, against a vaccine with a 95% efficacy?
You do realise that a 95% efficacy means that the risk of contracting symptomatic Covid is reduced by 95%, not that one has a 5% chance of contracting symptomatic Covid, right?
Yes, this is deeply disappointing, partly because it regards vaccines as God-given rather than industrial products which could go wrong – and if they do go wrong you will be gaslighted by almost everybody, and most particularly judges. In a letter to BMJ last year I highlighted how the vaccine industry had led the campaign for the exclusion of the criticism of its products from social media ‘Regarding the use of the term ‘Anti-Vaxxer (27 August 2020)’:
“Thank you Karyse Day… for drawing attention to the problem of the bias and intimidation inherent in the term “anti-vaxxer”. The term has been around perhaps since the 19th century but has evolved a new context. Three years ago I drew attention to the remarks of Seth Berkley, director of the vaccine lobby organisation GAVI, in the Spectator proposing that “anti-vaxxers” be excluded from social media, which meant in effect not only that certain people should not be allowed on social media but that criticism of vaccines should not be allowed on a generic basis – an extremely serious matter…”
It should be noted that this was in the context of the news report by Helen Haskell, ‘Cumberlege review exposes stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare’ which is about the systematic gaslighting and abuse of patients who have suffered harm from medical interventions. I do not know whether Sumption has swallowed whole the unscientific rubric that vaccines are “safe and effective” (apparently simply by belonging to that class of product) but he ought to question perhaps how much he really knows about it, and that actually the creation of a class of untouchables “anti-vaxxers” few of whom have ever identified themselves as such would be a human rights atrocity which would hand the world over to the arbitrary machinations of an already over-powerful industry. I beg him to reconsider.
He must understand what he’s doing here…..using one tyranny (lockdown) to distract from a bigger one (coercion of population into a dangerous and dubious and highly profitable gene therapy experiment)
“the whole argument of taking it “for the greater good” flies out of the window”
It doesn’t because a vaccine could work on those at risk by reducing it to them without eliminating it entirely, so others taking it for the greater good is still valid. Not even spot on, then, Sarah – let alone absolutely.
NOTE FOR UNHEARD: please get rid of “DW” in my icon!
Really – reduction of viral load in the ones with the vaccine, the confidence it gives the frightened so society may act more normal, the way it forces teachers unions (who have proven they hate children) to do their job, a thousand reasons vaccine uptake will help! Although I will not get it,( the fact J&J vaccine is made from dead, aborted, babies shines a light on it all)
Excellent interview and Freddie always asks such insightful, probing questions. However, the weakness in his reasoning, as others have pointed out is 1. He knows that Covid is not serious enough for the vast majority to warrant the measures taken. 2. The govt is using “the vaccine works but it also it doesn’t work” position to maintain the fear based coercion of behaviour, but then 3. He thinks vaccine passports are OK because people need to be encouraged to go out again!!!
Hold on…tackle proper public understanding of the truth about 1. and 2. plus vaccine all the vulnerable types (mentally and physically!) and 3 goes away dunnit?
Am I supposed to take experimental pharmaceuticals and carry an ID card against my will to cover for lying politicians and the intellectual weakness of people who would rather watch “Strictly” than do their own research?
Re vaccine passports he is pretty glib about the implications. I hazard it is about the most coercive of the options and effectively forces people to have a still experimental mRNA gene therapy as the ransom for retrieving their freedoms. That large numbers of people agree with coercion is no reason to pursue it. Morality is not a democracy. Pragmatic is really code for laziness and cowardice. A genuine option is to apply some rational context and scrap any idea of passports entirely.
Well said. You’ve put most of the cogent arguments in one small space to copy and paste.
Jack Green
3 years ago
START PUSHING-BACK……TODAY.
The first thing to do is to ask Lawyers for Liberty to send one of their letters to your child’s school…… https://democracydeclaration.com/lawyers-for-liberty/
…..masks in class-rooms and testing healthy pupils in the canteen or sports hall is a sign of a totalitarian government at work…….oh, it’s ‘optional’ alright, but they know that peer-pressure and fear of being thought ‘uncaring’ about teachers, and of revenge from the head teacher…….MAKES IT COMPULSORY……W/O ANY SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION.
In the last 12 months, look at what the government has done to university and school kids…….locked them up for no reason and blackmailed them morally…… …….Gove’s Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team and woketard ghouls on SAGE like Susan Michie are waging psychological warfare against Britain’s young – to condition them for future oppression.
Maybe you need to read up on the history of totalitarianism. You can do this in your own home, without fear of a visit from the secret police.
Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago
In regards to coercive vaccination, consider My adult son says he won’t have the vaccine – how can I convince him he’s wrong? in The Telegraph.
The adult son isn’t wrong…
It’s diabolical that young people and others not at risk of the virus are being pressured to have these experimental vaccine products.
It’s one thing an elderly person frightened of the virus taking the vaccine, they have limited years ahead.
It’s another thing entirely to press these experimental vaccine products on young people and others with many years ahead of them, and with no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences of these vaccines, against a virus which isn’t a problem for most people.
This goes back to ethics, what went on in the ethics committees that approved the protocols for the vaccine trials, why didn’t they pick up on this issue of people not at risk of the virus being pressed to have the vaccine?
I suggest this contravenes the Helsinki Declaration, i.e. “Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects.”
It’s not justifiable to make people not at serious risk of the virus submit to a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination.
That the fact the Jonhson and Johnson vaccine, (and Astra as well maybe ?) is made from a murdered, aborted, baby, is too weird for me – look it up, this is a terrible world where this goes on.
The vaccine is made with a cell line that’s been around for decades, which originated in an aborted fetus from the 1970s or something. The vaccine itself doesn’t contain the cell line, it’s used to grow the virus for the vaccine. So, even if you disagree with abortion under all circumstances, you are not encouraging further abortions by taking it, since the production of the vaccine doesn’t need further abortions.
Don’t you just love that the reason we should all comply, is to encourage people back out into the world, to enjoy themselves, while we remain inside? How about the people that are so scared, even when they’ve been vaccinated, stay home and be safe, while the rest of us get on with our lives? That is democracy.
Epicurus Araraxia
3 years ago
It’s all very well to support placing the entire healthy population under house arrest in order to “save lives” or “protect the NHS” or whatever your particular angle is.
However, it is not okay to tell someone that “you may not open your business and trade” without providing them with full compensation for remaining closed.
Likewise, it’s all very well to tell someone that they have tested positive or that they have been in the same vicinity as someone who has tested positive and that therefore, they must self-isolate for some number of days. It is not okay to tell someone to self-isolate and then not compensate them for loss of income during that period.
Those who have been the most ardent supporters of the long-running lockdown in the UK include those who have been furloughed. It’s all very well to sit at home binge-watching Netflix and getting pissed while being paid to do so. It’s quite another for the 3 million or so who have received zero support or all of the people who have no choice but to continue working because they get, at most, statutory sick pay, or no pay at all if they are required to self-isolate.
Lord Sumption has a good point in questioning the logic, legality and morality of stripping us of our civil and human rights in the application of a novel form of epidemic control never before attempted. At least, not attempted outside of Communist China.
In the words of the world’s worst C programmer, Neil Ferguson: In January, members of Sage, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention. “They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.” Then, as infections seeded across the world, springing up like angry boils on the map, Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.” In February one of those boils raged just below the Alps. “And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
Thus, we became trapped in the grip of an unholy trinity, Government, Corporate-owned media and the Medical-Industrial Complex. Now we’re being told that the only way out is to meekly submit to annual or even bi-annual shots of experimental vaccines.
Yes, civil disobedience is the only alternative to the blend of “1984” and “A Brave New World” that the unholy trinity has thrust upon us.
Neil Ferguson et al’s Report 9 has had a massive impact, not just in the UK, but around the world. For example Ferguson et al’s modelling was also influential on modelling* that put Australia into lockdown last year.
Consider this from the summary of Ferguson et al’s report: We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced.(My emphasis.) The question is, why was ‘a vaccine’ seen to be the appropriate response to this virus? Particularly when it became apparent that the virus wasn’t a threat to most people?
This needs to be tracked back now, there needs to be retrospective critical analysis of the ill-targeted and disproportionate response to this virus.
*Robert Moss et al. Coronavirus Disease Model to Inform Transmission-Reducing Measures and Health System Preparedness, Australia. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Volume 26, Number 12 – December 2020.
Why a vaccine response? Follow the money. Imperial College is funded in part by……..yes you’ve guessed it, B & M Gates Foundation! Next question: Who benefits financially or attains more power from a mass arguably mandatory repeated vaccination programme? Well there’s a long list, but near the top are China, big pharma and well globalists the world over.
Nigel Clarke
3 years ago
I have found it quite amusing that over the last few months there have been huge protests in several EU countries with people chucking stuff at the Police and the Police water cannoning and arresting protesters.
In the UK we just had illegal raves.
Quiet disobedience?
Although, sadly, I am far too old for raves illegal or otherwise, the fact that they took place were the few grounds for optimism during lockdowns.
Graham Thorpe
3 years ago
A wonderful and reassuring interview with a brave, sharp-minded and modest man. Quite obviously a reluctant spokesman for the arguments that (surely?) a substantial, unrepresented, number of people are thirsting to be put and for which there is almost no platform. Mainstream media -nothing. Even outliers like The Spectator which dared to contradict the culture-of-fear-and-repression narrative earlier in the “crisis” have been totally silenced … to the point that within 12months the centre-line of political thought is now regarded as so extreme it is almost off the scale of acceptability.
I can’t see anything to criticise about the view that liberty can be acceptably constrained by what a majority of fellow citizens believe is practical (vaccine passports). His views seem to me both nuanced and based in the real world. I don’t think he has contempt for his fellow citizens as some of the comment below believe, I think it’s more that he is deeply suspicious and regretful about the manipulation the population has been subjected to by its immoral government.
I agree. I tried to raise make the point on Facebook that the impact of the lockdown unfairly and disproportionately affected the young and caused great economic harm. I was ridiculed by an old friend who is a retired physio and has a working social worker wife, plus many others. I had to withdraw meekly to avoid further vileness and stupidity from people I thought were educated and my friends. I didn’t even say I was against all forms of lockdown or restriction. The world has gone mad and I feel like I am a minority, despised by the woke and the sheep. Good for Lord Sumption for sticking to his guns on this.
Agreed. Media and polling companies are all sponsored by the gangsters behind the racket. People have been ignoring the absurd restrictions for months now.
Your argument will hopefully soon hit home when the UK (and other countries) begin the big payback and the effects of lockdowns start being felt more aggressively. It has been astonishing to me that so many millions of people have been unable to equate the health of the economy with the health of the nation. Sadly, I think many of these people may still not be able to connect the dots between lockdown and destruction of the economy because timing may make them look for other scapegoats.
They’re all bought and paid for. Listen to Catherine Austin Fitts. How much Bill Gates is into the Telegraph for is published on Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website. My prediction is that Bill Gates will end up in prison, taking a good few politicians and media-friendly scientists, possibly some journalists with him.
As the scale of criminal corruption becomes known the public mood will turn. Internet means truth can’t be suppressed. There was no more fervent sponsor of the internet than Gates. It is fitting that the technological revolution responsible for his emergence as a global figure should also spell his nemesis.
Who is going to put Bill Gates in prison – when via the Gates Foundation, he has all of the governments, politicians, media and almost all scientists on his pay roll?
Only thing I’d like to add is that the Daily Mail, although in general I’m not a fan of that newspaper, is still querying the culture of fear from time to time – e.g. in its front page headline a few days ago which went something like “The Truth behind Covid-reported Deaths”, implying that many of the registered Covid deaths reported are not actually due to Covid-19 as its main cause.
Maxine Shaverin
3 years ago
Extremely disappointed. The coercion should not happen in the first place for what, as he acknowledges, is not a significant disease in terms of risk and number of deaths. How on earth can a compulsory untested vaccine be less bad than f***ing house arrest? WHY should I put something unknown in to my body to ‘tempt’ someone out of their home because they have an irrational fear? The Govt should take responsibility for causing that irrational fear. It is not a SOLUTION to a problem
Couldn’t have said it better myself. On this, Sumption has got it the wrong way around. If people have an irrational fear, they should do whatever they need to do to combat it or live with it. This may mean having a vaccine (which does not stop you catching covid anyway) or not leaving their own home ever again. Why should I and my children be forced into an underclass to make these people feel comfortable enough to go to the pub!?
I think this definitely reflects other recent undesirable changes in our society, such as allowing anyone who identifies as a woman into women only spaces, in which a small vocal minority forces change on others who do not desire it. In both situations there are legitimate questions about the sanity of the vocal minority. Why do we give into them!?
Alison Houston
3 years ago
Last year Sumption was all in favour of destroying democracy. He despises ordinary people as much as he despises the Tory party under Johnson. He does not believe the Constitution has any force, he omitted it entirely from his Reith lectures. He barely acknowledges the Monarch as the head of state, believing her a nodding dog and rubber stamping machine. He believes in something he terms ‘the Sovereignty of Parliament’ independent of the people, so long as that Parliament is subject to foreign powers and courts. Only now Parliament is full of people who agree with the Executive and want it, if anything to go further than it has, he is stumped. His ideological, liberal cupboard is empty.
He may have come to his senses over the past year, at last, but it is too late. When he had power and influence he used it ill, he has always been an establishment man, the establishment happens to have changed a bit on the surface, but not half so much as he thinks it has. So he is playing the part of a rebel. But he doesn’t fool many people.
Could you substantiate your claim that: “last year Sumption was all in favour of destroying democracy”? I must have missed that bit in the Reith Lectures.
The Reith lectures were two years before. And I suppose it was 2019 in which he did his most public democracy despising. He detested the referendum result. He was the architect behind the second Miller case and knew the outcome, announced it on the Today Programme before the case had even started. He was all in favour of the Sovereignty of Parliament when Parliament wanted to overturn the referendum result as nearly all MPs supported staying in the EU. Now they nearly all support strict lockdown he is flummoxed. He claims people will sensibly, quietly ignore the silly laws and regulations, which is true, but up until yesterday he had no confidence in the wisdom of the man in the street.
The reason he is worked up about all this is because he wants to rewrite the Constitution, in his own lefty, liberal, hollowed out, modern, progressive, Blairite way. He did enough damage with Miller 2 and all the tricks he put Bercow up to in conjunction with Pannick.
On the other hand he has openly said the supreme Court made up new Law in declaring Boris’s peroration unlawful.
I cannot buy your characterisation of him “lefty, liberal, hollowed out, modern, progressive, Blairite” This man gave up his true love of academia, eschewed politics and the bench (until the supreme court) for a lucrative career in commercial law. He openly admits that his lifestyle took priority over high purpose.
I agree with you. I remember he said he voted ‘Remain’, and it occurred to me that it was unnecessary to say this unless one felt it slightly disreputable to have voted Leave, but he struck me as being thoughtful and reasonable, and accepting of the result, as did the majority of Remainers close to me.
I remember that he predicted that the Supreme Court would say that the pro-rogation was unjusticiable because the Bill of Rights excluded judges from parliamentary business, which was the same conclusion to which the High Court had come.
That’s an unnecessarily bitter synopsis of Sumption’s recent career.
Undoubtedly he was a Quislington toad over Brexit, but that is hardly surprising given his love affair with Medieval France.
However since the start of this Scamdemic he is the only Establishment figure to make a stand against this lunacy.
Nothing from the Church, Parliament, the wretched Universities, the deplorable Media or even the rest of the pompous Judiciary.
Sumption alone has spoken out, and then to be vilified by you because the scar of Brexit hasn’t healed is deplorable. In fact it serves to illustrate that all really is lost.
but that is hardly surprising given his love affair with Medieval France.Not sure thats any rationale for being a Quislington toad over Brexit,(nice description btw)I’m a big fan of whole swathes of Europe and owned substantial property in Spain for decades-it has no relevance to my views on a technocratic superstate.
He has spent the last thirty years restoring a *Chateau in the Dordogne, which I would have thought was a good enough reason to have voted remain in itself.
Given the vindictive nature of the French state, any Englishman owning property in France was entitled to feel apprehensive about the fall-out from Brexit.
Seems to me that a ‘love affair with medieval France’ is no excuse for riding roughshod over the democratic will of the people. Once more the tendency for those who consider themselves our betters, Sumption, Blair et al, to override what the people decide, comes to the fore.
Karl Juhnke
3 years ago
I enjoyed the read and am part way through the video. It seems to me as an outsider here in Australia, that Sumption and Freddy have kept this tight in regards to the number of issues they were going to cover. The major point is how easily democracy tumbles into tyranny and if one gets this, then the other issues automatically come up for questioning. So it is a “Bravo” from me.
Freddy vassilates between being against the insanity and giving it a small amount of credence. My guess is Youtube said to him that he was walking the edge a bit closely and canceling is a very real punishment to deniers.
Joe Donovan
3 years ago
So nice to see Freddie Sayers and his interlocutor in the same room.
Elizabeth W
3 years ago
I agree Trish. He made so many good points up until that point. It appears he is pushing his views of vaccination within this interview but how does that line up with democracy?
then ignore that point and worry about the big issue. You people above worrying about such a tiny issue wile missing the entire point amazes me. You all are like someone who listened to a long explanation of something vital and at the end tell the speaker ‘You’ve got a piece of spinach stuck in your teeth’.
This ignores the entire public narrative of how we were all going to be liberated from lockdown by the vaccines (and actually now how we are all going to be tyrannised by them: a captive market forever and ever to the advantage of a powerful industry which wants to silence dissent and scrutiny).
I like the fact that I can agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. It gives me an opportunity to step back and carefully examine my (very strongly held) opinions. I find that whenever I hear the crazy left I tend to get more entrenched and think less. He does have a good point in talking about picking the least-worst scenario. It’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered. I don’t necessarily agree but will certainly mull it over the next few weeks.
Richard
3 years ago
Everything that this government has done over Covid 19 has been wholly deliberate, planned long ago by those running the Corona operation across the Western world and beyond.
Do people seriously think that governments ruling that anyone who dies – of any cause whatsoever, including being run down by a bus – must be listed as a ‘Covid death’, if they tested positive for Covid 19 within the previous month – do they seriously think that such governments do not have an agenda to massively exaggerate the number of Corona deaths?
The lockdowns, the use of fraudulent ‘Covid tests’ by all governments to produce wholly fraudulent vast numbers of ‘cases’ to keep the ‘Corona crisis’ going – do people seriously think this tightly coordinated operation across the Western world happened by accident – where all governments do and say exactly the same things at each stage of the ‘Corona crisis’?
Such coordination across so many governments, where they all parrot the same lying narrative; where they all lock down using the same totally fraudulent ‘deaths projection’ supplied by the serial fraudster ‘Professor Ferguson’ & Imperial College; where they all list as ‘Corona deaths’ people who get run down by a car, or who fall off a roof, or who die of cancer – that does not happen by accident. That takes years of planning between the governments concerned to get all of their lies coordinated and timed for each stage of the Corona operation.
Is not the fact that influenza – which kills vast numbers every year – has totally disappeared, with no one listed as dying of it, anywhere – enough to wake up even the most brainwashed, unthinking sheep?
Clearly not.
The ‘Corona crisis’ was in the planning stage at least five years ago, when Fauci approved US government funding of the Wuhan laboratory to develop a ‘gain of function’ for the bat Corona virus to modify its DNA to be able to penetrate the cell walls of humans, to infect them with the virus now called ‘Covid 19’.
The agenda of the governments is to inject every single human on the planet with their supposed ‘vaccines’.
Covid 19 and the ‘Corona crisis’ is the means to achieve that objective – along with the installation of an Orwellian ‘new normal’ global Police State, via their Great Reset.
The Great Reset requires a ‘justification’ – just as injecting everyone with their ‘vaccines’ required the ‘justification’ of Covid 19; and the deliberate trashing of the economies and countless millions of jobs, throwing as many people as possible into total dependence on welfare, is the ‘justification’ they are lining up for the imposition of the Orwellian ‘Great Reset’. A universal basic income is coming – receipt of which will be conditional on being injected with whatever they order people to submit to, and total ideological obedience, and a Chinese-style social credit score system to ensure total conformity, is what is coming.
As a sample of the horrors to come from injecting everyone with their ‘vaccines’, people should watch this item, I suggest, about aluminum – a known neurotoxin – in the ‘vaccines’ being deliberately facilitated by other ‘vaccine’ ingredients to enter the brains of everyone who is injected. Skip the first couple of minutes. https://www.brighteon.com/e4003441-b383-43d5-82b5-ab9f916f9518
Seems to me that some people find it easier to accept a conspiracy theory that accept what I see as the ‘truth’. I feel that conspiracy theorists like Richard almost have a need for someone to be ‘in charge’ and that it’s somehow more comforting to feel that the democratic party is controlled by a group of baby eating paedophiles addicted to a drug made up by Hunter S Thompson (for example) than to accept reality as I see it.
Which is that a ‘great reset’ requires a level of competence and coordination across a huge group of people (the elites) that simply doesn’t exist. The truth is that no one is in charge, we get old and die, we’re all a lot less sentient than we care to think, there is no God and the larger a group of people gets the greater the level of collective stupidity.
I feel sorry for you! Next, you’ll be saying that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, and before you cry “tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist”, three buildings fell that day. Look up WTC7. That’s your smoking gun right there! I digress…
The modern media landscape is incredibly complex and hard to navigate. We’re bombarded by images, narratives and ‘alternative facts’ from all sides. The explosion of narratives gradually started about 60 years ago and has skyrocketed with the widespread adoption of the internet. It’s a new thing for the human mind to deal with and we all now have the option to choose our own truth as there are so many narratives out there to be found. You’ll find evidence to back up whatever you are predisposed to believe.
I’m not going to mock you for the path you are following and thanks for the sympathy, but I’m going to stick with my view. There just isn’t enough competence in the world.
Stuart Bennett
3 years ago
Some of the responses to this interview are nothing short of tragic. Leave COVID alone to run it’s course and the IFR is less than 1%. Therefore trainwrecking your economy, stopping schooling, bankrupting businesses small & large, seeding mass unemployment, shutting women and children away with their abusers (Great Ormond Street reported an increase of 1,500% of children presenting with abusive head injuries during lockdowns last year) and wholesale removal of civil liberties is a stupid and excessive over compensation.
I’d like to see the people who designed and signed off on the “look into his eyes and tell him you can’t work from home” billboard posters, look into the eyes of every victim of unemployment, every battered woman and child (and man, for that matter) and every young person with mental health problems and tell them their sacrifice is acceptable.
I’m always amused by the war analogies that come and go, in a war the whole comes together to save the whole. During COVID, the whole has been terrified into coming together to save somewhere less than 1% of the whole.
alfieglinos
3 years ago
Thank you for this. The interviewer is of exceedingly good quality, allowing Sumption to finish his points. I cannot think of a single interviewer on TV who does this.
Sumption’s point on ‘covid passports’ was well-made, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Richard
3 years ago
Any government that rules that by law, anyone who dies must be listed as a ‘Corona death’ if they tested positive within the previous 30 days – including people who got run down by a car, fell off a roof, or died for any other reason – any government who creates laws like that are criminals and fraudsters, plain and simple.
And all Western governments have passed that obscene law – designed with one purpose only: to pump up the ‘Corona deaths’ numbers through the roof.
But that’s a coincidence, right? Not a conspiracy!
How anyone can still believe a word that such governments say about their ‘Corona crisis’, when they know that one fact, just defies belief.
nina Bramble
3 years ago
I concur 100%. My heart sank once the conversation changed to the vaccine.
After hearing his laments and arguments surrounding lockdown Lord Sumption’s views of how we must then gracefully accept an experimental vaccine and surrender sovereignty over our body and ultimately our health seems grossly at odds with everything else he said…. startlingly so.
While he may profess to be independent of all men , somehow it made me wonder.
I have seen a trend in back bencher Conservatives that mirrors this too.
All passion and fury around the injustice of lockdowns and yet accepting of the vaccine.
This worrying, primarily because I think it’s clear to see that the real reason for extended non sensical lockdowns is to suppress the population into accepting a vaccine at any cost in exchange for our basic human rights to be reinstated.This is clearly the end goal.
So despite Lord Sumption’s rather renegade attitude against the journey he never the less agrees with the destination.
The real question everyone should be asking is NOT HOW we should respond to lockdowns BUT WHY is the Government in the first instance implementing them with such unnecessary vigour as to actively destroy the very country they were elected to serve?
“VACCINES FOR ALL” I hear them say.
This is not only the crumbling of democracy, it’s something far more sinister……
Great post.
The real choice should be not about accepting the Certificate Of Vaccination ID (COVID) in order to allow people live their lives normally. It should be about protesting and highlighting that this authoritative choice is unnecessary and critically anti-democratic. The focus should be on the governments and their “scientific advisers” who push this agenda, not on whether these IDs will work and how effective they will be.
And COVID (or Covid) used to be called a disease! If they go down that route, they are just wheedling through the woodwork into a dictatorial world, not operating in the interests of the general public. They are always chipping away at it; this is just another excuse.
Beautifully put, Nina. My sentiments exactly. Makes you wonder if Lord Sumption is controlled opposition. Like you, I’m thoroughly disappointed with his stance on the vaccine. He has now completely lost all credibility in my eyes with his obvious contradictory statement!
Like yourself, I am suspecting foul play. That is what my gut is telling me. And you have to ask yourself the question, pre Covid, how much trust did you plac in the Westminster motely crew? For me not at all. All of a sudden we have a ‘so-called’ pandemic and all of a sudden, the masses are placing trust in these clowns. I wouldn’t trust any of them, especially BoJo, Hancock, Whitty et al, as far as I could throw them!
Last edited 3 years ago by caroline2
Tony Conrad
3 years ago
I must say what an outstanding interviewer Freddie is. He is a real national treasure and has the knack of getting to the truth of a situation. Compare him to the BBC interviewers and some other channels and there is no contest. I think the point of quietly making your own responsible decision on Covid lockdown is a good one as a lot of the rules do not help in the legitimate duties we have towards others in our families and further afield.
Brian Hanson
3 years ago
A good interview except he has no idea that the so-called: “Vaccine” doesn’t vaccinate! He ignores that taking the vaccine is objectionable to many! A forced “vaccine” & compulsory vaccine passports are a fascist apartheid system & in direct violation of human rights! #CoviD1984
Random Human
3 years ago
What a very disappointing capitualation
to the major tyranny going on, which isn’t the lockdown, as seems to be the suggestion here, but the coercion of the population into participating in a dangerous gene therapy experiment. Lord Sumption is nobodies fool….he must realise this
My thoughts exactly. My freedom to eat out, go to a pub, go to the theatre have been removed, and they should be returned as soon as lockdown is over, NOT because other people’s fear overrides my desire not to be forced to have an experimental drug put into my body. Lord Sumption calls it a choice whether or not people have the ‘vaccine’, and yes, it is: it’s called Hobson’s Choice. In effect, my freedoms have been taken off the table in a sleight of hand. One minute they were there, the next, gone.
Andrew Hall
3 years ago
The more relevant metric for this pandemic is the number of excess deaths directly attributable to it. After deducting the self-inflicted and entirely unnecessary collateral deaths and allowing for the great age of the genuine of-Covid victims there was no pandemic in the UK in 2020. This can be read across from the age and population adjusted mortality figure for 2004 UK which were greater than for 2020 UK. When historians come to assess the god-awful fear-inspired societal reaction to Covid-19 the verdict will lie with Lord Sumption’s argument in my opinion – although not only for the reasons he states.
kenhughes
3 years ago
I cannot, and never will, accept the argument that it is better to restrict the movements of people who are not afraid, in order to alleviate the fears of those who are, especially when it is government who has instilled such fear in people’s minds. This has to be the wrong choice.
kenhughes
3 years ago
How dare he suggest that vaccinated people’s fear of the unvaccinated should hold any sway, when it is recognised that vaccines do not stop infection or transmission. Such fears are therefore unfounded.
Paul Reidinger
3 years ago
It was striking to me that the religious question arose only in the last few minutes of this excellent conversation, since the basic theme seemed to me to be moral collapse and chaos — hence the lack of what Lord S. calls “convention.” The implosion of Christianity in Britain and indeed throughout the West means that there is really no longer a workable moral system in place; hence what Lord S. calls “despotic” government, government that recognizes no broadly agreed, if informal, limits on its powers. Further, secular people, lacking a faith to console and reassure, are especially terrified of illness and death and are thus ripe for the plucking by terror-mongers in government and media, as the last miserable year has pretty conclusively demonstrated. It is noteworthy, I think, that the least restrictive states in the USA are in the South, which is the most religious part of the country. The secular blue states in the North are still heavily locked down and masked up. The highly educated (!) people there are still mostly frightened out of their wits.
I was pleased that Lord S. pointed a finger right at China. The virus came from China; “lockdowns” and mask mandates came from China; suppression of dissent comes from China. It seems apparent to me that the global center of gravity over the past year has unmistakably shifted to China. While hollow Western societies tear their hair out about “climate change” and “systemic racism” while cowering in fear of what is essentially a species of flu, China builds coal plants lickety-split and commands the global auto industry to build electric cars. Chairman Xi has obviously read “The Art of War” and has very shrewdly read our weaknesses. He has managed to induce something like suicide into Western civilization. I would say it is later than we think and that there is little or no hope if we do not remember who we really are and where we came from.
Freddie Sayers seems to have recovered the lost art of the interview. He asked thoughtful questions, listened carefully to the thoughtful answers and used those answers to ask further good questions. I was a little worried about him after last week’s piece, in which he seemed to show signs of Stockholm syndrome.
Vaccine passports are a terrible idea. Frightened people can get vaccinated, and then they won’t get sick. If you’re not vaccinated, so what? You probably won’t get sick, either, but if you do, isn’t that a personal choice? You present no threat to the vaccinated/terrified. A non-issue. I wish Lord S. had said so.
I loved your comment until the last paragraph.
You are saying that refusing the vaccine and getting sick with Covid is a personal choice because you present no threat to the vaccinated.
Sadly this is not true.
1. Here in the UK we have about 15mln people with various health conditions, after vaccination they will only have partial immunity, if that. If people who got sick did stay home until they are free of covid, there would be no problem, This is not the case, as personal freedom and circumstances will always have higher priorities than potentially killing a passer by. Another issue is infectious asymptomatic carriers. The more people are vaccinated the less of those we would have.
2. People who chose not to vaccinate and get sick are Petri dishes for new Covid mutations, sooner or later the new one comes that renders vaccines ineffective. Vaccinating everyone resolves all the issues.
I think the main problem we are facing now is that we reached that level of prosperity and societal development where the value of human life, any human life, including lives of low economic value, is very high, disproportionately high. So either we continue to say that everyone has equal rights to live (even if it is at a high cost to the others, even if it limits other’s freedoms), or we openly say that the young and healthy and productive, their needs and freedoms, should have higher priorities than the “ballast’s”, because that’s the only way to ensure we can compete with systems like China’s.
I just do not like the hypocrisy of anti-vax/anti lockdown people, be honest with yourself and say openly that because you are productive and healthy your freedoms and opportunities to be productive should be prioritised over lives of low economic value. Do not justify this (reasonable) demand with false claims that covid does not kill the weak, because it does.
You write: “Here in the UK we have about 15mln people with various health conditions, after vaccination they will only have partial immunity, if that.”
I don ‘t quite know how many “15min” people is, but I guess you mean “a lot.” Surely those people should be cautioned that the vaccine will offer them only limited protection, or at any rate that is what you claim. They are the people who, through the exercise of common sense and personal agency, should avoid large indoor gatherings, should wear masks if makes them feel better et cetera.
The truth of the matter is that, for the vast majority of the population, this is a mild, indeed an all but unnoticeable, disease. Large percentages of people either have natural resistance or, if they do become infected, have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. They do not need to be, and should not be, vaccinated, let alone with a rushed and experimental potion. Let them have their natural immune response, which will strengthen their resistance to other diseases. This would be, or would have been, sensible public health policy, but, sadly, that ship sailed long ago, and we are left with a menagerie of psychopaths to run the show. They have already caused enormous harm, and they will cause a lot more if they are not stopped.
edmundhodder
3 years ago
Personally, I thought Lord Sumption was inconsistent in his views on lockdown and domestic vaccine passports. He has previously, and in the interview in question here, made the case that covid-19 is not a particularly severe public health threat and that it can be adequately managed without lockdown measures. It is inconsistent of him therefore to say that vaccine passports are the “lesser of two evils” with lockdown measures as the alternative. He seems to justify this position by saying that the majority of the population want either vaccine passports or lockdown measures. This is another strange departure from his previous argument that just because the majority of the population support lockdown it doesn’t make it right. As a liberal I expected him to take the view that in a liberal democracy the rights of minorities should be protected especially having made the case that covid-19 is not a severe public health threat that requires draconian impositions on individual rights.
Personally, I take the view that the measure of a civilised society is in how it treats its minorities and until last year, most people in the UK would have agreed with this, at least ostensibly. We now seem to be in a situation where those who do not want the covid vax for whatever reason are in a minority who face being ostracised from society by vaccine passports. I believe this is unacceptable from a human rights perspective whereby a very important principle is that the rights of the individual supersede the interests of society, or the “greater good” as a whole. This is because when the rights of the individual are subsumed to the “greater good” then persecution of minorities is enabled. Given that covid-19 is not a severe public health threat and those who take the vax can feel protected by it, there is no case to be made that individuals who do not take the vax are endangering others and so it should remain a personal choice.
The principle that individual rights supersede the “greater good” is enshrined in such places as the UNESCO declaration on bioethics and human rights, article 3;
“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
Furthermore, current UK legislation specifically prohibits provisions requiring medical treatment including vaccination (see for example section 45E Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984). As such it is difficult to see how government could legally approve a domestic vaccine passport system that would essentially amount to a “provision requiring medical treatment including vaccination.”
Therefore, it seems to me that domestic vaccine passports are both legally and morally repugnant and I am surprised to find myself at odds with Lord Sumption in this view.
Perhaps a voluntary vaccine certificate?
In have, had a vaccine. Why should I be prevented from meeting friends who have likewise had a vaccine on the grounds that others have not had one?
Last edited 3 years ago by Tom Hawk
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
The vaccine presumably reduces ‘viral load’, so matters epidemiologically. But I agree with him, I have refused to wear the mask from day one. I have lived my life in a hard way because I will not let anyone push me around on principal, I admire South Dakota, the one state which did NOT mask or lockdown. I hope all the lock down leaders end up being punished severely for doing that which was actually illegal under national, democratic and Constitutional, laws. They made the selfi taking expidition into Congress by the Trump supporters seem nothing at all in comparison to the actual destruction of the West caused by the Lockdowners violating our Constitution! Traitors, all of them.
Well said, Sanford. I think we’ll be talking crimes against humanity when the dust finally settles! I’m packing my bags. I’m off to live in South Dakota. Sounds like my sort of place!
Michelle Johnston
3 years ago
“One of them was to Lock Up Healthy People in Our Homes.”
This it seems gets to the nub of the tactical choices made.
To advise a democracy that the evidence indicates that elderly frail are extremely vulnerable to death and that the fit and healthy between 0-60 have a very low level of vulnerability to death was all that was required. We knew this from Wuhan.
Each year the NHS deals with 16.3 million admissions. By 2016 315,000 were admissions connected to respiration.
Given this the advice should have been that those over 60 with pre existing illness should behave with extreme caution.66,000 of the 74,000 who died in hospital in 2020 fit into that category. Another 21,000 died in 2020 in Aged Care.
In the 0-60 age group both fit and unfit 18,600 have been hospitalised. Clearly well within capacity and deaths from the fit and healthy were 6 were 0-19, 68 were 20-39 and 497 were 40-59.
One of Lord Sumption’s concerns is the misuse of facts to generate fear.
A responsible government would have hammered home to the ‘at risk’ that they would be vulnerable and their immediate families should avoid contact if they became ill. Beyond that nothing more was required.It would have had credibility simply because it was true.
Long Covid is a red herring now described as anyone with a symptom after five weeks. Their is the occasional bad experience for the fit and healthy but crucially they survive, more and more studies are emerging putting damage at the 1% level for athletes with Organ damage which it is admitted may heal.
We are right to listen to Jonathan Sumption’s view of the consequences and dangers at a philosophical level but it is crucial we make up our minds how these things should have been dealt with at a tactical level.
Added to Long Covid is new more transmissible sequences. The reality in SA and UK is they have fallen away in the New Year just as other respiratory illness always does in week 1 to 6. SA Lockdown was Laissez faire and the case numbers began falling in the UK as LD was instituted. When these highly transmissible variants escape quarantine in NZ they wither on the vine just as other sequences have. None of this is coincidence it is telling us a simple truth the basics still work.
In a laboratory a sequence may manifest more transmissible qualities but it would appear that the usual precautions have worked equally well.
It is vital that Governments offer not just philosophically proportionate responses but proportionate tactical ones.
It is now well known that antibodies in the school age children are lower than in their parents. We have known from Sweden since late last spring that children do not transmit or pick up the virus in the same way as their parents indeed the indications is the direction is from parents downwards.That same report told us teachers are no more vulnerable than any other professional group of workers though male secondary teachers need to be more vigilant.
Hold on to our beliefs but hold on to the facts transmit them simply and explain honestly the vulnerabilities to this Virus are across an extremely broad range of outcomes and reactions should be planned accordingly.
Last edited 3 years ago by Michelle Johnston
Jeremy Van Dyke
3 years ago
What a fantastic interview!
Kacey C
3 years ago
Lord Sumption brilliantly explains the harsh realities and I agree with 95% of his opinions. I fully understand his predicament on the vax passports being the best of two evils but this is the part I do not think should happen. This is the act that will change the course of human rights and liberty and I would personally prefer an uprising. On the most basic level, mandating/serious cohesion with consequences that humans have regular chemical substances put into their bodies without full knowledge of what they contain is wrong on every level. In the wrong hands this is control over human life. I choose a holistic lifestyle and use medication only when required (rarely) and believe in host theory, freedom of choice and kindness. Life has shifted this year, friends have changed and I find myself in a level within a new (minority) group of people. They are wonderful people. Ever positive I remain hopeful that people will understand and accept the natural circle of life and that life contains risk. I do not live in fear, do not conform for the sake of it and I would love to write to Mr Sumption to say thank him for being so brave and true in expressing the realities we are facing.
Adrian Doble
3 years ago
He’s right. Absolutely.
Lee Johnson
3 years ago
Same for measles and all other vaccinations.
Thank goodness the great unwashed protect the ‘cream of intellect’ on here
Mark Sharon
3 years ago
You didn’t include the bombshell about vaccine passports Qu: But different behaviours for the vaccinated and non-vaccinated in a lot of people’s minds will start making them think about vaccine passports, you know documents which show stream you’re in which poses new problems to liberty doesn’t it?
Lord Sumption: “I do not have strong views on vaccine passports. They are an invasion of privacy but the information in question is on Government computers or NHS computers anyway [as to] whether you have been vaccinated or not so I think privacy concerns are over-stated. I do not like a world in which you have to produce a document in order to justify partaking in ordinary activities or human existence anymore than the next person. The trouble is the alternative is even worse. I would prefer a system which was entirely voluntary and which trusted people but given I don’t think that is a politically feasible option I think we have to choose the least bad thing [and] to my mind a vaccine passport is a lot less bad than simply indiscriminately depriving everybody of what makes life worse living.” Qu: Do you not worry that it is quite a major change in the way we run out society to suddenly say that every human being needs to take the latest government mandated vaccine and produce a document to prove it otherwise they are essentially outcast. They won’t be able to go to a restaurant, get on an aeroplane, go to the cinema. That sounds quite a big step.
Lord Sumpiton: I think it is and I think it is a regrettable step and if were people were prepared to trust each other and to rely on non-coercive measures we wouldn’t need it but I recognise that most of my fellow citizens want coercive measures and therefore it is incumbent on us I think to think of the least intrusive least objectionable coercive measures.
The idea that a business should be able to chose who they let in is very liberal with a small “l”. As usual (c.f. their thoughts about social media banning people) the “libertarians” on here are in favour of the idea that government shouldn’t intervene in businesses only as long as the businesses are doing what the “libertarians” want.
Lord Sumption needs to become more knowledgeable about the vaccines. It’s stunning really how people so easily think these fast-tracked experimental vaccine products are a magic bullet with no consequences.
Lord Sumption, here’s the NHS schedule, how many of these vaccine products and revaccinations have you had? Have a close look at the children’s schedule. Have you had the three doses of 6-in-1 vaccine with aluminium adjuvant for babies? The two doses of rotavirus vaccine? The three doses of menB vaccine with aluminium adjuvant? Two doses of pneumococcal with aluminium adjuvant? Hib/MenC? Two doses of live MMR? Flu vaccine every year from 2 to 10 years? 4-in-1 pre-school booster, aluminium adjuvanted? Two doses of HPV vaccine, aluminium adjuvanted. 3-in-1 teenage booster? MenACWY?
Did you have this vaccine load when you were a child Lord Sumption? There are a lot of vaccines and revaccinations, and I have questions about some of these vaccines, important questions that aren’t being answered in this hostile climate which tags people as ‘anti-vax’ if they dare to challenge the blessed ‘vaccination science’.
And now, they’re planning to vaccinate children with COVID-19 vaccines, doom them to a life of vaccination with these vaccines, which they don’t need because children, young people and others don’t seem currently to be too adversely affected by the virus. But their natural defences are at risk of being stolen from them, and these children and young people and others being made dependent upon the vaccine industry for life with these vaccine products – is that ethical Lord Sumption?
Note the name of the ‘COVID-19’ vaccine products Lord Sumption. Interesting they’re not called SARS-CoV-2 vaccines don’t you think? Apparently they’re supposed to protect against serious disease, i.e. COVID-19. But if you’re not at risk of serious disease with SARS-CoV-2, why should you be subjected to COVID-19 vaccines?
Lord Sumption, it’s a very serious matter that people who aren’t at risk with the virus are being threatened with coercive vaccination, potentially every year or even more often, please think about this carefully.
Easy to be a vaccine sceptic when you are no longer surrounded by the dangerous illnesses that used to blight society. I’m not talking about covid here, as the risk is more debatable, but diseases like measles and polio did ruin lives. Read Roald Dahl’s comments on the death of his 7 year old daughter. Or talk to my mother, who had polio and is now suffering more from after effects as she gets older.
The ‘purity’ of being vaccine free is attractive, similar to the ‘purity’ of a natural home birth. Would i stick to the ‘pure’ viewpoint if my partner’s home birth was going badly wrong? No. Or deeply regret my adherence to that ‘purity’ if my child died of measles complications? Definitely yes.
We forget. We live in a very sheltered world now, and we forget how common it was for children to die.
Did you read my comment Olly? I’m pointing out that there are a lot of vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule now, including five doses of polio vaccine – why five? What’s wrong with these vaccines that have to be given repeatedly? Where is this going to end? Is anybody wondering about the long-term cumulative effects of the ever-increasing vaccine load?
Something has been going on with the burgeoning schedule, the general public has no idea of the number of vaccines and revaccinations pressed upon children now…or about all the conflicts of interest…
Vaccines are lucrative products that are given to mass populations of people. This is an area that is being developed by the vaccine industry with gusto, particularly as they largely have freedom from liability… The global vaccines market was around US$46.88 billion in 2019, and projected to reach US$104.87 by 2027, and the sky is the limit with evermore vaccines being added to the schedule.
Think outside the square Olly, and consider the real motives of more and more vaccines, most recently coronavirus vaccination against a virus that isn’t a problem for most people.
International vaccination policy is a cesspool of conflicts of interest, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation running the show…how on earth did a software billionaire get to dominate global vaccination policy, via the WHO, Gavi and umpteen other entities? How many people in academia are on the teat of this guy’s funding, and carrying out his agenda?
In regards to Gates and conflicts of interest… “…the Gates Foundation, is also positioned to potentially benefit financially from its leading role in the pandemic response. An investigation by the Nation revealed that Gates had more than $250m (£179m; €206m) invested in companies working on covid-19 and cited civil society groups expressing alarm with the outsize influence the billionaire charity wields in the pandemic response, which they see as elevating the role of the drug industry.”
See: Covid-19, trust, and Wellcome: how charity’s pharma investments overlap with its research effortson The BMJ, 3 March 2021.
I see the nuance in your argument. I must admit your comments make more sense since I saw in another exchange on here that you live in Australia. Ive got a school age child but simply didn’t recognize the vaccine schedule you are describing. I can only assume that far more vaccines are administered in aus than the uk.
We’ll be under pressure to buy more and more meds as long as ‘big pharma’ is the primary supplier of medicines. That’s how billionaire Bill Gates got to be so influential – he bought it. Using money that we all spend on his products. I’m dependent on a couple of prescribed medications made by GSK amongst others. Ive got no choice. Homeopathy ain’t going to sort me out.
What is the alternative system then? Where else do we get these essential items? Is your or my government going to take over, and do we trust them instead?
This makes me laugh…….do you all seriously think the powers that be don’t know everything about you already. Technology alone gives them the info and lets face it this is such hypocrisy, anyone who uses any form of social media gives away information about themselves all the time……think about it
Paul N
3 years ago
There is only one person affected by vaccine status and that is the individual making their decision one way or another.
If a vaccine reduces spread of a disease then those who refuse the vaccine for selfish or stupid reasons are keeping the risks higher for those who are not able to take the vaccine for sensible medical reasons. While asymptomatic carriers are still infectious, there are suggestions that they shed a lower viral load than those who are coughing and sneezing. And more data will become available for transmission by vaccinated people who go on to contract Covid-19 (who, it already appears, are less severely affected). But these are questions best answered by doctors, virologists and epidemiologists who are researching Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.
Exactly! There will always be those who cannot be vaccinated for valid reasons. Vaccination of the rest of us protect that group.
The other issue that Sumption might have been probed on was the impact on the NHS of tolerating higher infection rates. Perhaps better targeted restrictions/support for the most vulnerable would have achieved this, but the question is important and should have been asked.
Blame the Tories with their choking off of funds for the NHS. No wonder they came up with the catchy slogan “Stay at Home, Save the NHS, Protect Lives” You couldn’t make it up!!
I knew someone would come up with this reasoning. Someone always does. This ends up in the territory of someone else deciding for a person what is a “sensible medical decision”. Nobody knows for any individual whether a pharmaceutical product is going to be harmful to them. Deciding not to take it may be as much a “sensible medical decision” for that person as it is for someone whose contraindication is already apparent.
It doesn’t end up anywhere of the sort.
Having a significant contraindication may be a sensible medical reason. Fear of tracking microchips, or delusions that it is some sort of apocalyptic “mark of the beast”, or myths about fertility (or for MMR, about autism) are not sensible medical reasons. It’s not that hard to distinguish between these classes of reason.
Eloise Burke
3 years ago
I feel exactly the same about the lockdowns. It is agreeable to hear that civil disobedience is beginning in England, as it seems to be happening here in America. I have personally paid as little attention as possible to the restrictions. I go out and about and do business with whoever is open for business, and the worst I have had to endure is not getting a haircut. Two states with lockdown orders have said the hell with it, and rescinded them entirely. (And would you believe it – there are people hundreds of miles away having fits about it. What does that tell you?)
Richard
3 years ago
I don’t know why people are disappointed at his total failure to question the logic of forcing people to have a vaccine, and to have Covid passports, when there is a 99.7% chance of recovering from Covid.
No one in the 100% globalist-controlled UK establishment is allowed to question the Covid passports – which are one of the key objectives of the long-planned Corona ‘crisis’, along with perpetual lockdowns, totally fake ‘cases’ and ‘Corona deaths’ figures, and the Great Reset installation of a global Police State.
If there was anything – anything at all – remotely ‘representative’ of the people about MPs, large numbers of them would be strongly opposing Covid passports, the lockdowns, masks, social distancing and all of the rest of the long-planned Corona agenda.
But none of them are. And if that doesn’t show clearly to people that we are no longer a functioning democracy, then nothing will. We are a pretend-democracy, where the ‘furniture’ of democracy – MPs, elections and so on – is maintained… and where it is all totally meaningless.
kenhughes
3 years ago
Agree wholeheartedly with everything he says, except his position on vaccination passports. If find his declared views on this, so inconsistent with everything else he says, that I am suspecting his “place” in all this is to get us to accept the most draconian aspect in all this debacle – vaccine passports. Which, after all, if you give any credence at all to popular conspiracy theories, is the main objective of the false pandemic.
Hayden McAllister
3 years ago
High Dose Vitamin D. Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc, and now Ivermectin. All these cheap and effective drugs work as PREVENTATIVE medicine. America’s Front Line Doctors have split from Big Pharma and are using them successfully, saving lives EARLY, and stopping hospitalisation. Yet our “Health” Secretary claimed that Vitamin D did not work. Fails to mention Hydroxychloroquine (the only time it fails to work is when it is given late or when trials are set up by Big Pharma where they overdosed patients on the “Solidarity and Recovery” trials). Now there is overwhelming evidence that Ivermectin works brilliantly too. But what does our Govt do – basically ignore it. Reason? You can control people with a Vaccine Passport, but not with an Ivermectin Passport. Furthermore – there is no profit to be made for Big Pharma with these cheap life-saving protocols, whereas a no-liability experimental vaccine, that has skipped animal trials, is being thrust onto a psychologically and emotionally distraught and desperate public – will make billions upon billions of pounds for certain entities, and be a weapon of CONTROL. The word conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer is an all-purpose metaphor for nullifying any intelligent research or debate. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no real public debate because ethical doctors and scientists never make it onto the main stream media because of censorship or omission.. And this vaccination programme is supposed to be with “informed consent”. How many people have been informed that since around 2002 there were numerous trials of corona vaccines in animal trials. ALL FAILED. Antibodies were produced, but when the animals were exposed to the wild virus – they grew ill and many died. And yet the no-liability vaccine makers have skipped full animal trials. The public are the guinea pigs. Meanwhile the Govt sponsored fear-mongering goes on and thousands have died because of their failure to implement early-use life-saving preventative treatment.
Richard Brown
3 years ago
Which is more precious to us? Freedom of action or freedom of expression? To do what we like, or to say what we like? A learned Lord appears to be saying that laws that limit our action can be disregarded – do what we like – but says nothing about the freedom to say what we like. As part of an elite that has consistently eroded free speech through ill-defined legal processes, I think I rather resent this liberal lawyer implicitly lecturing us on the shortcomings of his own profession. Has he really turned free-speech libertarian?
thomas Schinkel
3 years ago
brilliant discourse. Civilized, articulate – very well reasoned. Lord Sumption’s calm but firm expression of thought is inspirational to me. Freddie Sayers’ interview style is calm, broad, inquisitive and creative and always on point. Marvelous to watch. Thank you.
David Slade
3 years ago
Interesting interview – good to hear Lord Sumption reflecting on his opposition.
It was disappointing that he seemed to reluctantly acquiesce to vaccine passports for domestic use. I think – reading between the lines of what he said concerning the experience with id cards after the war – his working hypothesis is that these will die out organically.
If they are required to attend venues such as concerts and night clubs – usually frequented by younger people at lower risk – its not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby those venues that don’t require certification (assuming the government leaves it to them to decide) out-compete their authoritarian counterparts. Market selection and public impatience will finish these things off (we can but hope).
In any case, the UK government has now agreed to debate the petition calling for ‘no vaccine passports/restrictions’ again – after these debates were initially suspended for a time.
It will, at the very least, be interesting to see what those who promised – with a cross-party consensus – that such things were off-the-table in December – now have to say for themselves.
Last edited 3 years ago by David Slade
Caro HW
3 years ago
JS is a marvel of common sense and human dignity. And so incredibly eloquent, too. He’s the only person in the public sphere I’ve genuinely enjoyed listening to over the past few years (his Reith lectures were superb). Please look after yourself Lord Sumption, you are a gem.
kenhughes
3 years ago
I have always said to the risk averse, that to eliminate all risk we will all have to be imprisoned.
The stronger the narrative gets about the primacy of STEM, to the detriment of public opinion on the arts and humanities (which have, unfortunately, been defiled by the ‘woke’ in recent decades), the more likely situations such as the one we find ourselves in are to happen. If you believe science is more important than anything else, then you feel compelled to prostrate yourself before its altar.
George Wells
3 years ago
This wonderful conversation has put me in the delicious situation of feeling like a rebel for freedom and having as my spokesman a pillar of the establishment. Thank you, Lord Sumption. You are the very best of England. Beautiful.
(And of course, thank you Freddie, keep on!)
David Walters
3 years ago
An interesting comment on the fragility of democracy. I wonder if the statement “Because the populace will always be a sucker for a demagogue who will turn himself into an absolute ruler” rings any bells with the Scottish electorate at the present time?
Jackie Nolan
3 years ago
I share Lord Sumption’s views on lock-down and I am grateful that he has spoken out on the issue several times over the last year. His views on vaccination certificates seem illogical by comparison.
In the context of a virus that has a survival rate of over ninety nine percent vaccination certificates surely represent a disproportionate response to an overexaggerated level of risk.
I have understandable reservations about the COVID-19 vaccinations because they use brand new technologies and there is no data on their long-term effects. Others who are at risk of death or serious illness from COVID may weigh the balance in favour of vaccination and that is their choice to make.
Now that those who were at risk from serious illness or death have been offered protection there is no need to vaccinate those at low risk as their immune systems can fight COVID-19 without pharmaceutical intervention.
I believe it would be immoral and unethical, and it should be illegal, to coerce the uptake of vaccines by restricting the movement, employment opportunities or activities of the unvaccinated. It would be a step in the wrong direction if disproportionate, needless or coercive measures that diminish freedom and choices were introduced.
Nina Murden
3 years ago
Great interview! It would be interesting to develop other discussions with those that can speak to the ‘fear’ that Lord Sumption said lay at the heart of the majority of our population, – in favour of the lockdowns and vaccines to keep them ‘safe’. And what exactly is that fear, but fear of mortality? As our lives have got supposedly ‘safer’ and longer, our ability to accept its limit, in fact any limitation upon us, has dwindled in direct proportion. Death and disease, which now has been handed over to the ‘professionals’ is not that often witnessed as a difficult but meaningful education to the living. I am old enough to have been a pre-vaccine (apart from Polio) child, who had several diseases now vaccinated against. I had Rubella, or as it was known then German Measles, and what did I learn as a child of 9, what did my mother learn, and my siblings? That you could fall ill, but be nursed and cared for at home, that your body fought it off, (thankfully), was stronger for it, with the good and loving care of your family. I learnt from this – the vulnerability of the body, strength of the body, and of the mind to endure and regain health with the love and wisdom of your mother. Today, there are many who have never either suffered disease and found recovery, nor nursed their child through such things. So when the government decides to talk of nothing else BUT death for a year now, but ONLY in relation to Covid, you can see how undone the population have become, as they are fundamentally unresourced! I don’t know about others on this forum, but have found the division between lockdown aficionados and lockdown sceptics doesn’t run along any known political lines, BUT it does run along a line I would describe as the, wretchedly-anxious-death-phobics and those who accept what is, will be, and that we have little control over the manner and time of our deaths, that is a known companion but one that enlivens the very life you DO have, and does not demand that you should cower in fear, waiting for the all clear. That you can look after your own health, and understand what risks you take, and that’s about it. So the wretchedly anxious consider ‘others’; the un-vaccinated, or unmasked or those skirting to close to them, as literally the possible if not probable agents of their own deaths. This division is the thing that has undone the nation so completely. So anyway, how about interviewing say John Lee, or Stephen Jenkinson of the book Die Wise? Both have spoken and written about death and dying and societies understanding of it.
Last edited 3 years ago by Nina Murden
Richard Roe
3 years ago
I thought the same thing as you. And then I examined the implications of what he was saying. When faced with two alternatives, neither of which you would choose, you have to decide which one has the least impact upon the human rights of the public. He was not saying that it was right for private venues to demand proof of vaccination, just that that was preferable to the government continuing with a blanket lockdown and closure of those same premises. I suppose it is up to us to make a case against the governments (one step removed) coercion of a population to undergo a medical procedure by avoiding businesses that insist on it and patronising those that don’t. We could also make the moral decision that it is preferable to carry fake certification but that would be a more cowardly thing to do as it still reinforces the obnoxious principle.
For my part, I will take the vaccination willingly and gratefully but I will never carry proof of vaccination unless it is for arrival in a foreign country. There should not be two classes of citizen, able to enjoy different privileges, based upon violation of their bodily autonomy. What next, bar codes?
david.berks
3 years ago
At about 48 mins Lord Sumption refers back to the “craving for security” driving behaviour. I wonder to what extent this observation was intended to be applied to academic modellers and those other entities subject to discretionary funding by more or less goal-seeking vested interests, just as much as to individuals.
Arnold Grutt
3 years ago
“I do not believe that there is a moral obligation to obey the law… You have to have a high degree of respect, both for the object that the law is trying to achieve, and for the way that it’s been achieved. Some laws invite breach.”
Yes, ones that smug liberals regard as beneath them. But what stops anyone deciding the same way for any law? Sumption appears to have no idea of why most people obey laws. The Law has to be considered authoritative if it is the result of a legitimate process, ‘unjust’ or not. If the Government is suddenly taken over by private actors, say in a civil war, who introduce their own ‘laws’ against the system and the tacit acceptance of the totality of the subjects in a realm, OK, the necessity for consent may evaporate, but we are not in that position. We are a civilized country with a long history of legal discussion and observance. To claim the generalized individual right to ignore laws (rather than openly, conspicuously breaking them and taking the resulting punishment) is in effect to set oneself up as an independent, groundless, ‘authority’.
Respectfully disagree. Every citizen must use their own conscience in a civilised country as to whether a law deserves to be obeyed and take the consequences. We have a right to make an individual stand as to whether it is in the best interests of an individual and/or all…I am not talking about speed limits here..but we are heading towards laws about snitching on neighbours for example that reek of fascism. We have little control over the detail of laws made sometimes and public resistance may be the only way to send a message.
According to one BBC Radio 4 report at the start of the Jan 2021 lockdown, the lockdown legislation had already suffered 65 amendments in 10 months. It was like a bizarre mixture of tyranny and anarchy. The public had no effective say in any change. You had to be a specialist lawyer to keep abreast of the changes and represent a client competently. And the police were often uncertain what to do and how to use their judgement.
Lee Johnson
3 years ago
FT: ‘Italy blocks shipment of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to Australia’
Never mind civil disobedience: First the EU says the Oxford vaccine doesn’t work, then it blocks it from going anywhere.
War?
What did you expect? They are all Fascists, Gaullists or National Socialists at heart.
Last edited 3 years ago by Charles Stanhope
Sandy Anthony
3 years ago
So what it all seems to boil down to is that some people place a higher value on freedom while others place a higher value on safety, and that’s an irreconcilable difference.
“…while others place a higher value on safety…” No, that’s not at all an “irreconcilable difference”. Most intelligent people place a high value on both. It’s just that what you consider safe or unsafe may differ from what others consider safe or unsafe, depending on whether you believe the panic narrative with the worst case scenario or whether you examine the actual figures and assess the actual risk. Someone of a highly nervous disposition may decide that it’s unsafe to fly, so they refuse to board an aeroplane. Someone else may acknowledge that there are risks, but so minor that they consider it perfectly OK to board the same aeroplane. Freedom is being allowed to make the choice.
Freedom does sometimes have to be curtailed in the interests of safety. But there must be good supporting evidence. There is overwhelming evidence gathered over many years that the wearing of seat belts saves many lives; so it’s good that it was made compulsory. There is no such evidence in the Covid scenario for lockdown or compulsory universal vaccination. So your statement is false.
Robert Camplin
3 years ago
Never before in history have the well been locked up or forcibly treated to ‘protect’ the sick.
Paul Marks
3 years ago
The nations that did not lockdown (even very poor Belarus and Nicaragua) do not have a higher Covid death rate than we do – they have a lower Covid death rate than we do. The terrible costs (including health costs) of the lockdowns have not produced the lower death rates that were promised. As for right now – the Covid death rate is falling in Britain, but it is also falling in Sweden and other countries that did not lockdown.
Dave Trump
3 years ago
How could someone imagine these are all random events, that just happen to follow a predetermined path that benefits an agenda that billionaires and politicians have been writing about for decades?
Universal suffrage democracy has been promoted as the sole viable system of government for every nation on the planet, and that is because, combined with a controlled distribution of information, it means eternal rule by an elite minority.
Even allowing that the primary assumption in the defense of universal suffrage democracy, that each person is an equally capable individual is somehow true, the information they are absorbing is coming from somewhere.
If “fake news” can sway people’s reaction to a deadly virus, or change the course of an election, then people are not the universally discerning individuals that it is assumed they are, and all public reactions are changed by mainstream news, and that it is absurd to simply assume that mainstream news is always accurate.
The internet has allowed for all types of information to be shared, and for individuals to give their own information true or false to whoever is willing to listen to it.
So the natural thing for the system to do is attack the free distribution of information by regulating the internet.
It is a very bizarre thing to witness, this claim that free access to information limits the freedom of democracy, as if their primary assumption is true, it should do the opposite.
The reason that fake news is advertised as this big problem, with the media claiming that people are so stupid they will believe anything, is that they want to shut down real news.
What they are clearly trying to lead people to is that the only way “democracy” can work is if free speech is banned and only a centralized, government-run body is allowed to decide what the people are or are not allowed to hear.
They are going to have to admit that the term “democracy” doesn’t have anything to do with voting or “government by the people” and instead refers to a system of tyrannical domination of the peasants by a tiny elite minority.
Governments has used this lockdown to:
o Completely define the role of government in our lives
o Strip us of virtually all of our most basic freedoms
o Transfer trillions from the middle class to billionaires
o Completely destroy the concept of small businesses by closing them down and transferring their share of the economy to multinational corporations
We know they want transexuals, they want child transexuals, they want wars with China and Russia, they want billions of Africans flooding every corner of the planet.
How does any of this benefit the people they supposedly represent?
What we do know is this: the coronavirus isn’t and has never been a serious threat.
Millions of people are going to die as a result of this lockdown, and the same cannot be said of coronavirus. Many of those who survive will be wishing they hadn’t, as we enter into a dystopian nightmare of a tyrannical government, backed by an ultra-wealthy elite, ruling over a huddled mass of penniless peasants.
I’m very concerned about the scientific data I’ve read regarding the coronavirus vaccine. It is an entirely new type of vaccine, categorized as an mRNA vaccine. The vaccine enters your bloodstream and overrides your messenger RNA, sending messages to the cells to produce a protein that the scientists claim with help you build immunities to the coronavirus. I’m very uncomfortable with all of this, in any context, given that there are so many obvious problems, even to a layman, that could come up during the process of manipulating the body on a genetic level like this.
Even if this was a genuine plague that as a young, healthy person I was at some risk of dying from, I would have questions about this vaccine, and I would be extremely put off if the government told me I couldn’t ask any questions about it, and then proceeded to use military intelligence to prevent me from asking questions.
However, I already know as a matter of fact, and the official government health bodies have already admitted, that I am not at risk for experiencing complications from this virus. So I have to ask why it is that they are demanding that I take it.
I don’t know the answer. No one does.
Involving military intelligence (77th Brigade) in efforts to convince me to take it does not make the vaccine appear any less sinister.
Elizabeth Hart
3 years ago
Wow! I’ve now finished watching Jonathan Sumption being interviewed by Freddie Sayers. I’m stunned by Lord Sumption’s arguments.
Lord Sumption concludes the interview saying “But there are some issues which are so central to the dilemmas of our time, which are so important, where I think that you have to be prepared to stand up and be counted”. One would think that challenging a questionable government-mandated medical intervention such as fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccination would be an important issue where one would have to be prepared to stand up and be counted…
But no, Sumption is prepared to cave in and accept coercive vaccination for all, so that fearful people will be willing to come out and go to the theatre! Honestly, you couldn’t make it up!
Sumption knows that COVID-19 is a disease “from which at least 99% of people recover and survive”, but because the population has been deliberately terrified by the UK Government and SAGE about the virus, it seems he thinks it’s justifiable to coercively vaccinate everyone with fast-tracked experimental vaccine products to placate their fears, and ostracise those who refuse to buckle to questionable coronavirus vaccination. Meanwhile the UK government and SAGE gets off scot free for terrorising the population and turning society and the economy upside down, when they actually should both be stood down, and an investigation undertaken into this fiasco, which has had a massive impact on the world, emanating from the UK…and yes I mean the UK, as well as China.
I suspect Sumption knows little or nothing about the vaccine, of which he says he has had one dose, he doesn’t say which brand. People are being pressed to have these vaccines, but how many are being informed that these vaccines have been provisionally approved under emergency authorisations, i.e. they are not fully approved. All these people being vaccinated at the moment are part of a massive vaccine trial, and most of them don’t know it…
We have no idea if these vaccines will prevent transmission. And don’t believe all the feel good hype that’s being spread about the vaccine products at the moment, they’ve only been in the community for a few months, we have no idea how this rushed vaccine campaign is going to play out. The worst thing is these vaccine products are going to be pressed upon the entire global population, people of all ages, when most people, as Lord Sumption knows, are not at risk with this virus. Not only is this a questionable medical intervention, but think of all the money and resources that are going into this over-the-top vaccination response that could have been spent more effectively elsewhere.
Lord Sumption is 72 years old. He might think it worth the risk to take an experimental vaccine if it gives him freedom to go to the theatre and travel. But like many older people, he’s not thinking of young people, who are being set up for a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination, which most people do not need. How can he not see that it’s wrong to subject literally billions of people to a lifetime of unnecessary vaccination, with who knows what long-term consequences? Who decided that mass vaccination of the entire global population was the appropriate response to SARS-CoV-2? This needs to be tracked back now, to see how this grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted response happened.
Last edited 3 years ago by Elizabeth Hart
David Owsley
3 years ago
agree entirely. It is only a small section, 30-34 minutes more or less. the rest is OK.
Richard Spicer
3 years ago
It is always good to seeSumption’s brain at work. The ideal system of government is benign dictatorship; the problem is finding a benign dictator and ensuring a benign successor. If you read Etienne La Boetie’s essay ‘On Voluntary Servitude’ (written in the 1570’s) you will see why all systems of government fail. Anarchy is the only system not doomed to end in voluntary servitude and there have been wise advocates of a form of anarchy (William Godwin, Karl Popper).
Andrew Hall
3 years ago
There used to be a paucity of remarks but they were the right side of nuts. Is it something Sumption said or has the number of nutty conspiricists and antivaxxers multiplied exponentially in recent weeks, just as we begin to emerge from the lockdown cave. Maybe being too long frightened and in hiding has wrought a terrible psychological effect on our minds. In which case Lord Sumption your point is proven.
Paul pmr
3 years ago
It was Plato – not Aristotle – who thought democracy eventually became tyranny. Aristotle argued that the best and most stable form of government was constitutional monarchy.
Young people need to wake up…quickly… Think about what they’ve been doing in socially isolating people, interfering with free movement and association, hindering people from gathering and talking freely about what is going on.
You’re being lined up for coronavirus vaccination throughout life. They’re planning to start from birth…
It seems most people aren’t at too much risk with this virus, but they want everyone to be compelled to have these experimental vaccine products – why? Why are they insisting everyone has to be vaccinated against a virus which isn’t a risk to most people?
To protect the NHS? How about they make the NHS fit for purpose, which they could have been doing for the past year. Instead, untold billions have been squandered on developing very questionable vaccine products, highly questionable testing, and the apparatus which is being used to control us, i.e. masks, QR codes for surveillance, vaccine passports etc.
Who has gotten very, very rich on the back of this ill-targeted and disproportionate response? It’s up to you young people, take it back, demand accountability from ‘your’ despotic government, otherwise you’re in for a very grim future indeed.
The government and SAGE have to go, and an urgent investigation established into the events of the past year – but who can be trusted to fill the void?
Don’t rely on the old people to help you, so many have let you down already.
Look at people such as Jonathan Sumption and Peter Hitchens, they’ll sell your future down the river so they can go back on holidays. They’ve keeled over on the vaccines, submitting to coercive medical interventions, vaccination. The risk is worth it to them, they haven’t that many years ahead of them. But young people are being set up for a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination, being made dependent on the vaccine industry, which will steal your natural defences against the virus. Think about this…
We don’t know what lies ahead with the global rollout of these experimental vaccine products, the unknown consequences. This is unprecedented, and it’s young people who will have to deal with the fallout. Think about it young people, think about what you’re being set up for, this is a very bad situation.
You make your case very vehemently Elizabeth, which with your lavish use of bold type may provoke a negative response – “Conspiracy theory”, fearmongering and so on ( as distinct from the fearmongering coming from government sources?). Maybe you’re exaggerating, I don’t know. But I do fear the vaccine rhetoric could be paving the way for just such a scenario as you describe. It seems unbelievable or extremely unlikely, just because we as a nation have been so used to living in a liberal democracy and assuming this would continue automatically along with cream teas, cricket on the green and the Last Night of the Proms. To contemplate the alternative is too disturbing, and to suggest that the alternative may already be reality is seriously scary. So the natural impulse (mine too) is to dismiss it or at least downplay it.
But for a moderate, thoughtful and erudite discussion by two biologists on the topic of Covid vaccinations for children, see Bret and Heather Weinstein on YouTube, “COVID vaccinations for children and adolescents (from Livestream#69)” Sorry, can’t get the link to copy onto here, but you can search it in YouTube.
Yes, I do make my case vehemently Hilary, because in my opinion there should not have been a vaccine response to this coronavirus which isn’t a serious threat to most people. It’s insane that there’s now a plan to vaccinate the entire global population, potentially every year or even more often.
It’s astonishing there isn’t more pushback on this, but at the same time it’s not surprising because there has been a concerted effort over the years to hinder any questioning of vaccination policy. The ‘anti-vaxxer’ tag is applied to anyone questioning vaccination, this has become a no go area. As a result, the vaccine schedule is going through the roof, and most of the avid ‘pro-vaxxers’ out there wouldn’t have a clue, and certainly haven’t had all the vaccines and revaccinations that children are subjected to now. Coronavirus vaccination is looming for children to add to the vaccine load, it’s wrong that they be subjected to yet another vaccination against a virus which doesn’t appear to be a threat to them.
My position is challenging over-vaccination, a matter I took up in regards to pet vaccination, when one of my dogs became very ill after a regular annual vaccination and was put down. I subsequently discovered dogs and cats were being grossly over-vaccinated, e.g. with dogs being subjected to annual vaccination with ‘live’ vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus – this would be like giving people an MMR every year of their lives. I had some success in having this matter addressed, see my webpage on the subject here: Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice.
It’s very notable that specialists in veterinary vaccination* have warned “we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. Meanwhile, vaccination of humans is going through the roof – we really do need to challenge what is going on.
The veterinary vaccination specialists also acknowledge “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine associated adverse events, because of the passive nature of reporting schemes, which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”. This is also very relevant to human vaccination, there is great reluctance to acknowledge adverse events after vaccination, and this seriously “impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”. *Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 57. January 2016.
Hilary, I’ve made other comments on this article re Covid statistics; the impact of Neil Ferguson’s ‘modelling’ around the world; vaccination and the Helsinki Declaration; the number of vaccinations and revaccinations on the NHS schedule; the growth of the vaccine market from US$46.88 in 2019 to US104.87 by 2027; and the Gates Foundation’s investment in vaccines.
There are serious matters to discuss about coronavirus, and the ill-targeted and disproportionate response to this virus, including proposed global vaccination. But this is part of a bigger picture of a vaccine industry in over-drive, which has colonised vaccination policy, an area that is steeped in conflicts of interest.
This is a massive scandal, and we have no effective ‘fourth estate’ to investigate.
John Stone
3 years ago
It is unfortunate that judges tend to see it as their role to play dumb over science deferring to government bureaucracies rather than being remotely inquisitive – they are abdicating responsibility and it puts society in danger. They may persuade themselves that they would be technically out of their depth, but all too often it is about entrenched ideological positions in which inconsistency would manifest itself with only a little probing, well within their intellectual capacity. Like so many politicians judges are being intimidated and it ends up with placing unchecked powers in the hands a rapaciously corrupt technocratic elite.
justinpclark07
3 years ago
Western Australia is a great example of how the UK could have moved i.e. swift lockdown. However at some stage, business and tourist visitors will be wanted and citizens will also want to travel for business and leisure… then those unvaccinated need protection… thereby it’s better to vaccinate sooner-than-later to recover an economy…?
Ian Manning
3 years ago
There is strong evidence coming out from several sources that both the Pfizer and the Astra-Zeneca vaccines ensure the recipients will be almost completely free from passing on any infection. And as vaccination ensures any infection will not be severe, the viral load involved would not be very high anyway. So, as a vaccinated person in the UK, I am safe to mix with anyone whether vaccinated or not and I am doing just that. I believe it’s the responsibility of individuals to make their own risk assessments based on available evidence and not retreat into a quivering funk just because the Government says so! I despair when I see how many people, many older who should have been vaccinated, walking around in the open air with masks strapped to their faces!
Last edited 3 years ago by Ian Manning
Carlo Dallapiccola
3 years ago
I am rather surprised that during the entire 50-minute discussion the USA was not mentioned once. I understand the emphasis on UK matters, of course, but it is surely worth mentioning that the oldest democracy is the American one, formed in the late 18th. century, and, furthermore, that it quite clearly stands out amongst the Northern hemisphere Western nations (excepting, possibly, Sweden) as one that has taken a less Draconian approach to mitigate/suppress the spread of the virus. Since the end of true lockdowns in April-May 2020, most US states have kept non-essential businesses open and have not enforced social-distancing rules with a heavy hand (no squads of police roaming streets, parks, etc., enforcing absurd rules). Indeed, some states have maintained quite relaxed rules, much to the consternation of segments of the population that do not agree with such an approach. Where I live, Massachusetts, for instance, *indoor* dining has *never* been prohibited since being allowed to reopen in early June 2020 – and our state is considered one with some of the more rigid restrictions.
I guess this is because the number of covid deaths in the US is so staggeringly high, that it would be rather against their anti-lockdown argument.
I know, you would say that deaths per million are comparable with the UK, but there is this magic of straight numbers, more than 533 thousand deaths, this is truly scary.
I don’t understand the point being made about absolute numbers versus per capita ones. It seems obvious enough that number of deaths per million inhabitants is the only sensible way to compare nations. The all-cause, pre-covid19 number of yearly deaths in the US is also “staggeringly high” by your line of argument. And so?
The point is that much of the US has followed the somewhat more balanced approach that Lord Sumption seems to be advocating, with a covid death toll (per million) that is less than that of the UK. But, indeed, if the thing that you care about above all else is suppressing covid deaths, then let’s forget about “balance” and look favorably at the Wuhan example.
Surely the old Dutch Republic was a Democracy in existence well before the USA?
However, thanks to your recent ‘election’ the US is a somewhat toxic subject at present.
Of course there were democracies in existence before the US (and before the old Dutch Republic). The US is considered, by most measures, to be currently the world’s longest-running democracy. Lord Sumption made the remark that Western democracies are only about 150 years old and then went on to say a few things about the history of democracy in England.
Yes but the Dutch Democracy is still with us, despite the unnecessary addition of a Constitutional Monarch in 1815, therefore well predates the upstart United States. QED?
Paul Marks
3 years ago
Presently the government says the lockdown will end shortly – good. But another lockdown must not be imposed – if another virus just happens to appear after “Gain of Function” research in some lab in Wuhan, with the virus then “escaping” (and perhaps it really was accidental), the public will not accept another lockdown. Instead they will ask who funded the research and what was the purpose of having the virus escape. Once may be accident – but not twice.
Tom Hawk
3 years ago
He said a very intersting thing. Government didn’t think they could get away with it (impose lockdown) until China did then Italy copied China.
What he is alluding to is the fundamental attitude of government. In this case it appears that government has been most preoccupied with control for itself not governance of the population for overall public benefit.
Yes, agreed. I think that was one of the most interesting things he said, and the source he referred to was something Neil Ferguson said in The Times, which I am going to try and find.
dougie007bond
3 years ago
Whilst I agree with Lord Sumption on what has happened to shift public opinion to the realm of intolerant conformism, I was surprised that he appeared afraid to emphasise that his self -professed Christian belief provided the basis for his opinion that there is more to life than a fear of death;,the avoidance of death is pivotal to secularism but that death is not the last word is grounded in Christian belief. Lord Sumption has my support as he is right in what he has said, but he should stand behind his faith which has grounded his intellect.
D.C.S Turner
3 years ago
Never has such a hysterical attitude been voiced with so much calm. Lord Sumption has made himself ridiculous during the last year simply by going way beyond the limits of his competence.
Mark Cole
3 years ago
Very balanced and I totally agree with him re lockdown. The economic, mental and no-covid health cost of lockdown is huge and is building like pressure in the volcano. It has been negligent of the Government to ignore and naive to rely on a very limited caucus of SAGE scientists. Even now when the data is so good and the vaccination roll out working wonders they are ignoring the opportunity to reconsider and bring forward the staggered release. In fact, as the weather improves, SAGE policy is increasing risk by herding us into limited outdoor locations as the parks and playgrounds over the last 2 weeks have shown. All outdoor sports should back on and arguably controlled indoors like gyms and hairdressers where much has been invested to be covid safe.
It is ridiculous that we are one of the only the few western countries not allow to outdoor sport, from kids to adults especially school and university students sport is the balance to study and the lack of it is doing much damage – even Scotland has not closed down golf
Personally I dont mind a Health Passport – we have so many numbers and licences and certificates its about time they combined them into one and gave us an ID card like the US and Europe
There are a lot of benefits in growing old and keeping fit. Such as freedom of movement, freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Not to mention not having a boss to slave under. The great enemy though is passivity which will be bad for your mind and bad for your body. In a way it takes more discipline than working but is well worth it to live a productive and healthy life. Retirement is a real danger. There is no such thing as healthy retirement. Once you learn that you can make it work for you in a big way.
Unfortunately the freedoms of which you write are more true for those with a good income in retirement. Many people have choices limited by a lack of funds.
rod tobin
3 years ago
time for a check up on his mental/physical situation. its a shame but we all get old and think we know how to run the world.i know this is true because i am always right.HAHAHA, theyre coming to take me away…………
Eloise Burke
3 years ago
Are you saying the vaccine does no more than mitigate symptoms in the vaccinated – i.e. they can still catch it and be infectious to others?
That is what the literature given to my sister who works in the NHS as a therapist very clearly said. This is, after all, not a vaccine, so it doesn’t work like one.
When the vaccine was first approved the only claims made were that it would mitigate symptoms, not that it would prevent transmission. This is how vaccines work. However, if someone has no symptoms or very mild symptoms the viral load is lighter, making transmission difficult or less probable. However, the same goes if you contract the disease naturally, a fact which we have been consistently been misled about in the media (all the credible scientific body of evidence says that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission, although it is possible to transmit when you are presymptomatic).
The vaccine has not been approved. It has been granted distribution under emergency protocols. Look up Pfizer.com
Also, after Reagan granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries under the 1986 Vaccine Act, where is the incentive to produce safe vaccines? There is a litany of examples throughout recent history where this has come back to bite governments on the ar$e. Buyers beware !!!
You think there is no deterrent in the certainty of serious reputational damage, or the lack of a market for it once your hypothetical “unsafe” vaccine problems emerge?
BBC Future has an article entitled “Can you still transmit Covid-19 after vaccination?” that discusses this issue for current vaccines. It’s unusually detailed for a popular media organisation publication, and it has links to its sources.
Here are some extracts – google should allow you find the rest of the article. Oxford-AstraZeneca
‘…the reduction in the number of infections – and therefore the potential for transmission …was promising, [but] further data was needed to confirm the findings.’ ‘…a new paper published in pre-print on 1 February… found that the vaccine cut the number of cases with detectable virus by 67% after a single standard dose, and wrote that this shows “the potential for a substantial reduction in transmission”. ‘ Pfizer-BioNTech
There isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can prevent people from being infected with the coronavirus – and therefore halt its spread. But there are some early signs that it might…
…the Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) looked at the health records of a million people in the country, and found that – a week after being fully vaccinated – just 317 people out of 715,425 tested positive for the coronavirus.
In short – we don’t definitively know, but the signs are very promising.
One of the key words used by Lord Sumption is “Objective”, used to describe how governments should behave. In other words, we, the public, should be given both or all sides of a problem, not the one sided presentation, given in very patronising fashion, by Boris and Co. We are not children, and they are not our masters. The government is an elected body, elected by the public, to serve the public. With regard to this vaccine, anybody concerned about side effects, will need to do their own research, as very little (if any) information is given by our politicians, on this subject. Thousands have died after taking the vaccine, and many more have suffered serious side effects. There are organisations set up to monitor these side effects, but they are not mentioned at the government health broadcasts each afternoon. Deliberate concealment of the facts, in order not to discourage anybody from taking the vaccine.
David M Pelly
3 years ago
Watch as many of these videos as you can. No less than 10.
By that time you should begin to get some idea of what is going on:
I couldn’t agree with you more! As I was watching the interview, I became crestfallen as I realized even this highly respected intellectual could contradict himself. Freddy’s reaction was priceless; it’s almost as though he couldn’t believe his ears. At the very beginning of the interview, Lord Sumption said the disease was not worth the unprecedented measures as it affects only a small segment of the population severely. A vaccine passport to go into public places is another unprecedented measure and only serves to bolster fear-ridden people’s misgivings about others and create a health elitism. I do wonder if he will listen to this interview of himself and regret what he said.
justinpclark07
3 years ago
I don’t think the lockdown was about protecting us primarily…. it was about protecting the NHS to avoid a terrible political stain
Eleanoŕ Pitt
3 years ago
Exactly. I was very surprised by his stance on vaccine passports also because it’s completely inconsistent with what he said previously about the severity of the virus itself. I wonder if it is because he personally is in a more vulnerable age group. The vaccine and this idea of vaccine passports has gained traction on the back of the whole exaggerated coverage of the virus and subsequent policies – if you believe the wrong approach was taken there, there is no justification for imposing further restrictions on our liberties based on a belief that the only way out of this is a magic jab.
Carlo Dallapiccola
3 years ago
repeated
Last edited 3 years ago by Carlo Dallapiccola
Z
3 years ago
This is a line of argumentation which deserves due consideration.
This is about the balance between freedom for the individual to pursue their own interests when their actions don’t harm others, and restrictions on that freedom when the actions potentially do harm others. Things in that area are not open and shut, they are tricky.
Since this is about the UK, an example which comes to mind it the strict blackout regulations during WWII. Suppose some people rebelled and felt that the State should not be able to tell them not to have lights on with windows uncovered – or even host lighted parties in their yards. They could reason that the chance of an individual home’s lights causing that home to be bombed is slight, and that each individual should be able to accept or decline that chance based on their own estimates of the risk and willingness to accept the consequences.
On the other side would be those who argued that allowing German bombers to more easily locate cities would cause additional risk to others who do not consent to take that extra risk; the risk is not entirely a personal choice, because it affects others.
It would seem that the line of argument proposed by Sumption would tend to support the former.
My point here is that in real world issue of this sort, it’s a semi-practical question of where to set the thresholds, rather than a matter of asserting absolutes based on abstract arguments, such as about whether the State should have absolute power over the individual.
Reasonable people can advocate for different thresholds. This involves both objective issues (such as incrementally refining our scientific understanding of the probabilities so as not be be deluded about the risks and benefits) and subjective ones (how much risk to take in trade for how much more freedom).
While I appreciate some of the Judge’s viewpoint, I don’t think it’s strongly useful in setting the proper threshold.
Civil disobedience like chaining oneself to a fence (imposing no risk on others) would be different than “civil disobedience” consisting of a known infectious person breaking quarantine to hang out in a pub.
The difference between the latter and hosting an illegal party is more quantitative then qualitative. The risk of the known infected person spread the disease is higher than the risk of people of unknown disease status spreading it, and that difference in probabilities might cross some people’s preferred threshold and not others.
Another probabilistic question for society is criminalizing the act of driving while intoxicated. Some have pointed out that this consists of punishing somebody not on the basis that they have actually injured somebody else, or have the intention of doing so, but on the basis that they are statistically somewhat more likely to do so than people who are not intoxicated.
I don’t see how such issues can be addressed with the absolute and abstract arguments used by the judge, nor do I see that “civil disobedience” is a good answer to them (DWI, blackout lights, or breaking quarantine).
Last edited 3 years ago by Z
harry.adam
3 years ago
The evidence is that those vaccinated do not transmit.
Z
3 years ago
You are implying binary effects – either a vaccine completely protects people from any danger, or a vaccine completely allows passing the virus on. In practice, the data is that the vaccines substantially to greatly reduce the chance of being infected, and likely substantially reduce the chance of passing it on. So a vaccinated person is still safer if not exposed to the virus, and others (vaccinated or not) are safer around a vaccinated person.
This still leaves the question of “how much safer and should that matter”. But we can’t analyze or debate those questions until we abandon binary thinking.
carswithnoreserveebay
3 years ago
Hi , the only point I would make in response to Trish, (speaking as someone inherently suspicious of the rushed out vaccine) is a vaccinated person is considerably less likely to end up hospitalised and a burden on the NHS. So whilst I agree with the premise of her argument that vaccinated or unvaccinated It may not effect onward transmission of the disease, it will materially effect the burden on the NHS, the wheels coming off of which is the one thing the government are utterly understandably preoccupied by.
John Stone
3 years ago
It says here there are 379 comments but I can only view perhaps a hundred.
jackarandarainbow
3 years ago
Britain might have been considered a democracy in the past, especially in relation to countries like France in the 1800s, Russia both under and after the Czar, and Zululand under Shaka. But its never been a democracy in every sense, elections have always been fixed and free speech has never actually existed.
Zorro Tomorrow
3 years ago
Democracies and clubs. I don’t think vaccine passports are right. I don’t think banning smoking or being forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets is right. It appears that leaves me in a minority but I am not ready to become a hermit. If Greece or other holiday venues insist on me having a passport I have a choice. If they insist I must comply. Why should an antivax person become a burden on, or a perceived threat to, their health service? I imagine the travel insurance people will have the last word.
Like every election, whoever loses doesn’t like the winning side. The Covid thing has revealed not only nervous frightened people but also the thoughtless both of whose uninformed opinions have formed their actions. If the majority think you need a jab to go in a pub then the pubs should decide not the police. I imagine the pubs will follow the money or their local clientele. If I’ve had my jab (I have) why should I care if the person next to me has not? However, my younger friends and family, as yet unvaccinated, do not have such an easy choice. Enforced vax passports will cause far more unpleasantness than Brexit, or historically, Civil Wars worldwide.
par.wallin
3 years ago
I am happy to notice such a brilliant partaker of the establishment has now gone public with his mind about the dismantling of our freedoms ! But i think he is to vague about the vaccine issue .. also if the government had been more determined to act by actual data and fight back the fear instead of creating it it hadnt been a need for this civil disobedience … and as for me i think this and the fearmongering is a part of a sinister plan to rob us of our civil rights and create the dream situation for governments with no opposition and a coffebreak to pass new laws and regulations !
Jonathan Cook
3 years ago
Dear Freddie Sayer, you had said that you would interview Johan Gisecke and Anders Tegnell of Sweden again a year after the start of the pandemic to see how their “non-lockdown” policy had panned out. Maybe you could do that now without waiting longer? The latest 7 day rolling average of deaths per million as of today ranks the European countries as follows (highest to lowest): Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Spain, Moldova, Italy, Malta, France, Romania, Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom, Portugal, Russia, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands,Switzerland, Denmark, Norway.
And maybe you could ask the dissenting Swede who was demanding lockdown, Fredrik Elgh, whether he has changed his mind now?
In the UK it now transpires that the majority of deaths were of people who became infected in care homes or after being admitted to hospital for other illnesses.
Sherry Hodges
3 years ago
I was a legal secretary for 35 years. I worked for the largest law firms in America, for some of the best attorneys. My first question about the Lockdown, was “Where are the lawyers?” In America, this was unconstitutional. Not a single major law firm raised an objection. That is how I knew that they agreed to stand down. These same law firms rushed to protect their clients, but were silent on the subject of shutting them down, under the assumption that there was a Pandemic. If their clients had been faced woth Lockdowns under any other circumstances, they would have filed for injunctions the same day. It was evident to me that these corporations and bankers had already set a Lockdown in place, intending to take the profits of the last fifty years, and cut the competition. Still it remains, not a single major law firm raised a single objection. You cannot have a Constitution or a free nation, if the lawyers are unwilling to defend it.
Rob Alka
3 years ago
One person’s freedom can curtail someone else’s freedom.
Lord Sumption’s notion is that a person has the moral right to decide whether they respect the law before deciding whether to obey it. I think this must bebased on the assumption that such a person is mentally equipped to possess the right moral reasons to respect that law.
The problem is that we live in a world where the distribution of IQ is already fairly dispersed and, worse still, the centrepoint of the distribution is in itself in steady decline.
I don’t want my life to be threatened more than is unavoidably neccessary by someone who has less common-sense than I have. By the same token from a government worm’s eye view, I don’t want my life to be threatened by a model of democracy that has been over-fuelled with liberalism.
Last edited 3 years ago by Rob Alka
John Wilson
3 years ago
An excellent article … it deserves to be read and understood by all. Prior to my 30 years in business, I spent almost 10 years (undergrad and post grad) in the philosophy dept at university, I believe that it is an article of real value … an excellent and clear application of well known philosophical principles and concepts to our present human condition. Ian Wilson. Edinburgh
gillian.gbrodie
3 years ago
Given that the vaccines haven’t been tested and will turn people into GMO humans (check out Professor Dolores Cahill ) and are arguably killing more people than Covid, I think there is a very good reason not to have them.
What they will do long-term as they apparently turn our own immune systems against us, doesn’t bear thinking about!
It seems the pharmaceutical industry is self regulatory as well, so I’m sure we can see why there may be vested interests there!
Another thing is that if people want to have a vaccine that they believe will save them, that is their choice, so why should they or anyone else mind if other people don’t have it, as presumably they think they will be immune to it, so where would be the need for anyone to have a vaccine passport, apart of course from the fact that the more vaccines rolled out, there more money that is made for Big Pharma?!
Another thing that hasn’t been touched upon by many, is that there are plenty of natural cures for Covid symptoms (check out Dr. Judy Mikovits, who worked on making drugs from natural products but was fired when she spoke out about what was going on), without there being any need for vaccines.
Also, the state of most people’s immune systems is severely compromised by their diets, which for many, will be mostly processed foods containing high amounts of carbohydrates and sugar and very low amounts, of fresh organic vegetables.
That is a major area that needs to be addressed for us to properly deal with any infections.
Many people who have died with possibly Covid (and I say that because a court case is ongoing about the 90+% false positives of the PCR tests (check out Dr. Reiner Füellmich:- https://youtu.be/HhvIYfRnK-U ),
have had underlying issues, and sometimes the figures have been falsified by putting them down as Covid deaths.
Pressure has been put on people to falsify death certificates.
The main stream media and the government have, I believe, grossly exaggerated the figures.
If you look at the main government Covid site which says there have been many thousands of new infections in a day (this was a few weeks ago), their other site for notable infectious diseases (http://gov.uk/government/publications/notifiable-diseases-weekly-reports-for-2021)
said that there were less than 100 new cases in England and Wales for that same week. I smell a big rat!
The fear that has been created by the media, which is largely owned by the big corporations and the the likes of Bill Gates’s W.H.O., is more coertion that’s has been taking place, no doubt with the express purpose of making money from vaccines.
worldsbestbrewer
3 years ago
At last I’ve got around to listening to this interview in full. I like Sumption, but can’t believe he is suggesting ‘civil dosobedience’ and at the same time a supporter of a tiered society when it comes to vaccination for covid which, as he says himself over 99 pcent of people recover from. Maybe he isn’t educated on vaccine safety and doesn’t realise that there are perfectly good treatments and prophylactics for covid which our govt are absolutely criminal in not promoting through ur ‘health system’. His assertion that it’s making the better of two bad decisions is not acceptable. And, no, I’m not an anti vaxxer, whatever that means to people. I’ve just learned to question virtually everything and make valued judgements based on data and risk and personal experience.
zdyr9r672y
3 years ago
Too right Lord Sumption. It saddens me to think that people will do as they are asked, without thinking about it, and believe that what they are doing is right. Surely your heart tells you that it is wrong to leave your elderly parent unattended for weeks on end. It is cruel.So many folk have blindly followed the government’s expectations over the last year,not thinking about the terrible consequences. As Lord Sumption states, conventions take decades, if not centuries to come about, only to be broken overnight. I fear for the future. I feel our liberties can so easily be taken away. What a state to be in?
Well said Lord Sumption.
James Clander
3 years ago
Good on him – hope for the UK if the people respond accordingly. Disobey! “Here is the key difference between authority in everyday life and the power of the state: the state’s edicts are always and everywhere enforced at the point of a gun. It is interesting how little we think about that reality, but it is the core reality. Everything done by the state is ultimately done by means of aggression, which is to say violence or the threat of violence.” —Lew Rockwell “It’s easier to fool people … than to convince them they have been fooled” Mark Twain
The government’s communication was based on the best available scientific advice / consensus on the impact of the pandemic. SAGE minutes are published, go read them. You could argue the vast and diverse SAGE team of medical and related experts were wrong, but that is not a straightforward argument ot make. Their conclusions do not differ from every other main group of experts in the field or any other major nation on the planet. To suggest the government should of relied on expert advice from a scientific fringe and ignored the mainstream is about as unscientific and undemocratic as you can get. It would of also of been politically impossible.
Polling has also shown the public overwhelmingly support the government’s covid restrictions, indeed if anything they believe they have been too liberal.
So the experts said we should lockdown. The people wanted to lockdown. And the restrictions in essence are about to end in 5 days.
Somebody remind what the problem is exactly?
james.daniel216
3 years ago
Lord Sumption gave a heartening, rallying commentary on the requirement for the protection of a fragile democracy against a leadership that was setting dangerous precedents in the use of pre-existing medical vulnerabilities of all mankind to directly, vainly and despotically reduce the liberties of man, woman and children. However, it seemed to be a contradiction of his stated views on the coercion and despotism applied by the state to suggest that everyone should carry a vaccine passport with them, giving private businesses and public services the opportunity to discriminate against those who have not had the a COVID-19 vaccine and making all and sundry privy to an aspect of one’s private medical history and/or political views. This also contradicted his views so clearly expressed that the necessity for lock-downs for the whole country (or world) has never been justified by the number of excess deaths; ergo, the necessity to combat the said unjustified illness with the vaccination of an entire major demographic or population is also unsubstantiated. The interviewer picked up on that seemingly blunt contradiction but Sumption made scant attempt to provide further support to such an apparent about-face. Strange. Am I to assume that Sumption was making, in his words, ‘a personal risk assessment’ which determined he was better of promoting the vaccine, despite its moral contradiction to his principally espoused opinions that a debased gov’t was using coercion to enforce a plan of action that drastically and unjustifiably limiting the liberty of private men, woman and children? His only comment that could remotely pass as a justification was that the vaccine and vaccine passport was preferable to draconian lock-down, house arrest measures. Such measures that he had already claimed carried sufficient reason for civil disobedience on account of their irrelevance to the claim of fighting a virus. He went on further to report, in my view accurately, that the gov’t was in a precarious position in, at once, promoting the vaccine, whilst also claiming that the vaccine was not responsible for the reduction in cases. As I final rebuttal against the disappointing contradictions in Lord Sumptions otherwise motivational commentary on the requirement for each individual to conduct a daily and personal risk assessment from a morally mature standpoint, is that there is ample proof to show that any promises government makes towards the vaccine (i) allowing people to see their loved one’s, (ii) to ditch the mask, (iii) to travel freely even within Britiain, (iv) to conduct their business affairs or return to work unfettered, (v) to open restaurants fully, and so and so on, are not being fulfilled. Thus demonstrating that the vaccine is unlikely to release the masses from their life of coercion and servitude. As he rightly said, only an English style, independently minded, visible objection to the “rule by decree” will have the subtle but penetrating effect of bringing this utterly deplorable state of affairs to satisfactory close.
Last edited 3 years ago by james.daniel216
james.daniel216
3 years ago
Lord Sumption gave a heartening, rallying commentary on the requirement for the protection of fragile democracy against a leadership that was setting dangerous precedents in the use of pre-existing medical vulnerabilities of all mankind to directly, vainly and despotically reduce the liberties of man, woman and children. However, it seemed to be a contradiction of his stated views on the coercion and despotism applied by the state to suggest that everyone should carry a vaccine passport with them, giving private businesses and public services the opportunity to discriminate against those who have not had the a COVID-19 vaccine and making all and sundry privy to an aspect of one’s private medical history and/or political views. This also contradicted his views so clearly expressed that the necessity for lock-downs for the whole country (or world) has never been justified by the number of excess deaths; ergo, the necessity to combat the said unjustified illness with the vaccination of an entire major demographic or population is also unsubstantiated. The interviewer picked up on that seemingly blunt contradiction but Sumption made scant attempt to provide further support to such an apparent about-face. Strange. Am I to assume that Sumption was making, in his words, ‘a personal risk assessment’ which determined he was better of promoting the vaccine, despite its moral contradiction to his principally espoused opinions that a debased gov’t was using coercion to enforce a plan of action that drastically and unjustifiably limiting the liberty of private men, woman and children? His only comment that could remotely pass as a justification was that the vaccine and vaccine passport was preferable to draconian lock-down, house arrest measures. Such measures that he had already claimed carried sufficient reason for civil disobedience on account of their irrelevance to the claim of fighting a virus. He went on further to report, in my view accurately, that the gov’t was in a precarious position in, at once, promoting the vaccine, whilst also claiming that the vaccine was not responsible for the reduction in cases. As I final rebuttal against the disappointing contradictions in Lord Sumptions otherwise motivational commentary on the requirement for each individual to conduct a daily and personal risk assessment from a morally mature standpoint, is that there is ample proof to show that any promises government makes towards the vaccine (i) allowing people to see their loved one’s, (ii) to ditch the mask, (iii) to travel freely even within Britiain, (iv) to conduct their business affairs or return to work unfettered, (v) to open restaurants fully, and so and so on, are not being fulfilled. Thus demonstrating that the vaccine is unlikely to release the masses from their life of coercion and servitude. As he rightly said, only an English style, independently minded, visible objection to the “rule by decree” will have the subtle but penetrating effect of bringing this utterly deplorable state of affairs to satisfactory close.
Aniket Sharma
1 year ago
The global Wearable Technology Market report by Value Market Research provide evidence-based information and covers all the market details such as the latest technology trends, market opportunity analysis, and competitive landscape.
Greg Wales
3 years ago
Sumption does not understand how human societies work. His views are based on a classic liberal fallacy. Humans like other apes are group–living animals and it is essential for us that the group which is most important to us ( at present, our nation state ) is competent to satisfy the important objectives that we need from it and which only it can reliably provide ( like helping us stay alive ). To achieve this, at times ( as in warfare ) a state may need to make demands on its members that would normally be unreasonable. The key issue is not that this happens, but whether the government doing it can be trusted to restore acceptable balances between individuals and the state when the emergency is over. Luckily, we can trust this Government to do so, unlike ( e.g. ) the postwar Labour government which continued wartime controls for ideological reasons in its attempt to create a socialist dictatorship. This created problems that are still being felt today
I agree with the staggered approach but good weather means people are herding into parks and playgrounds and perhaps the cause of small increase in infections in high density population areas – club organised out door sports across the board would help spread people out
It’s time to revisit and critically consider Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report No. 9, dated 16 March 2020.[1]
It’s mind-boggling to consider this report put much of the world into lockdown, (and facilitated fast-tracked experimental COVID-19 vaccine products), with devastating consequences for global societies and economies. This was always about implementing ‘the vaccine’ and control of the people…it’s all clearly laid out in Ferguson et al’s report. Also keep in mind that Ferguson has received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[2], the organisation which is dominating international vaccination policy.[3]
To deal with COVID-19, in March 2020, Ferguson et al considered mitigation and suppression strategies, deciding on the more aggressive suppression strategy, which facilitated the draconian lockdowns.
Ferguson et al say: “The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package…will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed“. (My emphasis.)
See page 20 of Ferguson et al’s report for a graph that shows going in and out of the suppression strategy, i.e. lockdowns. In other words wearing people down with these debilitating and isolating interventions so people would be more than willing to submit to anything to get out of lockdown, e.g. vaccination, as evidenced by Lord Sumption’s, and Freddie Sayers'[4], willingness to cave into coercive COVID-19 vaccination.
In regards to the remarkable and devastating influence of the Neil Ferguson et al report, consider this exchange between Lord Sumption and Freddie Sayers:
Asked by Freddie Sayers “What would you say that you have learned about society and where we are at the moment, looking back on this episode that you didn’t know before?
Lord Sumption replies “I will conclude that some of the fears that I have always had about the way that mass democracy works have proved to be true in concrete detail, and sooner than I expected. I will have learnt the enormous power of governments to influence opinion by promoting fear in a technical area, which many people could understand but in practice don’t. And those are dismaying lessons, I would want to learn from them about how we repair things in future. And my first proposal is that governments should not treat information as a tool for manipulating public behaviour. They should be calmer than the majority of their citizens, they should be completely objective. My second lesson would be that governments dealing with scientific issues should not allow themselves to be influenced by a single caucus of scientists. They should always test what they are being told in a way that, for instance, judges test expert opinion by producing a counter expert, and working out which set of views stacks up best, those would be the two most specific lessons that I would derive from the particular way in which things have gone during this epidemic.” (My emphasis.) Using Lord Sumption’s evaluation, it looks like the UK government responded to the virus in the worst possible way, by promoting fear in the people, using information as a tool for manipulating public behaviour, being the opposite of calm in their response, not being objective. Crucially, the UK government was dominated by the fear-mongering SAGE, and particularly Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report No. 9[1], and apparently did little to test the opinion of SAGE or Ferguson with counter experts.
References:
1. Neil Ferguson et al. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. 16 March 2020.
2. See this BMJ article for discussion on SAGE member’s interests, particularly reference 1.: Covid-19: SAGE members’ interests published by government 10 months into pandemic. 17 December 2020.
3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is currently the top funder of the World Health Organisation, which appears to be a front for the vaccine industry, this must be investigated. The Bill & Melinda Gates founded Gavi Alliance is a major player in the vaccine industry and also top funder of the WHO, see for example WHO Funding by contributor updated until Q4-2020. In regards to Bill Gates influence on the ‘race for coronavirus vaccines’, see his article: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. GatesNotes, 30 April 2020.
4. Freddie Sayers. How lockdown changed us. Unherd, 24 February 2021.
Juilan Bonmottier
3 years ago
I look forward to the spectacle of Lord Sumption conducting his own defence when hauled up before the Inner London Magistrates for breach of Covid 19 regulations!
harry.adam
3 years ago
Hypocrisy – “I do not believe in that kind of political manifestation” – while all year long doing exactly that. Bee in bonnet with erudite attempt to justify. Not surprised his peers are distancing. So many holes in his argument, not least the disaster to this country which has resulted from being too lax, too late with both lockdown and borders. Two things reduce spread. Behaviour and immunity. Behaviour has been shown to be a problem unless constrained, immunity is getting there thanks to science and the vaccines. The balance is shifting towards immunity, but it has some distance to go with the remarkable progress being rightly lauded, but only 30% partially immunised. It needs to get to over 90%. The cautious approach is the right one.
Lee Johnson
3 years ago
‘There is only one person affected by vaccine status and that is the individual making their decision one way or another.’
For those of us who still do not understand the difference between a common good and selfishness let me recommend Wolfgang Munchau on Eurointelligence
No. The aim of vaccinating a whole population (bar those who for medical reasons cannot take one) is to achieve HERD immunity. I know many people don’t seem to like that concept. Parents who don’t allow their kids to have the MMR are putting other children at risk especially when many take this view. Not all kids can be vaccinated for medical reasons and for some the vaccine does not give them protection. So mumps and measles start rampaging through the community – damaging some children. Its a form of selfishness in my view and a facet of woke faux liberalism.
jamesandrewrichey49
3 years ago
In case you have failed to think it thru when you wrote it, no one is a liberal – Big L or Small l – if they go by the title “Lord.” It’s sort of like Trump saying he is the common man’s friend, when he did not before nor does he now spend anything but “mouth time” with anyone average. He spends and has always spent an immense amount of time sucking up to Big Money and bribing Big Power. This guy talks to you and talks DOWN, not WITH anyone. Lord, this, Lord that, lord over,….
Just another Brit asshole, among millions of present and past British imperialists. They rule; they do not govern.
Next,
The Andyman
guy.r.davison
3 years ago
Good, and very relevant that Lord Sumption had reached the point that retirement was appropriate. Why bother to interview him ?
Dudden Hall
3 years ago
Another Eton boy. Data from Israel. Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”
Last edited 3 years ago by Dudden Hall
harry.adam
3 years ago
Sumption is wrong. Just plain wrong – he’s been wrong since he started his scientifically ignorant rant at the beginning of this and he is digging his hole ever deeper. Apart from the simplicity of his argument focusing solely on death as the outcome for each of us, apart from ignoring the issue of the consequences to our medical services, he ignores the obvious evidence available that lockdowns work to stop the spread of this very nasty virus. We are now in a position where about 30% of the population are vaccinated – to an efficacy reported variably as between 65 to 90 %. We have two measures to stop spread – (social distncing – masks and lockdown) – being one – vaccination towards herd immunity being the other. The relation between herd immunity and the natural unmitigated R rate and efficacy is a simple one. H – (1-1/R)/E. Before spread is stopped from running out of control at an efficacy of 65% and an R of 3 – needs 100% immune – i.e all not immunised will get it. At 90% efficacy H needs to be 74%. We are at 30% or less. I’m afraid Sumption is just trying his level best (as a practiced advocate) to justify his original, but very wrong position. Thank goodness he is being ignored.
The last time government overruled basic liberties across the whole country was WW2 when we accepted a command or totalitarian government for a short while.
But and it is a big but, there was a hostile enemy physically on the doorstep seeking to overturn Parliament and take over ruling the country.
There has never been such a threat during this so called emergency. Neither did the pandemic threaten the ability of the government to govern by way of making so many of the working sufficiently ill as to be physically unable to work and do basic things like deliver food and keep the lights on. The slogan has always been to focus on the health service.
The NHS is a huge undertaking and the biggest employer in the country, but it is not the country. It is a service. To make people into criminals for a service is forgetting the rason for the NHS.
Not war, but a national emergency of a different kind. So far it has killed more of us.
Pierre Pendre
3 years ago
Citizens have a duty to disobey despotic laws but are the anti-Covid measures despotic? They would be if they were to survive the neutralisation of the virus but we are not there yet.
In France, millions of people – including my own GP – oppose masks and millions of others think they should be mandatory. The latter prevail. Everyone wears one in obedience to the precautionary principle. We don’t know whether masks work or not but better safe than sorry.
Sumption has no right to disobey masking at the risk of infecting his neighbours of whom I am one; we use the same supermarket when he’s in residence at his French castle. He wouldn’t be allowed into an enclosed public space anywhere in France unmasked.
I share the libertarian suspicion of the state which never voluntarily gives up a power it has acquired. Macron and the national assembly are up for re-election next year. Do we really think they are cheerfully infuriating a large part of the electorate with controversial curbs on their freedoms?
“Sumption has no right to disobey masking at the risk of infecting his neighbours of whom I am one.” This one sentence encapsulates everything that has gone wrong over the past year. The right to live a normal life – and to decide for yourself what risks you will take – has been completely subordinated to coercive control by government. And fearful people now assert that their anxieties should over-ride the lives and freedoms of everyone else. What a disaster.
barbieri
3 years ago
From the beginning of this lockdown, I started to think it was a fantastic exercise em mass control. The same as scientists would study rats in a control group, I suppose many specialised people are now studying this pandemic situation very closely.
Nevertheless, if you think about the more than half a million deaths in the USA probably, as I did, you would be surprised by this number but, if you think demographically, in my view, the nearly a quarter of a million people dead in the UK represents much more than the number of deaths in the USA and this is indeed a tragedy!
So, hiding under the freedom argument and alleged to protect us, Lord Sumption has been irresponsible and his discourse, criminal. There is a say, that with freedom comes responsibility.
I would ask him:
“What is the freedom of a super spread person to walk around, contaminating hundreds of people who will be in an exponential way also contaminate other thousands.”
“Do you worked on a UTI of an already overcrowd hospital?”
“Are you able to foresee the apocalyptic scenario this behave can unleash? Are you – really – concerned with the wellbeing of the population?” (I don’t think so!)
The way I see, Lord Sumption is just clearly defending only the interests of the big corporations.
Believe me, nobody is ignoring the suffering, the economic problems, the damage and depression lockdown is causing on the society as a whole, but this government and Lord Sumption in particular, are complicit in this disinformation war which is putting people against the government measures to contain the spread of Covid-19. With the excuse of freedom and saying, he is defending us against tyranny Lord Sumption is negating or minimizing science, lockdown and vaccines in favour of business.
I believe, when people act like children, do not behave properly and disrespect the life of others, the fathers (or government), should take over and control the situation! Nobody like a paternalist state but, let’s not try to avoid the light of the Sun with a sieve! Sometimes, the reality is not as we wish! Just ask this question:
“Who gains with it? What does a LORD get from this? What he knows about people?”
Of course, it would be much better if people did not need to have a father figure telling them what to do but, unfortunately, this is not the case!
In regards to deaths attributed to Covid-19, there have been around 2.5 million deaths over the past 13 months, and these must be seen in the context of a global population of 7.8 billion, with around 59 million deaths expected annually. There’s certainly been a desire to beat up the number of ‘cases’ and deaths to justify the over-the-top response to this virus. These statistics now need to be subjected to careful scrutiny.
Where did you get your figures for UK C-19 deaths? 250K is far too high.
Officially our (UK) figures are 124K dead. Incidentally the average age of death is 82.4, whilst life expectancy is a mere 81.1!
Broken down further our casualties have disproportionately slaughtered the fat, Black and the previously ‘knackered’.
Conversely the thin, the fit, and the young (anyone below 60) have little to worry about.
Last edited 3 years ago by Charles Stanhope
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
I am surprised that Lord Sumption is exhibiting a distinct lack of proportion in relation to lockdown. But he’s not the only one judging by the comments here.
We’ve had this thing for a year now. The government directed us on advice to surrender some liberty for a while for the common good. It is easy to play down the severity of this pandemic – the death rate is astronomical and the mind boggles at what it would have been like without the lockdowns. This idea of our government using the lockdown as an excuse to curb our basic liberties is totally out of proportion and worthy of a place in the annals of conspiracy theories. Come on Lord Sumption and the rest of you – get a grip!
“the death rate is astronomical”
Really in comparison to what may I ask?
The Black Death, the first day of the Somme, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the 1918/19 misnamed Spanish Flu?
I was thinking of the death rates of flu and COVID between January and August 2020 as published by ONS.There were 48,168 deaths from COVID and 394 deaths from flu. I think I’m entitled to use the word astronomical in the light of these figures.
Bill Blake
3 years ago
To be honest I think there are real pragmatic reasons to disagree with Lord Symptom; most laws are there because of our moral duty to others. Hence motorway speed limits may appear frustrating if you drive a performance car but actually prevent others from dying resulting from the increased probability of an accident if you exceed them.
In the same way obeying the lockdown rules will help prevent the spread and resulting health outcomes if you happen to have asymptomatic Covid.
I believe that when think of ‘liberty’ we have to consider how our liberty affects the right of others to be free from disease. The argument that you are ‘unlikely’ to be a carrier does not mean that you aren’t.
Driving a car carries with it the risk that you may have an accident and injure or kill someone, just by being on the road. This is a higher risk than the combined likelihood that you are (1) carrying the virus without any symptoms (this would be the prevalence at the time) (2) manage to infect someone else while being asymptomatic, despite taking precautions (even among close contacts, this is surprisingly low) (3) the person you infect goes on to become very ill and die. Should driving cars be banned?
The argument that you are ‘unlikely’ to be a carrier does not mean that you aren’t. Doesn’t mean that I am, either, and when did the expectation of a 100% risk-free environment become the norm? This reads very much like a “prove your innocence” approach, which is not we do things. Laws can be useful but they 1) have to make sense and 2) draw moral authority from those who pass them. The second point is huge in this ongoing covid mess. When the proles see their betters doing things the rest of us are barred from doing, the law is undermined. When a particular business is shut down for arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with contagion, the law is undermined.
The right of others to be free of the disease – well a form of focussed protection on the elderly and vulnerable and self imposed isolation or shielding by those interacting with said cohorts would have been a more practical approach than forcing everyone into such a restrictive LD. Lots of lesson re closing borders, having a proper TTT system etc to be learned
I also agree that as the NHS bed capacity became pressured a tight lockdown was necessary. However measured response now requires a re-assessment of the staggered release – I think this is Lord Sumptions point – LD cannot go on when the justification for it is no longer there and thus some sensible breaches out it are occurring. I haven’t see my Father who lives on his own since October, he had his 2nd jab over a month ago so I drove 200m to see him
The Governments outdoor restrictions are also too restrictive. if infections re picking up again its because people were rammed into parks and playgrounds over the last two weeks instead of being spread out. People rebel when there is an obvious lack of common sense
Claire D
3 years ago
How is it possible not to understand the necessity for controlling multiple contacts between people to avoid a rise in the number of deaths during a pandemic ?
Or does Lord Sumption believe that more deaths (of mostly obese people according to The Times today) do not matter compared to civil liberties ?
I’m sorry that Lord Sumption’s life has been inconvenienced, but at least he has had plenty of attention from the media, and been able to put forward his rationalised version of his discontent, backed up by his position, articulacy and wealth. I do not agree with him.
The majority of people in the UK have knuckled down and done their duty, whatever it has cost them, to save other people’s lives.
Maybe the lockdown sceptics are right and we are all fools, or maybe not.
I understand the temptation to think that the sacrifices we have made have been a necessary act of alturism, in fact I’m sure people need to believe that.
But the fact is, it is experimental – much of what we have done (lockdown; facemasks) was cautioned against in previous evidence based pandemic preparation protocols (see the UK’s own plan for instance, or WHO guidelines).
I’m afraid there is no great moral revelation behind the abandonment of previous understanding in order to give all lives equal value.
It’s just a terrified attempt to control something we previously knew could not be controlled except at enormous human cost. Without being asked, we have all (obese or otherwise) been forced to pay.
Really well put – people need to believe that we can control nature, and that our sacrifices have been worth it. Any evidence to the contrary isn’t questioned, it’s deemed immoral – there’s a feeling of WW1 to it.
We can control nature to some extent, that’s what we do everyday in farming, fishing, gardening, medicine etc.
Going to war in WWI was not immoral, unless you are a pacifist I suppose. No insult to pacifists intended.
The purpose and use of the UKs involvement in WW1 is of great debate – I come down on the side that it’s wasn’t wrong to go to war on balance.
However the prosecution of the war was needlessly wasteful of lives. Killing 100,000s by consistently using out of date tactics, terrible living condions & poor supplies supplies was not required – it was counter productive. The deaths of many was of very low, zero or negative military value (losing a trained soldier and kit has a high military cost) . The ‘experts’ & leaders of the day used the death of heroes to cover up for their ineptitude. We could have had better Covid & other excess death outcomes with a better more focused use of restrictions, guidance and state support.
It is ironic that you consider the greatest sacrifice of millions so that we could live free worth it, yet you’re happy to throw away that freedom for the illusion of safety.
I am not ready to throw away our freedoms Luke, I just recognise that a degree of suspension may be necessary during a crisis, as it was during WWII.
I agree with what you say about the prosecution of WWI to some extent, but much like the present situation events overtook human’s ability to make ideal decisions. Back then technology had galloped ahead whilst experienced generals were stuck in their old ways = carnage.
In WWII we sacrificed young lives to protect our freedom, livelihoods and way-of-life.
Today, we sacrifice our freedom, livelihoods and way-of-life to protect old lives.
The sad thing is we’ve still failed to protect those lives. In fact early on the government sacrificed 20,000+ care home residents lives. The only plausible explaination for this is that the BS modelling predicted that hospitals would be overwhelmed.
The continued restrictions have still failed to protect those lives as witnessed by the huge death tolls. Focused protection of the vulnerable was always the right option, with the rest of us under much more limited restriction. The UK lockdown has been like giving everyone a dose of chemotherapy, too little to help the cancer sufferers, and needlessly damaging for everyone else.
WW2 was an existential threat to our entire country way of life and freedoms. The relatively small restrictions during WW2 were largely proportionate.
What’s sad is that if you look at the UKs Covid response and it’s outcomes on an international scale. We’re the 3rd most locked down & the 4th highest death rates.
The hardest most draconian restrictions have been an utter failure – this is key to understand. The bulk of deaths are from health setting aquired viruses (care homes, hospitals) – stopping students having parties is an exceptionally poor way of dealing with this. Providing focused testing and sick pay to carers would have saved far, far more lives.
By this logic nobody should be allowed to drive. As by driving they risk injuring someone else without meaning to.
We are all at risk of dying from someone else’s actions but to stop people carrying out acts which could lead to injury to others would stop all activity.
In WW1 the Generals refused to adapt to reality, much like the current UK government – going over the top failed time and time again, like many of our restrictions.
The tragedy is that to learn from you mistakes, you must first admit you made a mistake. Instead the pro lockdowners continue to present their carnage as a success story, so the mistake keeps being made. Look at the currenly modelling, on Feb 10th they predicted 5 weeks to get deaths below 200, it took 2 weeks. The modelling is dangerously useless.
Luckily real tested Science in the form of vaccines will save us from these fools.
The lockdown measures imposed upon us today are more stringent than those in World War II, bar countries that were occupied by the Germans.
Personally, I fear government overreach more than I do a virus that I would have been completely oblivious to if I didn’t read about it in hysterical mainstream media.
Remember it was a Liberal Government under that pervert, Herbert Asquith that committed
us to the Great War.
A war that not only bankrupted us, but spawned the virus of Marxism that is still poisoning our society to this very day.
After such a war it is anathema to even think it may have been a mistake. It takes about seventy years before you can do that, and so it will be with this present ‘Great Panic’.
I was referring to whether an individual would consider entering WWI moral or immoral was I not ?
“I suppose” implies some doubt on my part.
Perhaps you are being overly sensitive to criticism for some reason, but I am well aware that pacifism has it’s own courage and was NOT referring to that at all.
“Where’s the fairness in that?”
Life is’nt fair.
It is indeed “experimental”, it could not be anything else, if we had done it your way, that would have been experimental also.
“Protocols” sometimes have to be adjusted according to new evidence.
Ok, the problem with the ‘life isn’t fair’ refrain is that anyone of us could use that to shoot down any opposing argument, until it becomes an excuse not to aspire to fairness in the first place. It effectively becomes the go to excuse of the sadist and the despot.
Life certainly isn’t fair to the cancer patients, captive abuse victims, impoverished children, income less families etc who are victims of lockdown – it seems very fair to ….. Well, to who exactly? Computer modellers who have been validated ( though not vindicated), NHS managers who have been spared from having to plan for winter by a prohibition against human activity during winter?
What was the new evidence for which the protocols (written for a highly transmissible respiratory virus), had to be adjusted? What was the risk assessment that said such a radical and inhumane readjustment was justified in the face of this new threat? The previous protocol – whilst also experimental (but based at least on learning from precedent) – was at least holistic in its consideration of human health. This response has assumed a moral authority to suspend all other considerations of human health and liberty to face one threat. It is therefore a lot more than just ‘unfair’.
In what respect? They came out of the first wave with a lower death rate than hard lockdown countries and less economic damage than all European countries.
The second wave arguably happened because the virus didn’t spread fast enough to confer herd immunity by the time winter came – in other words, it didn’t do what the alarmists say it did when they wanted an excuse for lockdown – spread exponentially.
Why do you you say we failed? I think Swedes have followed the gov recommendations to a tee.
Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it (i.e. Work)
A healthy economy is key.
Of course there was, Covid 19 was a completely unknown disease, we did’nt know for example just how contagious it was at the start, that it would cause multiple organ failure etc
There is an interesting and informative Gresham lecture by Chris Whitty given on 30th April 2020, which is now out of date to some extent, due to “new evidence” as he predicted would happen in the lecture.
Restrictions were the experiment, do nothing is absolutely the standard.
You are right that “Protocols” should be adjusted with new evidence. The evidence so far is that a large number of our restrictions are utterly pointless and often counter productive.
I don’t think the idea that lockdowns have succeeded is provable. In fact, states in the US that did not lockdown have shown overall slighlty lower death rates (as far as I am aware). There is also the very real cost in lives of locking down to set against any supposed benefit.
Even if they worked the case for a ‘smart lockdown’ remains overwhelming.
I think this will be disproved once we look into figures post pandemic.
UK death rates are based on people dying with covid19 within 28 days of diagnosis. There are many other methods used in other countries, some excluding deaths at home for example.
Plus we have in no way controlled the loss of life from disease that has gone untreated during the successive lockdowns.
It still leaves you with enormous collateral harm to human health that will surpass the damage of the virus (but will be blamed on the virus rather than the response).
Ultimately, it was always ethically wrong. You can’t justify doing absolutely anything in order to stop a virus.
You do realise that Brazil’s deaths from Covid % of population is still lower than the UKs?
Why not go the full Peru, have the earliest, hardest lockdown? That really didn’t work.
It’s hard for people to accept that the UK government has got it really badly wrong on everything except the vaccine rollout.
Our lockdowns have been exceptionally harsh and ineffective by international standards, given our relatively wealth and sacrifices the outcome has been exceptionally bad.
Vulnerable people can and should shield themselves. People who are sick should take precautions against infecting others. But unfocussed suppression measures amongst those who will, at worst, be inconvenienced is not just unwarranted, but there is even evidence that it is counterproductive to the supposed aim of protecting the vulnerable.
In any epidemic, the period of greatest risk is during the epidemic phase. Eventually, a highly infectious pathogen will reach endemic equilibrium, at which point management for the vulnerable becomes much easier. Unfortunately, the unfocussed suppression attempt merely extends the dangerous epidemic phase. It is the exact opposite of good policy which should aim at the rapid safe spread of the virus amongst the non-vulnerable.
Arguably, our general spread suppression policy has caused more Covid deaths than would otherwise have been the case. For example, Southern California (under draconian lockdown) has done a lot worse than open Florida which has a comparable climate. And that is despite Florida having a demographic profile much more skewed towards the aged than California.
The policy advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration was always much more rational than what we pursued. Now we have reasonably effective vaccines that work with vulnerable groups, the argument for abandoning the counterproductive general suppression strategy is even stronger.
Bottom line: you have fallen for a flawed (but superficially plausible) argument that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
I sincerely believe that a more focused approach would have saved lives. We knew from day 1 that old fat frail males were most vulnerable (sorry in order should be frail, old, obese, male). Massive state assistence should have been focused here.
Instead of encouraging the obvious at risk groups to stay at home and put in massive state support – we locked down 5 year olds and scared healthy 20 year olds to death. Meanwhile half the eldery population seemed to carry on as before.
Honestly it would be like encouraging 80 year olds to stay at home because there was a peadophile on the loose – whilst letting young children out and about.
How is it possible to still not understand after 12 months that for the vast majority of the public the virus is not a threat? The guidence should take this into account. That study after study shows that most people reduced contact voluntarily when cases were high, those that didn’t generally ignore the law anyway. In all 3 lockdowns cases had peaked or were falling prior to lockdown, it’s there for anyone to see. In my experience many lockdown advocates are the worst offenders anyway, viirtue signallers at best.
How is it possible to not understand the evil & idiocy of a policy that locks up children whilst the vulnerable continue going out and about?
How is it possible to not see that the UK policy has failed absolutely, miserably, we have lockdowns and restrictions that have failed outright to achieve their aims – when we’re compared to far less restrtictive regimes it’s embarrassing and tragic.
I’m sorry that you think months of near house arrest are a mere ‘inconvenience’, it’s millions of people’s lives, being wrecked.
And if you don’t understand the the issues of the government breaking all convention and riding roughshot over centuries of accrued civil liberties then I weep for you. Using fear and threats to treat the population as children is not the actions of great country.
The old saying “People who trade their liberty for safety deserve neither’ – as shown time and time again the truth is “People who trade their liberty for safety get neither”
Deaths v civil liberties. Why fight wars to protect civil liberties? Why allow any movement of people – restricting movement would definitely reduce deaths. Deaths v money. Why not devote the entire budget to medical care – this would reduce deaths?
The problem is that there is always a balance to be struck. An approach of lives at any cost has never been practically achievable, for obvious reasons. Except for now. Now suddenly the conversation has shifted to that of lives at any cost. And if you disagree you’re essentially viewed as selfish and de-platformed.
All one ought to expect is a proportionate, balanced approach that is based on actual statistics that are fully interrogated and where there is an underlying commitment to the protection of individual agency and hard-won civil liberties.
I agree there is always a balance to be struck but there was not the time for the ideal “balanced” approach, every country in the world has had to deal with it as best they could, some have been luckier than others.
I don’t think lockdown sceptics are “selfish”in particular, I think most of us are, but I do think they are mistaken.
Civil liberties have to be constrained at times of crisis,eg, during wartime and pandemics. Maybe I am wrong, but I think we will get our civil liberties back as soon as possible, it is in the interest of the country’s economy and therefore in the government’s interest to arrange it.
If you think our civil liberties will be retuned to us, I have some fake diaries by a well known dictator that you might like to buy from me. (I am currently reading a collection of Hugh Trever-Roper’s letters, so decided to dispense with the customary reference to London Bridge).
You’ve lost me a bit there, but anyway I’m busy with Medieval Lowestoft by David Butcher, which is fascinating, and an excellent piece of historical research, I recommend it to Lord Sumption, it might keep him safely occupied for a little while.
David Slade said it better than I could – there is not a direct equivalence between questioning the methods and death rates.
What we have seen is the perverse reaction of a government paralysed by needing to control the here and now of opinion polls and statistics. The short term need to “do something” in the face of a pandemic trumped any longer term nuanced or effective decision making.
Common sense. Please find a way to get a platform for him on main stream media. Didn’t go far enough. Our government are are war criminals. Each and every one of them should be investigated to see if they or their buddies have benefited financially. Furthermore, they should be made to pay for wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money on a PCR test that is not fit for purpose and vaccines that are untested. They should come face to face with the parents who have lost their teenagers through suicide and made to explain why they continued to take advice from people and groups like sage who time and time again were proved to be WILDLY inaccurate. To apologise for lying to us and taking away our freedom of speech and freedom over our bodies. They should have their freedoms removed from them for all their corruption and coercion.
…latter-day “Nuremberg Trials” will be held at some point. Most of the perpetrators of all this will have flown to their bolt-holes by then, so we will also need some latter-day “Simon Wiesenthal”s to flush them out and bring them to justice.
I may take up knitting to occupy my time in between sentences being carried out.
Absolutely and if they don’t get their comeuppance then it will not only mean they got away with it but that the future will still be a boot stamping on our face.
Government will almost always take the decision that gives them the greatest plausible deniability and least risk.
I don’t think Boris or any other lockdown “leaders” thought anything other than: “If I lockdown and there are few deaths then I look good because I locked down; if I lockdown and there are many deaths then I did what I could (and everyone else also locked down); if I am brave and don’t lockdown and there are few deaths then I look great; but if I am brave and don’t lockdown and there are many deaths then I will be labelled a butcher. Lockdown is a complete political-risk-mitigation decision, I’ll take it.”
I think BJ also wanted:
1 His Churchill moment
2 To be able to blame some of the inevitable short term Brexit problems on something else.
Otherwise that must be basically right. No one willing to be brave and do different to what others were doing even though they all knew, from their existing pandemic plans, that what they were about to do was not only unnecessary but would actually make things worse. They could always argue that it would have been even worse if they hadn’t; and that is what they are doing even though there is plenty of evidence that lockdowns have, if anything, only made Covid worse (eg see https://thecritic.co.uk/mutant-variations-and-the-danger-of-lockdowns/ ) let alone the collateral damage.
It’s funny you mention point 2. A good friend of mine is on a lobbying group, attended last week by Grant Shapps, who apparently said that the government isn’t exactly displeased that COVID economic chaos is masking Brexit economic chaos.
Shapps is an odious little shít, but I don’t doubt that on that point he is entirely correct.
The fact that govt ARE of that mind tells us all how they are manipulating the situation.
Not a bad assessment of whoever would have been PM, and the same as was faced by every leader around the world.
What would your decision have been? WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight.
I would not have panicked.
Extraordinary measures require extraordinary justification – especially when they deviate from a long-standing pandemic plan endorsed by the WHO.
Not only was justification weak (an absurd model from Fergusson with his very poor track record over decades), but the scientific evidence against unfocussed lockdowns was already formidable.
We already knew the vulnerability profile in January. We had all the data we needed for a worst case scenario in the Diamond Princess cruise ship by February. We had the public analysis by Prof. Michael Levitt.
Even if you went along with the panicked “2 weeks to flatten the curve” first lockdown, the data showed no discernible effect on hospitalisations attributable to the lockdown (which had very high compliance). That should have been the end of lockdowns from May onwards. Had we opened up in May, the damage caused by lockdown would have been minimal.
The current policy is, at best, rear-covering theatre. But like the similar rear-covering Dreyfus Affair, the failure to admit error and change course will prove much more politically damaging than an early admission of error would have been.
….and the longer it goes on the harder it will be to ‘u-turn’ because they will then have to explain away the ‘mistakes’ in admitting the error.
That (unt Ferguson is actually mostly to blame. And of course S.A.G.E. (you see what they did there?), Bozo Johnson and Matt W@nksock for following his ‘advice’.
Incidentally, Ferguson has no medical training or qualifications whatsoever. He’s a ‘mathematician’ who models from biomedical data. Nothing else. Mike Yeadon hesitated to even call him that!
It’s a tricky one.
I am not excusing the politicians, but given the cards they have I do understand why they chose to do what they did.
It would have taken a politician of extreme backbone to go against the lockdown, and we have some pretty supine invertebrate jellyfish in command. And even now with 12 months’ hindsight we’re not out of the woods so I do not even think we can 100% say either way.
I would like us to have gone the Swedish way – as we appeared to be doing initially. Yet as I say I am not 100% convinced that is the right way.
This wouldn’t have happened under Maggie T !
Brexit would have been done&dusted within 6 months of a referendum (which would have been held much, much sooner).
And the UK would have broken ranks with the rest of the world and allied with Sweden’s stance in regard to this pLandemic.
In a nutshell I would have followed the approach proposed by Dr Johan Giesecke. An approach proposed in circa March 2020 and largely followed by Sweden. Later, I would have followed the Great Barrington approach.
An intrusion on freedoms should be an absolute last resort.
Would have been a tough political decision, especially if I cared more about my political career than anything else.
Its possible not to understand if you only have yourself as reference, an do not realise that other peopes’ choices affect you. Apparently many commenters on here are like that.
depressing isn’t it ?
Again – this is not a valid argument because it could just as easily be made by your opponents against you. Do you not understand how your support for domestic vaccine passports risk creating a two tier society? Do you not understand how ceasing economic activity in the West produces economic deprivation plunging hundreds of millions across the world (men, women and children) into extreme poverty?
Where does the altruistic imperative actually lie with those who unquestioningly support the restrictions (and obligingly don the rainbow coloured masks for their Twitter handle)?, or is it those who put their own fear and anxiety about the virus aside and try and see the greater harms being inflicted on their fellow man?
Tony Buck
3 years ago
The number of libertarian loons posting comments here, is dispiriting.
Quite a disparity of views posted – you make quite a broad and strong statement, have you read the comments?- perhaps you have strayed unbeknownst onto a site that suggests a little more developed response
I personally have found it terrifying how expressing robust views on civil liberties that were seen as mainstream and entirely in keeping with the classic liberal tradition up until about five minutes ago are now seen as dangerously ‘libertarian’ and quite possibly mad. As if being disturbed by the power given to people like Neil Ferguson or seeing politicians like Sturgeon musing on whether we’d be allowed to see people for Christmas is somehow on par with abolishing government and taxation.
Lord Sumption has been a rare shaft of light over the last year. There certainly ought to be mass civil disobedience in the fact of the despotic measures taken by our evil government, but the vast majority of people seem to be willingly compliant. And now that those in power know how compliant most people are, many more freedoms will be stolen from us.
There has been mass civil disobedience from day one, especially in certain parts of the country and amongst certain communities. Any correlation with severe outbreaks of disease is, of course, coincidental.
Well I too, along with a few others, have been disobeying the rules almost daily, with no adverse health effects beyond those relating to the liver.
Yes, I think it should be more a case of the individual making their own risk assessment. But some things are common sense without the government having to say so: e.g. not shouting or speaking in a raised voice to someone in a supermarket (or in a restaurant or pub when they do reopen) without a mask on at a distance of only one or two feet away, as that could spread Covid even if the person is asymptomatic.
People need to take off the masks. They are a symbol of subservience and compliance. Science is simple really. You breath in oxygen and you breath our carbon dioxide (waste matter). So, by wearing a mask, you are seriously compromising your immune system. Oh the irony. I wish people would get educated, then this would be over tomorrow!
I’ve never worn a mask, and I never will. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
People need to wake up to the fact that we have a rogue government in power and Labour, under Starmer (think Rotherham) are no better! Wakey wakey people!!
Well said caroline2
I do wish you could exercise your immune system without insisting on exercising mine by your presence.
In fact, the sooner you exercise your immune system beyond that point of no return the sooner other people who are not like you – will be safer and less fearful
As for your conflicting choice between dying on your feet or living on your knees, be my guest! Lonely are the brave!
Should we stop wearing our seatbelts too? What about abiding by the speed limit? Queing for anything? Let’s dump all health and safety regulation ‘individuals can do their own risk assessment’
It’s a matter of balance. Masks are minimal intervention / cost / loss of liberty with a reasonable prospect of benefit.
There have been no outbreaks of severe disease outside of care homes and hospitals. Covid is what every other year we’d call a cold. Though this year they’ve subsumed flu under Covid, which is severe though we don’t normally bat an eyelid over it.
This is false: https://fullfact.org/health/flu-covid-phe-not-combined/
Those Fact Checking Website are covers for Govt ie BShit!
Really, Sean? There are some intelligent arguments to be put for what I take to be your point of view and Irene Polikoff has done a good job of it above. But you are weakening your own case’s credibility when you tell what are obvious lies.
The data, when looking at deaths show the vast majority of deaths are in hospitals and care homes. If Hancock was a true leader he would have enforced the prophylactics and treatments for covid to prevent 80 odd percent of people getting into hospital in the first place.
Cases are irrelevant as most of us recover or don’t even get ill.
Yes fear is the great motivator and he says so in this interview. It appears we are going at any length to prevent even one covid death but meanwhile many others are dying from other things. It is truly bizarre.
Yes and this fear is being aided and abetted by much of our mainstream media, and quite often by the BBC with their listing of Covid infection and death statistics on every showing of their TV News.
In a state of fear, we are more easily manipulated and more compliant. Ask the Psychologists (from the Tavistock Institute) on the Sage Group who have been advising the government on inducing fear in the populace and gain compliance.
This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram experiment from 1962 except now it’s happening for real! There has been a deliberate campaign of fear orchestrated from the very beginning to coerce people into taking experimental MNRA gene therapy jabs. The consequence of this irresponsible and criminal act will be seen for years to come.”The MNRA vaccines will override your innate immune system rendering it useless in future to future covid attacks.This is a threat to humanity!” These are not my words but the words of Dr Guurt Vanden Bossche one of the most eminent vaccine designers in the world. It seems Boris Johnson will have his wish and start reducing the world’s poputation by starting with the UK population.
Vaccine passports I believe are a very bad idea. What this government is doing breaks almost every rule in the Nurenburg code on vaccines.
The degree of compliance is very hard to judge. All I am certain of is that, immediately after the start of the Jan 2021 lockdown, our local busy secondary road was about as busy as I have ever seen it. Maybe we have an awful lot of keyworkers or an awful lot of hypocrites in my area.
I think most people have twigged by now that the whole thing is a giant racket. Quite frankly, I don’t know what took them so long.
Apparently quite a lot of people who are furloughed have been taking up second jobs. And why not? If the govt is dumb enough to give out free money while you do nothing, why not take a another job as well?
Give it time, Fraser. Tik-tok. Don’t forget there is the Worldwide freedom march coming up on the 20th March.
A bit disappointing. It started of well but it appears his resistance is strong on lockdown alone. He simply seems to despite that particular lack of freedom . He does not think that that vaccine passports are sinister so long as the lockdown can end. On the other hand he recounts how wartime passports became purposeless after some time. Does he think vaccine passports will go the same way?
Also how will disobedience work with them? It is not an insignificant issue. To be coerced into taking a foreign substance into your body by preventing one being able to do all the things one calls normal!
It appears that for LS tyranny stops when lockdown ends because he feels the pain of lockdown. Beyond that …. every person for him/herself.
I agree. I was also disappointed that his argument for vaccine passports was that we basically have to cede bodily autonomy (in practice, given that anyone unvaccinated would become an outcast) to assuage the fears of others. If it were guaranteed that the vaccine stopped transmission, this would be an argument; however, as things appear to stand at the moment, if the vaccinated can still catch Covid and pass it on, such fears are in fact irrational.
A good interview, though – thanks, Freddie!
If it stops transmission it still matters not because the only person arguably at risk is the person who has chosen not to be vaccinated.
Oh, I agree, on a philosophical level. Just pointing out that the basis upon which Lord Sumption expects us to give up one of our fundamental civil liberties is actually irrational.
And really surprising.
That is not the case for tourist receiving countries as mine, Greece. We don’t want summer visitors getting severely ill hence overloading our health care system.
For that reason I believe we have the right to require vaccine passports from our guests
Rather a spurious argument as the vaccines are not shown to stop transmission nor catching covid. The vast majority of people going on hols to Greece will, at worse get a sniffle. And in the season that most will go on hols will be high vit D season – summer. Covid is seasonal.
With the MNRA gene therapy jabs the vaccinated are more like to get sick than the unvaccinated as their innate immune system becomes rendered impotent to fighting certain diseases.
Vaccines do generally inhibit transmission. Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?
The Government has been (unusually) conservative about claiming the Covid vaccines inhibit transmission while the results of research are awaited, but it very probably does.
However, once the great majority of adults in the country are vaccinated, the utility of certificates for domestic purposes seems rather low.
“ Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?”
Because those are actual vaccines, non of the current crop of COVID medications fulfil the definition of a vaccine, or certainly what used to be considered the definition, despite the continued use of the word. As an aside, I had the AstraZeneca variant 2 days ago; I have lived and worked all over the world so I’ve had my fare share of inoculations, never have I been given one which didn’t come with a list of side effects and a path for reporting any side effects experienced until now.
The leaflet you get with it in the UK tells you the side effects to expect and where to report them.
I got mine yesterday and was feverish overnight, now just a bit tired and H̴͉̘̽̈́̽A̵̠̦͚̒͝Í̴͍̞͖̿̓L̸̫̪͎͌͊̽ B̵͙̠̿͒Ì̴̢͎̐L̴̢͓̽̓͘L̸͎͍͘͝ G̸̺̺̦͑͊̐A̸̺̞̝͋͌͊T̵̟̼̦͛̐̔E̴͎͚͙͐͛̈́S̵̺͍͕̐̀̈́.̴̡̞̟̽̈́͛ B̵̫̼̟̈́̽̕U̵̘̟̫͌͝I̴̢̡͇̒͌͝L̵̟̦͙͑̐̕D̸̫͖̓̚͠ T̴̟͉̈́̐̓H̸͍̘̻̀͆͊É̸̙̼͓̒ 5̸̢̝͉͌̀̾G̸̢͇̺͌̾̐ M̴̡̝̐̔͐A̵͔͖̾͐̚S̴̢͓͉̾̾͘T̸̞̪́̐̽͜ T̴̺͚̒̈́̕͜O̵̻̫͍͊͊ H̵̡̙͚̽͆̕Ë̵̼͎́͛͛L̸͓̙͌̕͝L̴̫͉̀̈́̕͜V̵̠̺̔͐͝E̴̢̼͑̐͌N̸̢͖̘͆̀́.̴͇̝͓̿͋̔.
I’m putting myself last for the vaccine. I’d rather the most fearful take it first.
Same here, and I’m aware of some of the potentially vulnerable who have had them (at least the first dose). It had a positive psychological effect, at least. I’m familiar with the 12 page leaflet that comes through the post encouraging their use, and have decided not to for the time being. The leaflet is a classic marketing one, or like a candidate’s leaflet (albeit with no name or address for the Agent!).
I wholeheartedly agree. If the fearful feel protected, they will be bolder and buttress up society.
Sorry Brian but I’m last!
Excellent graphics!!!
Why did you accept then an unknown & unproven Vaccine ?
I don’t believe this, it reads like paid trolling to me. As a contemporaneous response pointed out, it’s a lie to claim that vaccine recipients are not advised of side effects, millions of leaflets handed out to each one of them demonstrate otherwise. It’s also a straight lie to assert that there is no path for asserting side effects, it’s called the Yellow Card Scheme – as I feel sure this liar knows. “I have lived and worked all over the world” – yeah, sure you have.
Dougie “ Vaccines do generally inhibit transmission. Why else would, for example, Yellow Fever vaccination certificates be required to enter certain countries?”
Yellow fever can only be caught from mosquitos, it cannot be transmitted person-to-person.
Where is the data on the efficacy of vaccination (each type) and actually getting the disease? (I’m in US but the data from anywhere might be insightful.) Is there data on level or efficacy of antibodies in an individual in either of these situations? What about someone who got covid-19 and then was vaccinated? If there is a 99% survival rate of those under 80 yrs (pick your age), why take the risk of these rapidly created vaccines, before taking the risk of covid-19? And there are risks of the vaccine- not saying the risks are small or large, but they are not zero.
The known risks are ‘pretty low’, but for most of us short term adverse events are more than we’d get from covid. My neighbour had astra vax last week then spent two days feeling awful. A bit worse than when he caught covid last year. Problem is, when we started mass vaxxing the deaths rocketed up, especially in care homes and now they’re dropping along with ‘cases’. Hancock hails this as a massive vax success. He seems to ignore the fact that the same is happening all around the world, whether vaccination has progressed or not, whether countries are locked down or not. It’s called seasonality.
The longer term adverse events are unknown. The potential binding antibody problem and the scenario that the Belgian doc Dr Geert Vanden Bossche outlines being just two. Let’s hope they don’t come to fruition or at least not across all those vaccinated or else we’re right in the mire.
It’s my belief this is a deliberate attempt to CULL the ederly and the long term sick. I hope I’m wrong but Boris Johnson made his view on this pretty clear in an article he wrote back in 2007!
https://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/10/25/global-population-control/
Even known cheap ways of treating the disease were kept from our doctors. That’s what’s criminal in all this. Many who died could easily have been treated at a cost of about £20 pounds per patient and no need for hospitalisation. Unfortunately those wanting to share this were silenced!
If you have had Covid then your body has already built up an immunity with your innate immune system. In this case you should NOT be given the vaccines. Prof Delores Cahill says that if you take the vaccine in this case your innate immune already has already protected you. If you are given a MNRA jab my understanding is your innate immune protection is overriden. The next time you come in contact with another Covid variant could be deadly as your own immune system could end up destroying your own internal organs.
You’re comparing apples wih oranges.’Probably’ …..the mainsream narrative from the start.
The risk to you or me, unless in that small group and obese from covid are virtually nil. Less than a cold or flu. Certainly less than heart disease or cancers. What’s the problem?
That’s because the MNRA gene therapy jabs are not by definition vaccines. They are potentially lethal to those receiving them as their innate immune system has been bypassed. These jabs do not inhibit prevention or transmission.
He also pulls his punches by saying that he won’t stand up and speak in Trafalgar Square or wherever. The fact is that unless or until people with his influence stand up to be counted in that way, there is no hope.
I echo this comment of yours. I was a bit surprised that he would just passively disobey. I think we have reached a point that we need to take it to the streets.
He began advocating not following the law by signing up to Lady Brenda Hale’s statement on PM Johnson’s prorogation of parliament. There is a glaring error in its first paragraph; inadequate evidence to prove the allegation; serious non-sequiturs; sloppy argumentation, and not least a judgement which was unconstitutional. Lady Hale is a militant judge, an oxymoron if ever there was one. He seems to sympathize.
Yes……this was a big black mark against him.
He’s right. We need a pragmatic solution to get us back to normal. Those that accept greater risk to do so like myself should be able to choose a quick exit strategy. I go to my clinics in person and to my London office by public transport. Those who want to stay locked away are free to do so. That’s civil liberty. Either way the good Lord’s last sentence is the key – ‘you have to stand up and be counted.’
But there is barely any risk for most people, who have good metabolic health and under 70. Trouble is many people have poor metabolic health (obesity, low vitamin D, diabetes, lack of exercise, poor diet, smokers, high blood pressure etc.). But that’s not personally my fault and I go to great lengths to avoid all those things so why should arbitrary lockdown apply to me.
In many cases it’s our health system that has failed the people with pretty poor treatment. An Eastern European doctor who I met, and worked for the NHS said “The level of health care in the NHS is very LOW level.” Having had the services of several Traditional Chinese Medical Doctors who are usually trained in Western & TCM. For long term chronic problems Western medicine is almost impotent!! What a sad reflection on what our once great institution the NHS has become. I’m not blaming the people who work for it!
Thank you for your excellent work, Professor Sikora.
This interview was fascinating. Lord Sumption talks about a very British civil disobedience in which individuals begin to make their own judgements. Such as inviting friends around for a drink, or dinner. But Lord Sumption also says that most people support Draconian lockdown restrictions and that they have been manipulated into that by State fear mongering. Those therefore who do exercise their discretion can expect to be denounced, anonymously, by their fellow citizens, who will report them to the police. They can then expect a visit by the police, who will not content themselves with a mere warning, but who can be expected to be pretty direct.
My wife recently took our dog for a walk at the local beach, which is vast. There were only eight cars. The risk of Covid in a strong easterly wind on the East Coast is zero. Yet there was someone filming them. The entrance to the drive leading to the beach carries a government sign with the injunction “stay at home”, notwithstanding our apparent right to some exercise.
I think that the public health response to Covid will not just have damaged democracy and our civil liberties. There will be societal damage as well.
I opened a business in East Berlin shortly after the wall came down. Most of my staff were East Germans. I was very aware of the legacy of the Stasi and the veritable army of IMs or informelle Mitarbeiter (informal staff members), namely snitches and narks who denounced their fellow citizens, and even family members, for transgressions against state orthodoxy. It leaves a very enduring mark.
Yeah these snitchers were encouraged by the communists so that they could control the people. There are some in the UK who do it who imagine that they serve the government but all it is is imposing their views and trying to control other people. It would be different if they were stealing or causing damage.
As Michel Foucault would say “We don’t need the Police to Police us, we Police ourselves” Sad but true. History has taught us nothing.
Thank you, Karol, for standing up publicly against the Covid tyranny on Unherd and Talk Radio etc.
The name Karol Sikora is well known even in my home country at the tip of Africa. Thank you for your well reasoned and informed push back against mainstream fear mongering, draconian measures employed, liberties lost and ultimately destruction of countries.
Spot on! I cannot fathom why the fearful are being given centre stage and are being made to seem right across the board. Our species never would have come this far had the fearful run the tribes or instructed their people to stay in caves.
Lord Sumption says that people should be able to make their own risk assessments. Does this mean allowing those under the age of 60 to generally go back to work and supporting those older with help and advice to look after themselves? What happens if they still make inappropriate decisions? Would the NHS be overloaded? Some under 60 are vulnerable due to obesity etc. How would employers and fellow employees react if such people were allowed to furlough? Would they be victimised?
I agree that the effect on the young has been terrible and they should have stayed at school, but what would happen if some teachers just refused to go and teach due to fear for themselves?
I have considerable sympathy with Lord Sumption’s and Karol Sikora’s views, but just worry about the unintended consequences…
The ‘unintended consequences’ of lockdowns are horrendous as made clear in many papers.
If people choose to be obese, any reason I should be locking myself in prison for them? Are we now tring to stop people getting ill?
Ask Hancock why he has not been promoting and forcing th nhs to use well established and efficacious treatments and prophylactics to stop people getting il and into hospital in the first place. Vit D, HCQ/zinc, Budesonide, Ivermectin, Vit C etc are all proven to prevent/treat covid when used at the correct time for the treatment in the correct dosage.
Thank you Dr Sikora for your brave work to debunk the covid scam ! I cant but sayhow sad i am to see the civil rights everywhere being dismantled or reversed into more of a totalitarian dictatorship under disguise of emergency … now the governments can make new laws and regulations with no opposition or critics in the name of the covid measure concensus ….
I don’t take public transport because I do not want to be a danger to others. This is not a civil liberties issue, it is a public health issue.
Good for you! Look at Dr Zelenko in the USA. Treating patients in the USA whilst he has cancer and taking treatment for it. A ‘high risk’ if ever there was one. He has faith in his own prophylactic and treatment protocol.
This was dissapointing indeed, but it goes to show how little most people understand how this vaccine works and how the media keeps it vague as to keep perpetuating the misunderstanding.
Yes this is not the type of vaccine that people have become accustomed to. But of course, media, government or health policy people are not explaining that for all the world to see. This experimental jab is a way for government and public health to back themselves out of the great hole they have created but it is a barbaric idea.
Agree with you, Elizabeth, to an extent, but I think it’s going too far to say it’s a barbaric idea otherwise why have a good 75 to 80% taken up the vaccine so far that has been offered? Did anyone say that the flu vaccine was a barbaric idea? The trials indeed have taken only a year, or slightly less, but almost all of major scientists and epidemiologists think it is perfectly safe. However, I do agree with Trish Castle that no-one should be coerced into having one and nor should there be vaccines passports in this country. Agree that this government are trying to back themselves out of a ‘great hole’.
I know I’m digressing a bit, but if the government had closed our borders for a month or two (which should have been not difficult as the UK is an island) in the early stages of the pandemic – say from early February until early April 2020 – and banned Brits from holidaying abroad, then we wouldn’t have had the need for a vaccine (or not a widely used one anyway, and we could have developed one over a longer period of time to be used as an optional booster). The reason Johnson’s government didn’t do this is, I think, that they knew they would be perceived as ‘isolationist’ after the behaviour of Brexiter members of the cabinet – which I think is almost all of the current ministers – during our Brexit process, and they wanted somehow to counteract this.
“The trials indeed have taken only a year, or slightly less, but almost all of major scientists and epidemiologists think it is perfectly safe.”
There are many senior scientists who dissent but their views will not be represented in mainstream media. The most prominent perhaps is BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi.
Thanks for that name and association. Reading some of Doshi’s articles has shifted my assessment, not to the opposite extreme but at least to more uncertainty for now. Now that I’m more aware of the complications he brings up, I can be more alert to the need for more information in either direction. Previously I had thought it well enough settled and not needing further investigation (we all have to allocate our attention and prioritize following some questions over others).
Opinions should be constantly subject to possible reassessment with new information.
What exactly are ‘major Scientists and Epidemiologists’? First epidemiologists have no special knowledge of the techniques employed in vaccination, especially these new concepts (the same is true in reverse of Fauci). Second, what ‘major’ generally means are either Science Bureaucrats (who are not Scientists in general, whatever their degree), or Scientists beholden to the ‘establishment’, in this case the Multinational Pharma Giants. Medicine has been corrupted by money.
THINK. Vaccines are generally tested for at least 8 years once they get to that point. Great analogy someone gave me – difference between fully testing a vehicle and all of the individual components and driving it round the block and saying ‘it didnt break down’
Meanwhile in the real world… It’s fine for you to suggest eight years of testing is the norm and, I guess, desirable, although why eight years and not nine or twenty, I don’t know. But you do need to consider what economists would call the opportunity of cost of such a long delay – a lot more people dying and/or a lot more social restrictions and economic damage over a longer period. Then you need to balance the risk of early vaccine deployment against the benefits.
Anyone remember a drug called Thalidomide?
Yes, and (like most vaccines) it’s dangerous only when given to pregnant women.
The ‘benefits’ are great profits for the pharmaceutical companies only. What is the point in taking a jab for a disease with a fatality rate of 0.2% at most?There are spikes in death rates around the world as a result of injection programmes, all Covid19 ‘vaccines’ are still experimental.
Your 0.2% number is total misinformation. As Sumption alluded to, best estimate from Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter et al is that fatality rate is around 1% overall in UK.
The HIN1 vaccine became available within a year of that outbreak, in 2009. I got the vaccine (along with an ordinary annual flu shot) that fall, when I was working at a university in China; it was made available free for all staff, but was voluntary. I found out later that only about a quarter of the Chinese staff had gotten either vaccine.
I saw a really good meme which said – Rat turns to his friend and says “hey, you gonna take the vaccine?” to which he replied “I’ll wait and see how the human trials go first” This would be funny if it wasn’t so serious!
So which countries did close their borders from early February 2020? None that I can think so. So your reason for why the UK did not does not sound very credible, to put it mildly.
Australia. I’m here, we closed the borders, and Australia now doesn’t have Covid, I am not in lockdown, there is some vaccine thing vaguely going on (the prime minister had it the other day) that I don’t really have to bother about, and life is more or less back to normal.
Meanwhile back in the UK (where I grew up, left ~20 years ago) millions upon millions of people continued to come and go and now, even with all this vaccine program, you’ll be locked up for months still.
I have no political axe to grind (I am a progressive conservative, or vice versa, i.e. I disagree with everyone…) But the simple, irrefutable observation here is that the country that stopped people coming and going doesn’t have the problem, while the country that talked and talked about “taking control of our borders” but didn’t actually do it when it counted is screwed. (Not the only one of course, but one of the hardest hit.)
I am truly sad for what I see happening in my once proud land of birth. But the results are in, and the conclusion is clear – the choice was lock down your borders or lock up your population, and I’m happy and lucky to be in a country that did the former.
….and Auckland NZ goes into lockdown because of ONE new ‘case’. Must be pretty serious then I guess /s.
Yep, you can discuss and debate the severity of the “tactical” lockdowns in response to the tiny number of cases that have happened recently in Oz and NZ. Fact remains, these have been (a) much shorter and less restrictive than countries that didn’t control their borders and (b) only required when there were problems in those border controls – i.e. “quarantine leaks”. There are many in Australia that wonder why we don’t use the existing – and expensive – infrastructure in remote areas to process inbound arrivals, instead of quarantining them in the middle of our most populous cities and have to panic every time the inbound travellers get frisky with the quarantine staff.
Both Britain and Australia are islands, albeit on different scales and proximities, but one used its island status to advantage, the other – after years of rhetoric about controlling borders – didn’t.
Setting aside the efficacy of strict lockdowns for the moment, Australia has come under sharp criticism for human rights violations stemming from intense efforts to control the populace. Remember when police were filmed arresting a pregnant woman for incitment due to organizing an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook? Rights should not be completely abandoned during a pandemic.
Interesting. But what about opening the borders again? Only allowed for corona-free people? So, the question is: what thoughts do you have about corona and the future? Irrefutable observations deep into the future? Being immunized by vaccins?
You obviously don’t live in Victoria.
One slight problem, Tim, is that sooner or later as you open up your country again (assuming you don’t want to remain isolated for ever on your wonderful continent!), the virus will return. However, our experience here of the vaccines so far is astonishingly positive as they presumably will be for Australia, too. Then we all must return to the norm, viz. that life is not a zero risk business: we will have to go back to living that life with an acceptable level of risk.
“However, our experience here of the vaccines so far is astonishingly positive as they presumably will be for Australia, too”.
Easy tiger, we have no idea how these vaccines will perform, and in the case of the mRNA vaccines, they are not vaccines per se, but operating systems. They have been duplicitously labelled ‘vaccines’ to get round the FDA laws, moreover, they are being prescribed under ’emergency’ protocols.
As far as I am aware, there have been at least two major real world surveys which have shown a minimum of an 85% protection against serious illness and/or death for both the Pfizer and the Astra Zeneca. There has also been clear evidence published that shows the vaccine shows that should a vaccinated person become infected, even asymptomatically, they do not pass on the virus. Lastly, what term you use is purely a matter of semantics as the result is the same!
Life pretty much back to normal??? You can’t leave the country without Soviet Union style approval from the government. Most which are being rejected. Your basic human rights of freedom of movement is severely restricted. 40,000 Australian citizens stranded abroad as entry is massively restricted. States have closed borders to other australian states. Life back to normal??? I think you have forgotten what normal really was my friend.
In all this talk about closing borders, the point seems to be missed that this pandemic originated in a single city in a single country: Wuhan, China.
I first read about the outbreak in Wuhan on or around January 1, 2020. At that time, all the confirmed cases were still in that area.
Why didn’t China halt international travel out of the country, or at least out of Hubei province, as soon as the severity of the outbreak was known?
We are all screwed. Look what microsoft has done. Bill Gates has been telling lies. We are all getting the covid passes. Not just to travel. To go to school. To go to work. etc. They are rolling it out now. Watch the top video. Kids are going to have to get their testing tracker to attend Los Angeles public schools. Brought to you buy Microsoft!
https://achieve.lausd.net/covidresources
Los Angeles Unified Daily Pass
David Dreebin,
I am shocked to read how wrongly you are informed.
There is no virus.
The CDC nor anyone else has proven the virus to exist.
The so called PCR test is not a test.
It is fake- fraudulent.
No one has ever contracted the cv.
No one has ever died from the cv.
Everything you hear on MSM is lies and propaganda.
Everything you need to know about the covid fraud is here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8aesRBKk7luP/
You’ll get no purchase here, Dave. Think MK Ultra!
Where vaccines were tested in Israel there are signs that many people go on to heart problems or strokes months after a vaccine.
Your source, please. All I could find was that one “75-year-old with cancer and history of heart attacks” died 2 hours after vaccination. His death is considered unrelated to vaccination.
Did you find that on Google? I’d go to DuckDuckGo!
I think you’re missing the point, David. In my opinion, this is all about money, and lots of it. You only have to do a little digging into Chris Whitty’s background to realise that there is a major conflict of interest with his position. This is about big Profits for big Pharma and nothing else. Sadly, we are their guinea pigs! What could possibly go wrong?
I’m amazed at the number of conspiracy theory nutters like you around. Quite amazed.
What on earth is barbaric about it? Are all vaccines therefore ‘barbaric’? Polio, ‘flu, yellow fever et al? What is about these vaccines that have caused so many to leap onto barmy conspiracy theory bandwagons?
Nit picking there Fran. The issue is huge, you worry about the minutia.
This is a very important distinction and nuanced point. Apartheid, Jim Crow and countless other heinous crimes in history have all been legal. Whilst I am certainly not comparing lockdown laws to those ones, it is an important distinction about legality and what the right thing to do is when laws are questionable.
Abortion is legal, but is it moral?
As is adultery (currently legal and widely not considered moral)
There is a lot of good sense here, but supporting ‘Covid Passports’ is not one of them. First that will result in tremendous coercion to obey. Second, one does not need to be an ‘Anti-Vaxxer’ (a term of propaganda and coercion itself) to wish to decline an experimental technology (I have a lot more expertise here, than Lord Sumption) for an illness, depending on your age that is of no risk. Forcing a 20-year old to get a vaccine for this is criminal. And, he seems to not realize that this will lead to every citizen of every age getting a couple of new vaccine shots … maybe every 3 months for the rest of their lives. This is a road we must NOT go down.
The logic is plainly moving towards a
permanent vaccination model. You get Version 1 early in 2021. But, of course, as new strains of COVID appear, you will have to get Version 2 late in 2021, Version 3 in the spring of 2022, etc. No wonder Bill Gates is involved. It’s like a dream software marketing strategy where everyone is forced to buy Office and every new version for the rest of eternity.
The vaccine situation can be explained easily. Just like the mask situation. One can only wonder why there is lack of clear scientific information in the media on either of these topics. There are sterilizing vaccines and protective vaccines. Sterilizing vaccines kill the virus so a vaccinated person never becomes infected. Protective vaccines (a very common type) do not prevent a person from becoming infected, they prevent a person from becoming sick from the infection. Thus, a vaccinated person could carry a virus and, potentially, infect others. However, because they are vaccinated, their body will kill the virus pretty quickly. Thus, the time during which they may be infected (and infectious) is considerably shorter than the unvaccinated person. They are also likely to be less infectious during this time than unvaccinated people.
Once Covid vaccines are broadly available, whether they are sterilizing or only protective, shouldn’t really matter from the public health policy prospective. It is up to each individual to decide if they want to use a vaccine to protect themselves. It is not a responsibility of a person to protect other people by getting vaccinated. Other people can protect themselves. Yes, there may be a very tiny category of people who, for some medical reason, can’t take a vaccine. This is the case with any vaccine. The right of the other 99+ % percent of people to make their personal health decisions should not be subservient to the notion of possibly protecting this tiny minority. Public health policies are not and can not be about 100% protection for everyone. When I make my health decisions, I am focused on myself and my health. If this could be interpreted as me “being selfish”, I have a well founded legal and moral right to be selfish when making my health decisions.
Given that this disease has 99.5% to 99.998% survival rate for those under 65 and that, at least in the UK and the US, vaccine is now well available for the over 65 crowd (and quite a number of other categories of people as well), it is shocking and a clear violation of basic human rights for governments to claim they can mandate what people are able to do based on their vaccination status or, more generally, to limit anyone’s rights on the grounds of Covid pandemic. Whatever slim excuse they had before is now completely gone.
“There are sterilizing vaccines and protective vaccines. Sterilizing vaccines kill the virus so a vaccinated person never becomes infected. Protective vaccines (a very common type) do not prevent a person from becoming infected, they prevent a person from becoming sick from the infection.”
This is not quite right. A vaccine induces an immune reaction – an entirely ‘natural’ phenomenon. The nature of the immune reaction – the type and ‘accuracy’ of the antibodies produced – is what determines the effectiveness of the vaccine.
Last month I studied ‘the ethics of vaccination’. In there your point of view is more less explored. I make it short: to protect the vulnerable it can be demanded by government that the environment of the vulnerable should be immunized by vaccins to prevent the vulnerable will die or getting ill. A rather complex situation. Complex, as it is bind to the believe how the world should be, being sure that vaccination does what is promised and all hidden assumptions not mentioned. I am still reflecting about it.
Well said, Irene.
Absolutely spot on Trish. This whole point seems so blindingly obvious to me that I don’t understand how Lord Sumption could miss it. As he seems so incredibly astute in many other areas it actually makes me question my own view – am I missing something?
It was also disappointing to hear him refer to those not wishing to take the covid “vaccine” as anti-vaxxers. I believe most people that have issues with the covid “vaccines” have had all the regular childhood vaccines and have had their children vaccinated. If you are at very limited risk, why would you take any drug to combat that limited risk if that drug itself has a degree of risk (as ALL drugs do)? As you have stated, if those at risk have taken the vaccine (and assuming it protects the recipient – i.e. “works”) then the whole argument of taking it “for the greater good” flies out of the window.
I am not sure that he was using ‘anti-vaxxer’ in the way you think. I think he was being very specific referring to people who are against taking this vaccine, not meaning those people who have some conspiratorial view about all vaccines. In the same way as ‘anti-lockdown’ in this context refers specifically to the Covid lockdown rather than other examples of people being deprived of their liberty. I might be wrong but that is my view. It was an unfortunate choice of words and nothing more.
Absolutely spot on you David. I would not be seen as the “anti-vaxxer” stereotype at all – I am grateful for my childhood vaccines and would have liked to have had the opportunity of a measles vaccines as that particular illness nearly killed me, and I have all my children vaccinated for all the illnesses of childhood – and yet I still disagree that this so-called vaccine is necessary. Lord Sumption had me wholeheartedly on side in his views on liberty etc, but on the vaccine (and he did look somewhat sheepish when he spoke about this I thought) he appears to have retreated to the typical mindset of the scared elderly person so prevalent at the moment. His apparent resignation about the associated loss of liberty and rights in the face of mandatory injections and health passports was very confusing. Like you David, from such an intellectual, informed man it makes me think, am I missing something here? Please Lord Sumption, can you clarify why this inconsistency in your views that seems so glaring to us?
That may be true of you, but most of the people on here are full on tin-foil hat wearers whom I suspect share links to Unherd articles mentioning vaccines on their own forums and “brigade” them. In particular Elizabeth W, Sean L and John Stone are conspiracists who think Bill Gates controls the world from his secret underground lair. It’s unfortunate that we can no longer click on people’s names to see their other comments, otherwise it’d be more obvious the sort of astro-turfing that’s going on.
Zuckerberg is a lizard and Gates wants to chip you, these are facts.
I am sure Zuckerberg is not a lizard but as for Gates wanting to chip us:
Take your hand and slap yourself hard around the face – wake up. You’ve been brainwashed by the MSM. Look up Operation Mockingbird and stay off of the MSM to get better informed!
Also, people who use the phrase “MSM” are almost invariably nutters.
I looked up Operation Mockingbird and learned it’s a favourite of the Q nutters. Are you one of them, by any chance?
I’ll have you know I am fully protected by MindGuard, an elegant software solution which is much superior to your own outdated hardware (i.e. that tin-foil hat).
I totally agree with your comments, Sarah. And why take a vaccine for a disease which you have a 99.7% chance of recovery from if you are in good health to begin with, against a vaccine with a 95% efficacy?
You do realise that a 95% efficacy means that the risk of contracting symptomatic Covid is reduced by 95%, not that one has a 5% chance of contracting symptomatic Covid, right?
Yes, this is deeply disappointing, partly because it regards vaccines as God-given rather than industrial products which could go wrong – and if they do go wrong you will be gaslighted by almost everybody, and most particularly judges. In a letter to BMJ last year I highlighted how the vaccine industry had led the campaign for the exclusion of the criticism of its products from social media ‘Regarding the use of the term ‘Anti-Vaxxer (27 August 2020)’:
“Thank you Karyse Day… for drawing attention to the problem of the bias and intimidation inherent in the term “anti-vaxxer”. The term has been around perhaps since the 19th century but has evolved a new context. Three years ago I drew attention to the remarks of Seth Berkley, director of the vaccine lobby organisation GAVI, in the Spectator proposing that “anti-vaxxers” be excluded from social media, which meant in effect not only that certain people should not be allowed on social media but that criticism of vaccines should not be allowed on a generic basis – an extremely serious matter…”
It should be noted that this was in the context of the news report by Helen Haskell, ‘Cumberlege review exposes stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare’ which is about the systematic gaslighting and abuse of patients who have suffered harm from medical interventions. I do not know whether Sumption has swallowed whole the unscientific rubric that vaccines are “safe and effective” (apparently simply by belonging to that class of product) but he ought to question perhaps how much he really knows about it, and that actually the creation of a class of untouchables “anti-vaxxers” few of whom have ever identified themselves as such would be a human rights atrocity which would hand the world over to the arbitrary machinations of an already over-powerful industry. I beg him to reconsider.
He must understand what he’s doing here…..using one tyranny (lockdown) to distract from a bigger one (coercion of population into a dangerous and dubious and highly profitable gene therapy experiment)
“the whole argument of taking it “for the greater good” flies out of the window”
It doesn’t because a vaccine could work on those at risk by reducing it to them without eliminating it entirely, so others taking it for the greater good is still valid. Not even spot on, then, Sarah – let alone absolutely.
NOTE FOR UNHEARD: please get rid of “DW” in my icon!
Really – reduction of viral load in the ones with the vaccine, the confidence it gives the frightened so society may act more normal, the way it forces teachers unions (who have proven they hate children) to do their job, a thousand reasons vaccine uptake will help! Although I will not get it,( the fact J&J vaccine is made from dead, aborted, babies shines a light on it all)
Bravo, well said!
Excellent interview and Freddie always asks such insightful, probing questions. However, the weakness in his reasoning, as others have pointed out is 1. He knows that Covid is not serious enough for the vast majority to warrant the measures taken. 2. The govt is using “the vaccine works but it also it doesn’t work” position to maintain the fear based coercion of behaviour, but then 3. He thinks vaccine passports are OK because people need to be encouraged to go out again!!!
Hold on…tackle proper public understanding of the truth about 1. and 2. plus vaccine all the vulnerable types (mentally and physically!) and 3 goes away dunnit?
Am I supposed to take experimental pharmaceuticals and carry an ID card against my will to cover for lying politicians and the intellectual weakness of people who would rather watch “Strictly” than do their own research?
Well said
Re vaccine passports he is pretty glib about the implications. I hazard it is about the most coercive of the options and effectively forces people to have a still experimental mRNA gene therapy as the ransom for retrieving their freedoms. That large numbers of people agree with coercion is no reason to pursue it. Morality is not a democracy. Pragmatic is really code for laziness and cowardice. A genuine option is to apply some rational context and scrap any idea of passports entirely.
Well said. You’ve put most of the cogent arguments in one small space to copy and paste.
START PUSHING-BACK……TODAY.
The first thing to do is to ask Lawyers for Liberty to send one of their letters to your child’s school……
https://democracydeclaration.com/lawyers-for-liberty/
…..masks in class-rooms and testing healthy pupils in the canteen or sports hall is a sign of a totalitarian government at work…….oh, it’s ‘optional’ alright, but they know that peer-pressure and fear of being thought ‘uncaring’ about teachers, and of revenge from the head teacher…….MAKES IT COMPULSORY……W/O ANY SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION.
In the last 12 months, look at what the government has done to university and school kids…….locked them up for no reason and blackmailed them morally……
…….Gove’s Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team and woketard ghouls on SAGE like Susan Michie are waging psychological warfare against Britain’s young – to condition them for future oppression.
RESIST.
Take your meds. Voluntarily, of course. But for your sake take them.
Maybe you need to read up on the history of totalitarianism. You can do this in your own home, without fear of a visit from the secret police.
In regards to coercive vaccination, consider My adult son says he won’t have the vaccine – how can I convince him he’s wrong? in The Telegraph.
The adult son isn’t wrong…
It’s diabolical that young people and others not at risk of the virus are being pressured to have these experimental vaccine products.
It’s one thing an elderly person frightened of the virus taking the vaccine, they have limited years ahead.
It’s another thing entirely to press these experimental vaccine products on young people and others with many years ahead of them, and with no idea of the long-term cumulative consequences of these vaccines, against a virus which isn’t a problem for most people.
This goes back to ethics, what went on in the ethics committees that approved the protocols for the vaccine trials, why didn’t they pick up on this issue of people not at risk of the virus being pressed to have the vaccine?
I suggest this contravenes the Helsinki Declaration, i.e.
“Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects.”
It’s not justifiable to make people not at serious risk of the virus submit to a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination.
That the fact the Jonhson and Johnson vaccine, (and Astra as well maybe ?) is made from a murdered, aborted, baby, is too weird for me – look it up, this is a terrible world where this goes on.
The vaccine is made with a cell line that’s been around for decades, which originated in an aborted fetus from the 1970s or something. The vaccine itself doesn’t contain the cell line, it’s used to grow the virus for the vaccine. So, even if you disagree with abortion under all circumstances, you are not encouraging further abortions by taking it, since the production of the vaccine doesn’t need further abortions.
Don’t you just love that the reason we should all comply, is to encourage people back out into the world, to enjoy themselves, while we remain inside? How about the people that are so scared, even when they’ve been vaccinated, stay home and be safe, while the rest of us get on with our lives? That is democracy.
It’s all very well to support placing the entire healthy population under house arrest in order to “save lives” or “protect the NHS” or whatever your particular angle is.
However, it is not okay to tell someone that “you may not open your business and trade” without providing them with full compensation for remaining closed.
Likewise, it’s all very well to tell someone that they have tested positive or that they have been in the same vicinity as someone who has tested positive and that therefore, they must self-isolate for some number of days. It is not okay to tell someone to self-isolate and then not compensate them for loss of income during that period.
Those who have been the most ardent supporters of the long-running lockdown in the UK include those who have been furloughed. It’s all very well to sit at home binge-watching Netflix and getting pissed while being paid to do so. It’s quite another for the 3 million or so who have received zero support or all of the people who have no choice but to continue working because they get, at most, statutory sick pay, or no pay at all if they are required to self-isolate.
Lord Sumption has a good point in questioning the logic, legality and morality of stripping us of our civil and human rights in the application of a novel form of epidemic control never before attempted. At least, not attempted outside of Communist China.
In the words of the world’s worst C programmer, Neil Ferguson:
In January, members of Sage, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention.
“They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.”
Then, as infections seeded across the world, springing up like angry boils on the map, Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.” In February one of those boils raged just below the Alps. “And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.”
Thus, we became trapped in the grip of an unholy trinity, Government, Corporate-owned media and the Medical-Industrial Complex. Now we’re being told that the only way out is to meekly submit to annual or even bi-annual shots of experimental vaccines.
Yes, civil disobedience is the only alternative to the blend of “1984” and “A Brave New World” that the unholy trinity has thrust upon us.
Neil Ferguson et al’s Report 9 has had a massive impact, not just in the UK, but around the world. For example Ferguson et al’s modelling was also influential on modelling* that put Australia into lockdown last year.
Consider this from the summary of Ferguson et al’s report:
We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognised that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed. We show that intermittent social distancing – triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound. Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced. (My emphasis.)
The question is, why was ‘a vaccine’ seen to be the appropriate response to this virus? Particularly when it became apparent that the virus wasn’t a threat to most people?
This needs to be tracked back now, there needs to be retrospective critical analysis of the ill-targeted and disproportionate response to this virus.
*Robert Moss et al. Coronavirus Disease Model to Inform Transmission-Reducing Measures and Health System Preparedness, Australia. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Volume 26, Number 12 – December 2020.
Why a vaccine response? Follow the money. Imperial College is funded in part by……..yes you’ve guessed it, B & M Gates Foundation! Next question: Who benefits financially or attains more power from a mass arguably mandatory repeated vaccination programme? Well there’s a long list, but near the top are China, big pharma and well globalists the world over.
I have found it quite amusing that over the last few months there have been huge protests in several EU countries with people chucking stuff at the Police and the Police water cannoning and arresting protesters.
In the UK we just had illegal raves.
Quiet disobedience?
and the Dutch appear to have blown up a testing centre!!!
Particularly disappointing that Northern Ireland, which normally sets the pace with civil disobedience, has been so supine on this occasion.
I believe they tried to kneecap a Covid molecule but it was beyond their technical capability.
Although, sadly, I am far too old for raves illegal or otherwise, the fact that they took place were the few grounds for optimism during lockdowns.
A wonderful and reassuring interview with a brave, sharp-minded and modest man. Quite obviously a reluctant spokesman for the arguments that (surely?) a substantial, unrepresented, number of people are thirsting to be put and for which there is almost no platform. Mainstream media -nothing. Even outliers like The Spectator which dared to contradict the culture-of-fear-and-repression narrative earlier in the “crisis” have been totally silenced … to the point that within 12months the centre-line of political thought is now regarded as so extreme it is almost off the scale of acceptability.
I can’t see anything to criticise about the view that liberty can be acceptably constrained by what a majority of fellow citizens believe is practical (vaccine passports). His views seem to me both nuanced and based in the real world. I don’t think he has contempt for his fellow citizens as some of the comment below believe, I think it’s more that he is deeply suspicious and regretful about the manipulation the population has been subjected to by its immoral government.
I agree. I tried to raise make the point on Facebook that the impact of the lockdown unfairly and disproportionately affected the young and caused great economic harm. I was ridiculed by an old friend who is a retired physio and has a working social worker wife, plus many others. I had to withdraw meekly to avoid further vileness and stupidity from people I thought were educated and my friends. I didn’t even say I was against all forms of lockdown or restriction. The world has gone mad and I feel like I am a minority, despised by the woke and the sheep. Good for Lord Sumption for sticking to his guns on this.
You are not in a minority.
Agreed. Media and polling companies are all sponsored by the gangsters behind the racket. People have been ignoring the absurd restrictions for months now.
The polling sways people’s opinions. ‘They’ know exactly what they are doing when they release these poll results.
I hadn’t thought of that before, Elizabeth, but perhaps you are right: that the polling itself is influencing people’s opinions.
I’m here too David.
Your argument will hopefully soon hit home when the UK (and other countries) begin the big payback and the effects of lockdowns start being felt more aggressively. It has been astonishing to me that so many millions of people have been unable to equate the health of the economy with the health of the nation. Sadly, I think many of these people may still not be able to connect the dots between lockdown and destruction of the economy because timing may make them look for other scapegoats.
Don’t knock being despised: its the price you pay for being not woke but awake.
They’re all bought and paid for. Listen to Catherine Austin Fitts. How much Bill Gates is into the Telegraph for is published on Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website. My prediction is that Bill Gates will end up in prison, taking a good few politicians and media-friendly scientists, possibly some journalists with him.
As the scale of criminal corruption becomes known the public mood will turn. Internet means truth can’t be suppressed. There was no more fervent sponsor of the internet than Gates. It is fitting that the technological revolution responsible for his emergence as a global figure should also spell his nemesis.
I hope you are right Sean – that Bill Gates and his merrymen and women are in prison – and let’s hope soon. Goodness knows they deserve to be.
Would that were true, unfortunately he’ll never even be tried let alone imprisoned. It’s definitely not part of the Great Davos Reset plan is it?
Who is going to put Bill Gates in prison – when via the Gates Foundation, he has all of the governments, politicians, media and almost all scientists on his pay roll?
So, am I a brainwashed sheep because you guys sound a little bit paranoid?
Nice! I like it 🙂
Very well put, Graham.
Only thing I’d like to add is that the Daily Mail, although in general I’m not a fan of that newspaper, is still querying the culture of fear from time to time – e.g. in its front page headline a few days ago which went something like “The Truth behind Covid-reported Deaths”, implying that many of the registered Covid deaths reported are not actually due to Covid-19 as its main cause.
Extremely disappointed. The coercion should not happen in the first place for what, as he acknowledges, is not a significant disease in terms of risk and number of deaths. How on earth can a compulsory untested vaccine be less bad than f***ing house arrest? WHY should I put something unknown in to my body to ‘tempt’ someone out of their home because they have an irrational fear? The Govt should take responsibility for causing that irrational fear. It is not a SOLUTION to a problem
Couldn’t have said it better myself. On this, Sumption has got it the wrong way around. If people have an irrational fear, they should do whatever they need to do to combat it or live with it. This may mean having a vaccine (which does not stop you catching covid anyway) or not leaving their own home ever again. Why should I and my children be forced into an underclass to make these people feel comfortable enough to go to the pub!?
I think this definitely reflects other recent undesirable changes in our society, such as allowing anyone who identifies as a woman into women only spaces, in which a small vocal minority forces change on others who do not desire it. In both situations there are legitimate questions about the sanity of the vocal minority. Why do we give into them!?
Last year Sumption was all in favour of destroying democracy. He despises ordinary people as much as he despises the Tory party under Johnson. He does not believe the Constitution has any force, he omitted it entirely from his Reith lectures. He barely acknowledges the Monarch as the head of state, believing her a nodding dog and rubber stamping machine. He believes in something he terms ‘the Sovereignty of Parliament’ independent of the people, so long as that Parliament is subject to foreign powers and courts. Only now Parliament is full of people who agree with the Executive and want it, if anything to go further than it has, he is stumped. His ideological, liberal cupboard is empty.
He may have come to his senses over the past year, at last, but it is too late. When he had power and influence he used it ill, he has always been an establishment man, the establishment happens to have changed a bit on the surface, but not half so much as he thinks it has. So he is playing the part of a rebel. But he doesn’t fool many people.
Could you substantiate your claim that: “last year Sumption was all in favour of destroying democracy”? I must have missed that bit in the Reith Lectures.
The Reith lectures were two years before. And I suppose it was 2019 in which he did his most public democracy despising. He detested the referendum result. He was the architect behind the second Miller case and knew the outcome, announced it on the Today Programme before the case had even started. He was all in favour of the Sovereignty of Parliament when Parliament wanted to overturn the referendum result as nearly all MPs supported staying in the EU. Now they nearly all support strict lockdown he is flummoxed. He claims people will sensibly, quietly ignore the silly laws and regulations, which is true, but up until yesterday he had no confidence in the wisdom of the man in the street.
The reason he is worked up about all this is because he wants to rewrite the Constitution, in his own lefty, liberal, hollowed out, modern, progressive, Blairite way. He did enough damage with Miller 2 and all the tricks he put Bercow up to in conjunction with Pannick.
On the other hand he has openly said the supreme Court made up new Law in declaring Boris’s peroration unlawful.
I cannot buy your characterisation of him “lefty, liberal, hollowed out, modern, progressive, Blairite” This man gave up his true love of academia, eschewed politics and the bench (until the supreme court) for a lucrative career in commercial law. He openly admits that his lifestyle took priority over high purpose.
“lefty, liberal, hollowed out, modern, progressive, Blairite” would appear to align perfectly with pursuing a lucrative career in commercial law.
I agree with you. I remember he said he voted ‘Remain’, and it occurred to me that it was unnecessary to say this unless one felt it slightly disreputable to have voted Leave, but he struck me as being thoughtful and reasonable, and accepting of the result, as did the majority of Remainers close to me.
I remember that he predicted that the Supreme Court would say that the pro-rogation was unjusticiable because the Bill of Rights excluded judges from parliamentary business, which was the same conclusion to which the High Court had come.
That’s an unnecessarily bitter synopsis of Sumption’s recent career.
Undoubtedly he was a Quislington toad over Brexit, but that is hardly surprising given his love affair with Medieval France.
However since the start of this Scamdemic he is the only Establishment figure to make a stand against this lunacy.
Nothing from the Church, Parliament, the wretched Universities, the deplorable Media or even the rest of the pompous Judiciary.
Sumption alone has spoken out, and then to be vilified by you because the scar of Brexit hasn’t healed is deplorable. In fact it serves to illustrate that all really is lost.
but that is hardly surprising given his love affair with Medieval France.Not sure thats any rationale for being a Quislington toad over Brexit,(nice description btw) I’m a big fan of whole swathes of Europe and owned substantial property in Spain for decades-it has no relevance to my views on a technocratic superstate.
He has spent the last thirty years restoring a *Chateau in the Dordogne, which I would have thought was a good enough reason to have voted remain in itself.
* Berbiguieres, 30 miles or so East of Bergerac.
I have had and still have a love affair with medieval France and inland Andalucia for that matter, but what has that got to do with Brexit?
Given the vindictive nature of the French state, any Englishman owning property in France was entitled to feel apprehensive about the fall-out from Brexit.
Seems to me that a ‘love affair with medieval France’ is no excuse for riding roughshod over the democratic will of the people. Once more the tendency for those who consider themselves our betters, Sumption, Blair et al, to override what the people decide, comes to the fore.
I enjoyed the read and am part way through the video. It seems to me as an outsider here in Australia, that Sumption and Freddy have kept this tight in regards to the number of issues they were going to cover. The major point is how easily democracy tumbles into tyranny and if one gets this, then the other issues automatically come up for questioning. So it is a “Bravo” from me.
Freddy vassilates between being against the insanity and giving it a small amount of credence. My guess is Youtube said to him that he was walking the edge a bit closely and canceling is a very real punishment to deniers.
So nice to see Freddie Sayers and his interlocutor in the same room.
I agree Trish. He made so many good points up until that point. It appears he is pushing his views of vaccination within this interview but how does that line up with democracy?
then ignore that point and worry about the big issue. You people above worrying about such a tiny issue wile missing the entire point amazes me. You all are like someone who listened to a long explanation of something vital and at the end tell the speaker ‘You’ve got a piece of spinach stuck in your teeth’.
This ignores the entire public narrative of how we were all going to be liberated from lockdown by the vaccines (and actually now how we are all going to be tyrannised by them: a captive market forever and ever to the advantage of a powerful industry which wants to silence dissent and scrutiny).
Hear, hear!
I love that analogy but I don’t agree that this issue is tiny.
And your point is, caller…?
I like the fact that I can agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. It gives me an opportunity to step back and carefully examine my (very strongly held) opinions. I find that whenever I hear the crazy left I tend to get more entrenched and think less. He does have a good point in talking about picking the least-worst scenario. It’s a viewpoint I hadn’t considered. I don’t necessarily agree but will certainly mull it over the next few weeks.
Everything that this government has done over Covid 19 has been wholly deliberate, planned long ago by those running the Corona operation across the Western world and beyond.
Do people seriously think that governments ruling that anyone who dies – of any cause whatsoever, including being run down by a bus – must be listed as a ‘Covid death’, if they tested positive for Covid 19 within the previous month – do they seriously think that such governments do not have an agenda to massively exaggerate the number of Corona deaths?
The lockdowns, the use of fraudulent ‘Covid tests’ by all governments to produce wholly fraudulent vast numbers of ‘cases’ to keep the ‘Corona crisis’ going – do people seriously think this tightly coordinated operation across the Western world happened by accident – where all governments do and say exactly the same things at each stage of the ‘Corona crisis’?
Such coordination across so many governments, where they all parrot the same lying narrative; where they all lock down using the same totally fraudulent ‘deaths projection’ supplied by the serial fraudster ‘Professor Ferguson’ & Imperial College; where they all list as ‘Corona deaths’ people who get run down by a car, or who fall off a roof, or who die of cancer – that does not happen by accident. That takes years of planning between the governments concerned to get all of their lies coordinated and timed for each stage of the Corona operation.
Is not the fact that influenza – which kills vast numbers every year – has totally disappeared, with no one listed as dying of it, anywhere – enough to wake up even the most brainwashed, unthinking sheep?
Clearly not.
The ‘Corona crisis’ was in the planning stage at least five years ago, when Fauci approved US government funding of the Wuhan laboratory to develop a ‘gain of function’ for the bat Corona virus to modify its DNA to be able to penetrate the cell walls of humans, to infect them with the virus now called ‘Covid 19’.
The agenda of the governments is to inject every single human on the planet with their supposed ‘vaccines’.
Covid 19 and the ‘Corona crisis’ is the means to achieve that objective – along with the installation of an Orwellian ‘new normal’ global Police State, via their Great Reset.
The Great Reset requires a ‘justification’ – just as injecting everyone with their ‘vaccines’ required the ‘justification’ of Covid 19; and the deliberate trashing of the economies and countless millions of jobs, throwing as many people as possible into total dependence on welfare, is the ‘justification’ they are lining up for the imposition of the Orwellian ‘Great Reset’. A universal basic income is coming – receipt of which will be conditional on being injected with whatever they order people to submit to, and total ideological obedience, and a Chinese-style social credit score system to ensure total conformity, is what is coming.
As a sample of the horrors to come from injecting everyone with their ‘vaccines’, people should watch this item, I suggest, about aluminum – a known neurotoxin – in the ‘vaccines’ being deliberately facilitated by other ‘vaccine’ ingredients to enter the brains of everyone who is injected. Skip the first couple of minutes.
https://www.brighteon.com/e4003441-b383-43d5-82b5-ab9f916f9518
Seems to me that some people find it easier to accept a conspiracy theory that accept what I see as the ‘truth’. I feel that conspiracy theorists like Richard almost have a need for someone to be ‘in charge’ and that it’s somehow more comforting to feel that the democratic party is controlled by a group of baby eating paedophiles addicted to a drug made up by Hunter S Thompson (for example) than to accept reality as I see it.
Which is that a ‘great reset’ requires a level of competence and coordination across a huge group of people (the elites) that simply doesn’t exist. The truth is that no one is in charge, we get old and die, we’re all a lot less sentient than we care to think, there is no God and the larger a group of people gets the greater the level of collective stupidity.
I feel sorry for you! Next, you’ll be saying that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, and before you cry “tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist”, three buildings fell that day. Look up WTC7. That’s your smoking gun right there! I digress…
The modern media landscape is incredibly complex and hard to navigate. We’re bombarded by images, narratives and ‘alternative facts’ from all sides. The explosion of narratives gradually started about 60 years ago and has skyrocketed with the widespread adoption of the internet. It’s a new thing for the human mind to deal with and we all now have the option to choose our own truth as there are so many narratives out there to be found. You’ll find evidence to back up whatever you are predisposed to believe.
I’m not going to mock you for the path you are following and thanks for the sympathy, but I’m going to stick with my view. There just isn’t enough competence in the world.
Some of the responses to this interview are nothing short of tragic. Leave COVID alone to run it’s course and the IFR is less than 1%. Therefore trainwrecking your economy, stopping schooling, bankrupting businesses small & large, seeding mass unemployment, shutting women and children away with their abusers (Great Ormond Street reported an increase of 1,500% of children presenting with abusive head injuries during lockdowns last year) and wholesale removal of civil liberties is a stupid and excessive over compensation.
I’d like to see the people who designed and signed off on the “look into his eyes and tell him you can’t work from home” billboard posters, look into the eyes of every victim of unemployment, every battered woman and child (and man, for that matter) and every young person with mental health problems and tell them their sacrifice is acceptable.
I’m always amused by the war analogies that come and go, in a war the whole comes together to save the whole. During COVID, the whole has been terrified into coming together to save somewhere less than 1% of the whole.
Thank you for this. The interviewer is of exceedingly good quality, allowing Sumption to finish his points. I cannot think of a single interviewer on TV who does this.
Sumption’s point on ‘covid passports’ was well-made, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Any government that rules that by law, anyone who dies must be listed as a ‘Corona death’ if they tested positive within the previous 30 days – including people who got run down by a car, fell off a roof, or died for any other reason – any government who creates laws like that are criminals and fraudsters, plain and simple.
And all Western governments have passed that obscene law – designed with one purpose only: to pump up the ‘Corona deaths’ numbers through the roof.
But that’s a coincidence, right? Not a conspiracy!
How anyone can still believe a word that such governments say about their ‘Corona crisis’, when they know that one fact, just defies belief.
I concur 100%. My heart sank once the conversation changed to the vaccine.
After hearing his laments and arguments surrounding lockdown Lord Sumption’s views of how we must then gracefully accept an experimental vaccine and surrender sovereignty over our body and ultimately our health seems grossly at odds with everything else he said…. startlingly so.
While he may profess to be independent of all men , somehow it made me wonder.
I have seen a trend in back bencher Conservatives that mirrors this too.
All passion and fury around the injustice of lockdowns and yet accepting of the vaccine.
This worrying, primarily because I think it’s clear to see that the real reason for extended non sensical lockdowns is to suppress the population into accepting a vaccine at any cost in exchange for our basic human rights to be reinstated.This is clearly the end goal.
So despite Lord Sumption’s rather renegade attitude against the journey he never the less agrees with the destination.
The real question everyone should be asking is NOT HOW we should respond to lockdowns BUT WHY is the Government in the first instance implementing them with such unnecessary vigour as to actively destroy the very country they were elected to serve?
“VACCINES FOR ALL” I hear them say.
This is not only the crumbling of democracy, it’s something far more sinister……
Great post.
The real choice should be not about accepting the Certificate Of Vaccination ID (COVID) in order to allow people live their lives normally. It should be about protesting and highlighting that this authoritative choice is unnecessary and critically anti-democratic. The focus should be on the governments and their “scientific advisers” who push this agenda, not on whether these IDs will work and how effective they will be.
And COVID (or Covid) used to be called a disease! If they go down that route, they are just wheedling through the woodwork into a dictatorial world, not operating in the interests of the general public. They are always chipping away at it; this is just another excuse.
Beautifully put, Nina. My sentiments exactly. Makes you wonder if Lord Sumption is controlled opposition. Like you, I’m thoroughly disappointed with his stance on the vaccine. He has now completely lost all credibility in my eyes with his obvious contradictory statement!
Like yourself, I am suspecting foul play. That is what my gut is telling me. And you have to ask yourself the question, pre Covid, how much trust did you plac in the Westminster motely crew? For me not at all. All of a sudden we have a ‘so-called’ pandemic and all of a sudden, the masses are placing trust in these clowns. I wouldn’t trust any of them, especially BoJo, Hancock, Whitty et al, as far as I could throw them!
I must say what an outstanding interviewer Freddie is. He is a real national treasure and has the knack of getting to the truth of a situation. Compare him to the BBC interviewers and some other channels and there is no contest. I think the point of quietly making your own responsible decision on Covid lockdown is a good one as a lot of the rules do not help in the legitimate duties we have towards others in our families and further afield.
A good interview except he has no idea that the so-called: “Vaccine” doesn’t vaccinate! He ignores that taking the vaccine is objectionable to many! A forced “vaccine” & compulsory vaccine passports are a fascist apartheid system & in direct violation of human rights! #CoviD1984
What a very disappointing capitualation
to the major tyranny going on, which isn’t the lockdown, as seems to be the suggestion here, but the coercion of the population into participating in a dangerous gene therapy experiment. Lord Sumption is nobodies fool….he must realise this
My thoughts exactly. My freedom to eat out, go to a pub, go to the theatre have been removed, and they should be returned as soon as lockdown is over, NOT because other people’s fear overrides my desire not to be forced to have an experimental drug put into my body. Lord Sumption calls it a choice whether or not people have the ‘vaccine’, and yes, it is: it’s called Hobson’s Choice. In effect, my freedoms have been taken off the table in a sleight of hand. One minute they were there, the next, gone.
The more relevant metric for this pandemic is the number of excess deaths directly attributable to it. After deducting the self-inflicted and entirely unnecessary collateral deaths and allowing for the great age of the genuine of-Covid victims there was no pandemic in the UK in 2020. This can be read across from the age and population adjusted mortality figure for 2004 UK which were greater than for 2020 UK. When historians come to assess the god-awful fear-inspired societal reaction to Covid-19 the verdict will lie with Lord Sumption’s argument in my opinion – although not only for the reasons he states.
I cannot, and never will, accept the argument that it is better to restrict the movements of people who are not afraid, in order to alleviate the fears of those who are, especially when it is government who has instilled such fear in people’s minds. This has to be the wrong choice.
How dare he suggest that vaccinated people’s fear of the unvaccinated should hold any sway, when it is recognised that vaccines do not stop infection or transmission. Such fears are therefore unfounded.
It was striking to me that the religious question arose only in the last few minutes of this excellent conversation, since the basic theme seemed to me to be moral collapse and chaos — hence the lack of what Lord S. calls “convention.” The implosion of Christianity in Britain and indeed throughout the West means that there is really no longer a workable moral system in place; hence what Lord S. calls “despotic” government, government that recognizes no broadly agreed, if informal, limits on its powers. Further, secular people, lacking a faith to console and reassure, are especially terrified of illness and death and are thus ripe for the plucking by terror-mongers in government and media, as the last miserable year has pretty conclusively demonstrated. It is noteworthy, I think, that the least restrictive states in the USA are in the South, which is the most religious part of the country. The secular blue states in the North are still heavily locked down and masked up. The highly educated (!) people there are still mostly frightened out of their wits.
I was pleased that Lord S. pointed a finger right at China. The virus came from China; “lockdowns” and mask mandates came from China; suppression of dissent comes from China. It seems apparent to me that the global center of gravity over the past year has unmistakably shifted to China. While hollow Western societies tear their hair out about “climate change” and “systemic racism” while cowering in fear of what is essentially a species of flu, China builds coal plants lickety-split and commands the global auto industry to build electric cars. Chairman Xi has obviously read “The Art of War” and has very shrewdly read our weaknesses. He has managed to induce something like suicide into Western civilization. I would say it is later than we think and that there is little or no hope if we do not remember who we really are and where we came from.
Freddie Sayers seems to have recovered the lost art of the interview. He asked thoughtful questions, listened carefully to the thoughtful answers and used those answers to ask further good questions. I was a little worried about him after last week’s piece, in which he seemed to show signs of Stockholm syndrome.
Vaccine passports are a terrible idea. Frightened people can get vaccinated, and then they won’t get sick. If you’re not vaccinated, so what? You probably won’t get sick, either, but if you do, isn’t that a personal choice? You present no threat to the vaccinated/terrified. A non-issue. I wish Lord S. had said so.
I loved your comment until the last paragraph.
You are saying that refusing the vaccine and getting sick with Covid is a personal choice because you present no threat to the vaccinated.
Sadly this is not true.
1. Here in the UK we have about 15mln people with various health conditions, after vaccination they will only have partial immunity, if that. If people who got sick did stay home until they are free of covid, there would be no problem, This is not the case, as personal freedom and circumstances will always have higher priorities than potentially killing a passer by. Another issue is infectious asymptomatic carriers. The more people are vaccinated the less of those we would have.
2. People who chose not to vaccinate and get sick are Petri dishes for new Covid mutations, sooner or later the new one comes that renders vaccines ineffective. Vaccinating everyone resolves all the issues.
I think the main problem we are facing now is that we reached that level of prosperity and societal development where the value of human life, any human life, including lives of low economic value, is very high, disproportionately high. So either we continue to say that everyone has equal rights to live (even if it is at a high cost to the others, even if it limits other’s freedoms), or we openly say that the young and healthy and productive, their needs and freedoms, should have higher priorities than the “ballast’s”, because that’s the only way to ensure we can compete with systems like China’s.
I just do not like the hypocrisy of anti-vax/anti lockdown people, be honest with yourself and say openly that because you are productive and healthy your freedoms and opportunities to be productive should be prioritised over lives of low economic value. Do not justify this (reasonable) demand with false claims that covid does not kill the weak, because it does.
You write: “Here in the UK we have about 15mln people with various health conditions, after vaccination they will only have partial immunity, if that.”
I don ‘t quite know how many “15min” people is, but I guess you mean “a lot.” Surely those people should be cautioned that the vaccine will offer them only limited protection, or at any rate that is what you claim. They are the people who, through the exercise of common sense and personal agency, should avoid large indoor gatherings, should wear masks if makes them feel better et cetera.
The truth of the matter is that, for the vast majority of the population, this is a mild, indeed an all but unnoticeable, disease. Large percentages of people either have natural resistance or, if they do become infected, have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. They do not need to be, and should not be, vaccinated, let alone with a rushed and experimental potion. Let them have their natural immune response, which will strengthen their resistance to other diseases. This would be, or would have been, sensible public health policy, but, sadly, that ship sailed long ago, and we are left with a menagerie of psychopaths to run the show. They have already caused enormous harm, and they will cause a lot more if they are not stopped.
Personally, I thought Lord Sumption was inconsistent in his views on lockdown and domestic vaccine passports. He has previously, and in the interview in question here, made the case that covid-19 is not a particularly severe public health threat and that it can be adequately managed without lockdown measures. It is inconsistent of him therefore to say that vaccine passports are the “lesser of two evils” with lockdown measures as the alternative. He seems to justify this position by saying that the majority of the population want either vaccine passports or lockdown measures. This is another strange departure from his previous argument that just because the majority of the population support lockdown it doesn’t make it right. As a liberal I expected him to take the view that in a liberal democracy the rights of minorities should be protected especially having made the case that covid-19 is not a severe public health threat that requires draconian impositions on individual rights.
Personally, I take the view that the measure of a civilised society is in how it treats its minorities and until last year, most people in the UK would have agreed with this, at least ostensibly. We now seem to be in a situation where those who do not want the covid vax for whatever reason are in a minority who face being ostracised from society by vaccine passports. I believe this is unacceptable from a human rights perspective whereby a very important principle is that the rights of the individual supersede the interests of society, or the “greater good” as a whole. This is because when the rights of the individual are subsumed to the “greater good” then persecution of minorities is enabled. Given that covid-19 is not a severe public health threat and those who take the vax can feel protected by it, there is no case to be made that individuals who do not take the vax are endangering others and so it should remain a personal choice.
The principle that individual rights supersede the “greater good” is enshrined in such places as the UNESCO declaration on bioethics and human rights, article 3;
“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
Furthermore, current UK legislation specifically prohibits provisions requiring medical treatment including vaccination (see for example section 45E Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984). As such it is difficult to see how government could legally approve a domestic vaccine passport system that would essentially amount to a “provision requiring medical treatment including vaccination.”
Therefore, it seems to me that domestic vaccine passports are both legally and morally repugnant and I am surprised to find myself at odds with Lord Sumption in this view.
Perhaps a voluntary vaccine certificate?
In have, had a vaccine. Why should I be prevented from meeting friends who have likewise had a vaccine on the grounds that others have not had one?
The vaccine presumably reduces ‘viral load’, so matters epidemiologically. But I agree with him, I have refused to wear the mask from day one. I have lived my life in a hard way because I will not let anyone push me around on principal, I admire South Dakota, the one state which did NOT mask or lockdown. I hope all the lock down leaders end up being punished severely for doing that which was actually illegal under national, democratic and Constitutional, laws. They made the selfi taking expidition into Congress by the Trump supporters seem nothing at all in comparison to the actual destruction of the West caused by the Lockdowners violating our Constitution! Traitors, all of them.
Well said, Sanford. I think we’ll be talking crimes against humanity when the dust finally settles! I’m packing my bags. I’m off to live in South Dakota. Sounds like my sort of place!
“One of them was to Lock Up Healthy People in Our Homes.”
This it seems gets to the nub of the tactical choices made.
To advise a democracy that the evidence indicates that elderly frail are extremely vulnerable to death and that the fit and healthy between 0-60 have a very low level of vulnerability to death was all that was required. We knew this from Wuhan.
Each year the NHS deals with 16.3 million admissions. By 2016 315,000 were admissions connected to respiration.
Given this the advice should have been that those over 60 with pre existing illness should behave with extreme caution.66,000 of the 74,000 who died in hospital in 2020 fit into that category. Another 21,000 died in 2020 in Aged Care.
In the 0-60 age group both fit and unfit 18,600 have been hospitalised. Clearly well within capacity and deaths from the fit and healthy were 6 were 0-19, 68 were 20-39 and 497 were 40-59.
One of Lord Sumption’s concerns is the misuse of facts to generate fear.
A responsible government would have hammered home to the ‘at risk’ that they would be vulnerable and their immediate families should avoid contact if they became ill. Beyond that nothing more was required.It would have had credibility simply because it was true.
Long Covid is a red herring now described as anyone with a symptom after five weeks. Their is the occasional bad experience for the fit and healthy but crucially they survive, more and more studies are emerging putting damage at the 1% level for athletes with Organ damage which it is admitted may heal.
We are right to listen to Jonathan Sumption’s view of the consequences and dangers at a philosophical level but it is crucial we make up our minds how these things should have been dealt with at a tactical level.
Added to Long Covid is new more transmissible sequences. The reality in SA and UK is they have fallen away in the New Year just as other respiratory illness always does in week 1 to 6. SA Lockdown was Laissez faire and the case numbers began falling in the UK as LD was instituted. When these highly transmissible variants escape quarantine in NZ they wither on the vine just as other sequences have. None of this is coincidence it is telling us a simple truth the basics still work.
In a laboratory a sequence may manifest more transmissible qualities but it would appear that the usual precautions have worked equally well.
It is vital that Governments offer not just philosophically proportionate responses but proportionate tactical ones.
It is now well known that antibodies in the school age children are lower than in their parents. We have known from Sweden since late last spring that children do not transmit or pick up the virus in the same way as their parents indeed the indications is the direction is from parents downwards.That same report told us teachers are no more vulnerable than any other professional group of workers though male secondary teachers need to be more vigilant.
Hold on to our beliefs but hold on to the facts transmit them simply and explain honestly the vulnerabilities to this Virus are across an extremely broad range of outcomes and reactions should be planned accordingly.
What a fantastic interview!
Lord Sumption brilliantly explains the harsh realities and I agree with 95% of his opinions. I fully understand his predicament on the vax passports being the best of two evils but this is the part I do not think should happen. This is the act that will change the course of human rights and liberty and I would personally prefer an uprising. On the most basic level, mandating/serious cohesion with consequences that humans have regular chemical substances put into their bodies without full knowledge of what they contain is wrong on every level. In the wrong hands this is control over human life. I choose a holistic lifestyle and use medication only when required (rarely) and believe in host theory, freedom of choice and kindness. Life has shifted this year, friends have changed and I find myself in a level within a new (minority) group of people. They are wonderful people. Ever positive I remain hopeful that people will understand and accept the natural circle of life and that life contains risk. I do not live in fear, do not conform for the sake of it and I would love to write to Mr Sumption to say thank him for being so brave and true in expressing the realities we are facing.
He’s right. Absolutely.
Same for measles and all other vaccinations.
Thank goodness the great unwashed protect the ‘cream of intellect’ on here
You didn’t include the bombshell about vaccine passports
Qu: But different behaviours for the vaccinated and non-vaccinated in a lot of people’s minds will start making them think about vaccine passports, you know documents which show stream you’re in which poses new problems to liberty doesn’t it?
Lord Sumption: “I do not have strong views on vaccine passports. They are an invasion of privacy but the information in question is on Government computers or NHS computers anyway [as to] whether you have been vaccinated or not so I think privacy concerns are over-stated. I do not like a world in which you have to produce a document in order to justify partaking in ordinary activities or human existence anymore than the next person. The trouble is the alternative is even worse. I would prefer a system which was entirely voluntary and which trusted people but given I don’t think that is a politically feasible option I think we have to choose the least bad thing [and] to my mind a vaccine passport is a lot less bad than simply indiscriminately depriving everybody of what makes life worse living.”
Qu: Do you not worry that it is quite a major change in the way we run out society to suddenly say that every human being needs to take the latest government mandated vaccine and produce a document to prove it otherwise they are essentially outcast. They won’t be able to go to a restaurant, get on an aeroplane, go to the cinema. That sounds quite a big step.
Lord Sumpiton: I think it is and I think it is a regrettable step and if were people were prepared to trust each other and to rely on non-coercive measures we wouldn’t need it but I recognise that most of my fellow citizens want coercive measures and therefore it is incumbent on us I think to think of the least intrusive least objectionable coercive measures.
Yeah, not exactly Liberal w/a small “l”.
The idea that a business should be able to chose who they let in is very liberal with a small “l”. As usual (c.f. their thoughts about social media banning people) the “libertarians” on here are in favour of the idea that government shouldn’t intervene in businesses only as long as the businesses are doing what the “libertarians” want.
Lord Sumption needs to become more knowledgeable about the vaccines. It’s stunning really how people so easily think these fast-tracked experimental vaccine products are a magic bullet with no consequences.
Lord Sumption, here’s the NHS schedule, how many of these vaccine products and revaccinations have you had? Have a close look at the children’s schedule. Have you had the three doses of 6-in-1 vaccine with aluminium adjuvant for babies? The two doses of rotavirus vaccine? The three doses of menB vaccine with aluminium adjuvant? Two doses of pneumococcal with aluminium adjuvant? Hib/MenC? Two doses of live MMR? Flu vaccine every year from 2 to 10 years? 4-in-1 pre-school booster, aluminium adjuvanted? Two doses of HPV vaccine, aluminium adjuvanted. 3-in-1 teenage booster? MenACWY?
Did you have this vaccine load when you were a child Lord Sumption? There are a lot of vaccines and revaccinations, and I have questions about some of these vaccines, important questions that aren’t being answered in this hostile climate which tags people as ‘anti-vax’ if they dare to challenge the blessed ‘vaccination science’.
And now, they’re planning to vaccinate children with COVID-19 vaccines, doom them to a life of vaccination with these vaccines, which they don’t need because children, young people and others don’t seem currently to be too adversely affected by the virus. But their natural defences are at risk of being stolen from them, and these children and young people and others being made dependent upon the vaccine industry for life with these vaccine products – is that ethical Lord Sumption?
Note the name of the ‘COVID-19’ vaccine products Lord Sumption. Interesting they’re not called SARS-CoV-2 vaccines don’t you think? Apparently they’re supposed to protect against serious disease, i.e. COVID-19. But if you’re not at risk of serious disease with SARS-CoV-2, why should you be subjected to COVID-19 vaccines?
Lord Sumption, it’s a very serious matter that people who aren’t at risk with the virus are being threatened with coercive vaccination, potentially every year or even more often, please think about this carefully.
Easy to be a vaccine sceptic when you are no longer surrounded by the dangerous illnesses that used to blight society. I’m not talking about covid here, as the risk is more debatable, but diseases like measles and polio did ruin lives. Read Roald Dahl’s comments on the death of his 7 year old daughter. Or talk to my mother, who had polio and is now suffering more from after effects as she gets older.
The ‘purity’ of being vaccine free is attractive, similar to the ‘purity’ of a natural home birth. Would i stick to the ‘pure’ viewpoint if my partner’s home birth was going badly wrong? No. Or deeply regret my adherence to that ‘purity’ if my child died of measles complications? Definitely yes.
We forget. We live in a very sheltered world now, and we forget how common it was for children to die.
Did you read my comment Olly? I’m pointing out that there are a lot of vaccine products and revaccinations on the schedule now, including five doses of polio vaccine – why five? What’s wrong with these vaccines that have to be given repeatedly? Where is this going to end? Is anybody wondering about the long-term cumulative effects of the ever-increasing vaccine load?
Something has been going on with the burgeoning schedule, the general public has no idea of the number of vaccines and revaccinations pressed upon children now…or about all the conflicts of interest…
Vaccines are lucrative products that are given to mass populations of people. This is an area that is being developed by the vaccine industry with gusto, particularly as they largely have freedom from liability… The global vaccines market was around US$46.88 billion in 2019, and projected to reach US$104.87 by 2027, and the sky is the limit with evermore vaccines being added to the schedule.
Think outside the square Olly, and consider the real motives of more and more vaccines, most recently coronavirus vaccination against a virus that isn’t a problem for most people.
International vaccination policy is a cesspool of conflicts of interest, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation running the show…how on earth did a software billionaire get to dominate global vaccination policy, via the WHO, Gavi and umpteen other entities? How many people in academia are on the teat of this guy’s funding, and carrying out his agenda?
In regards to Gates and conflicts of interest…
“…the Gates Foundation, is also positioned to potentially benefit financially from its leading role in the pandemic response. An investigation by the Nation revealed that Gates had more than $250m (£179m; €206m) invested in companies working on covid-19 and cited civil society groups expressing alarm with the outsize influence the billionaire charity wields in the pandemic response, which they see as elevating the role of the drug industry.”
See: Covid-19, trust, and Wellcome: how charity’s pharma investments overlap with its research efforts on The BMJ, 3 March 2021.
Excellent and important points, Elizabeth.
I see the nuance in your argument. I must admit your comments make more sense since I saw in another exchange on here that you live in Australia. Ive got a school age child but simply didn’t recognize the vaccine schedule you are describing. I can only assume that far more vaccines are administered in aus than the uk.
We’ll be under pressure to buy more and more meds as long as ‘big pharma’ is the primary supplier of medicines. That’s how billionaire Bill Gates got to be so influential – he bought it. Using money that we all spend on his products. I’m dependent on a couple of prescribed medications made by GSK amongst others. Ive got no choice. Homeopathy ain’t going to sort me out.
What is the alternative system then? Where else do we get these essential items? Is your or my government going to take over, and do we trust them instead?
This makes me laugh…….do you all seriously think the powers that be don’t know everything about you already. Technology alone gives them the info and lets face it this is such hypocrisy, anyone who uses any form of social media gives away information about themselves all the time……think about it
If a vaccine reduces spread of a disease then those who refuse the vaccine for selfish or stupid reasons are keeping the risks higher for those who are not able to take the vaccine for sensible medical reasons.
While asymptomatic carriers are still infectious, there are suggestions that they shed a lower viral load than those who are coughing and sneezing. And more data will become available for transmission by vaccinated people who go on to contract Covid-19 (who, it already appears, are less severely affected).
But these are questions best answered by doctors, virologists and epidemiologists who are researching Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2.
Exactly! There will always be those who cannot be vaccinated for valid reasons. Vaccination of the rest of us protect that group.
The other issue that Sumption might have been probed on was the impact on the NHS of tolerating higher infection rates. Perhaps better targeted restrictions/support for the most vulnerable would have achieved this, but the question is important and should have been asked.
Blame the Tories with their choking off of funds for the NHS. No wonder they came up with the catchy slogan “Stay at Home, Save the NHS, Protect Lives” You couldn’t make it up!!
I knew someone would come up with this reasoning. Someone always does. This ends up in the territory of someone else deciding for a person what is a “sensible medical decision”. Nobody knows for any individual whether a pharmaceutical product is going to be harmful to them. Deciding not to take it may be as much a “sensible medical decision” for that person as it is for someone whose contraindication is already apparent.
It doesn’t end up anywhere of the sort.
Having a significant contraindication may be a sensible medical reason. Fear of tracking microchips, or delusions that it is some sort of apocalyptic “mark of the beast”, or myths about fertility (or for MMR, about autism) are not sensible medical reasons. It’s not that hard to distinguish between these classes of reason.
I feel exactly the same about the lockdowns. It is agreeable to hear that civil disobedience is beginning in England, as it seems to be happening here in America. I have personally paid as little attention as possible to the restrictions. I go out and about and do business with whoever is open for business, and the worst I have had to endure is not getting a haircut. Two states with lockdown orders have said the hell with it, and rescinded them entirely. (And would you believe it – there are people hundreds of miles away having fits about it. What does that tell you?)
I don’t know why people are disappointed at his total failure to question the logic of forcing people to have a vaccine, and to have Covid passports, when there is a 99.7% chance of recovering from Covid.
No one in the 100% globalist-controlled UK establishment is allowed to question the Covid passports – which are one of the key objectives of the long-planned Corona ‘crisis’, along with perpetual lockdowns, totally fake ‘cases’ and ‘Corona deaths’ figures, and the Great Reset installation of a global Police State.
If there was anything – anything at all – remotely ‘representative’ of the people about MPs, large numbers of them would be strongly opposing Covid passports, the lockdowns, masks, social distancing and all of the rest of the long-planned Corona agenda.
But none of them are. And if that doesn’t show clearly to people that we are no longer a functioning democracy, then nothing will. We are a pretend-democracy, where the ‘furniture’ of democracy – MPs, elections and so on – is maintained… and where it is all totally meaningless.
Agree wholeheartedly with everything he says, except his position on vaccination passports. If find his declared views on this, so inconsistent with everything else he says, that I am suspecting his “place” in all this is to get us to accept the most draconian aspect in all this debacle – vaccine passports. Which, after all, if you give any credence at all to popular conspiracy theories, is the main objective of the false pandemic.
High Dose Vitamin D. Hydroxychloroquine and Zinc, and now Ivermectin. All these cheap and effective drugs work as PREVENTATIVE medicine. America’s Front Line Doctors have split from Big Pharma and are using them successfully, saving lives EARLY, and stopping hospitalisation. Yet our “Health” Secretary claimed that Vitamin D did not work. Fails to mention Hydroxychloroquine (the only time it fails to work is when it is given late or when trials are set up by Big Pharma where they overdosed patients on the “Solidarity and Recovery” trials). Now there is overwhelming evidence that Ivermectin works brilliantly too. But what does our Govt do – basically ignore it. Reason? You can control people with a Vaccine Passport, but not with an Ivermectin Passport. Furthermore – there is no profit to be made for Big Pharma with these cheap life-saving protocols, whereas a no-liability experimental vaccine, that has skipped animal trials, is being thrust onto a psychologically and emotionally distraught and desperate public – will make billions upon billions of pounds for certain entities, and be a weapon of CONTROL. The word conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer is an all-purpose metaphor for nullifying any intelligent research or debate. Perhaps this is the reason why there is no real public debate because ethical doctors and scientists never make it onto the main stream media because of censorship or omission.. And this vaccination programme is supposed to be with “informed consent”. How many people have been informed that since around 2002 there were numerous trials of corona vaccines in animal trials. ALL FAILED. Antibodies were produced, but when the animals were exposed to the wild virus – they grew ill and many died. And yet the no-liability vaccine makers have skipped full animal trials. The public are the guinea pigs. Meanwhile the Govt sponsored fear-mongering goes on and thousands have died because of their failure to implement early-use life-saving preventative treatment.
Which is more precious to us? Freedom of action or freedom of expression? To do what we like, or to say what we like? A learned Lord appears to be saying that laws that limit our action can be disregarded – do what we like – but says nothing about the freedom to say what we like. As part of an elite that has consistently eroded free speech through ill-defined legal processes, I think I rather resent this liberal lawyer implicitly lecturing us on the shortcomings of his own profession. Has he really turned free-speech libertarian?
brilliant discourse. Civilized, articulate – very well reasoned. Lord Sumption’s calm but firm expression of thought is inspirational to me. Freddie Sayers’ interview style is calm, broad, inquisitive and creative and always on point. Marvelous to watch. Thank you.
Interesting interview – good to hear Lord Sumption reflecting on his opposition.
It was disappointing that he seemed to reluctantly acquiesce to vaccine passports for domestic use. I think – reading between the lines of what he said concerning the experience with id cards after the war – his working hypothesis is that these will die out organically.
If they are required to attend venues such as concerts and night clubs – usually frequented by younger people at lower risk – its not difficult to imagine a scenario whereby those venues that don’t require certification (assuming the government leaves it to them to decide) out-compete their authoritarian counterparts. Market selection and public impatience will finish these things off (we can but hope).
In any case, the UK government has now agreed to debate the petition calling for ‘no vaccine passports/restrictions’ again – after these debates were initially suspended for a time.
It will, at the very least, be interesting to see what those who promised – with a cross-party consensus – that such things were off-the-table in December – now have to say for themselves.
JS is a marvel of common sense and human dignity. And so incredibly eloquent, too. He’s the only person in the public sphere I’ve genuinely enjoyed listening to over the past few years (his Reith lectures were superb). Please look after yourself Lord Sumption, you are a gem.
I have always said to the risk averse, that to eliminate all risk we will all have to be imprisoned.
or dead
Yes.
The stronger the narrative gets about the primacy of STEM, to the detriment of public opinion on the arts and humanities (which have, unfortunately, been defiled by the ‘woke’ in recent decades), the more likely situations such as the one we find ourselves in are to happen. If you believe science is more important than anything else, then you feel compelled to prostrate yourself before its altar.
This wonderful conversation has put me in the delicious situation of feeling like a rebel for freedom and having as my spokesman a pillar of the establishment. Thank you, Lord Sumption. You are the very best of England. Beautiful.
(And of course, thank you Freddie, keep on!)
An interesting comment on the fragility of democracy. I wonder if the statement “Because the populace will always be a sucker for a demagogue who will turn himself into an absolute ruler” rings any bells with the Scottish electorate at the present time?
I share Lord Sumption’s views on lock-down and I am grateful that he has spoken out on the issue several times over the last year. His views on vaccination certificates seem illogical by comparison.
In the context of a virus that has a survival rate of over ninety nine percent vaccination certificates surely represent a disproportionate response to an overexaggerated level of risk.
I have understandable reservations about the COVID-19 vaccinations because they use brand new technologies and there is no data on their long-term effects. Others who are at risk of death or serious illness from COVID may weigh the balance in favour of vaccination and that is their choice to make.
Now that those who were at risk from serious illness or death have been offered protection there is no need to vaccinate those at low risk as their immune systems can fight COVID-19 without pharmaceutical intervention.
I believe it would be immoral and unethical, and it should be illegal, to coerce the uptake of vaccines by restricting the movement, employment opportunities or activities of the unvaccinated. It would be a step in the wrong direction if disproportionate, needless or coercive measures that diminish freedom and choices were introduced.
Great interview! It would be interesting to develop other discussions with those that can speak to the ‘fear’ that Lord Sumption said lay at the heart of the majority of our population, – in favour of the lockdowns and vaccines to keep them ‘safe’. And what exactly is that fear, but fear of mortality? As our lives have got supposedly ‘safer’ and longer, our ability to accept its limit, in fact any limitation upon us, has dwindled in direct proportion. Death and disease, which now has been handed over to the ‘professionals’ is not that often witnessed as a difficult but meaningful education to the living. I am old enough to have been a pre-vaccine (apart from Polio) child, who had several diseases now vaccinated against. I had Rubella, or as it was known then German Measles, and what did I learn as a child of 9, what did my mother learn, and my siblings? That you could fall ill, but be nursed and cared for at home, that your body fought it off, (thankfully), was stronger for it, with the good and loving care of your family. I learnt from this – the vulnerability of the body, strength of the body, and of the mind to endure and regain health with the love and wisdom of your mother. Today, there are many who have never either suffered disease and found recovery, nor nursed their child through such things. So when the government decides to talk of nothing else BUT death for a year now, but ONLY in relation to Covid, you can see how undone the population have become, as they are fundamentally unresourced! I don’t know about others on this forum, but have found the division between lockdown aficionados and lockdown sceptics doesn’t run along any known political lines, BUT it does run along a line I would describe as the, wretchedly-anxious-death-phobics and those who accept what is, will be, and that we have little control over the manner and time of our deaths, that is a known companion but one that enlivens the very life you DO have, and does not demand that you should cower in fear, waiting for the all clear. That you can look after your own health, and understand what risks you take, and that’s about it. So the wretchedly anxious consider ‘others’; the un-vaccinated, or unmasked or those skirting to close to them, as literally the possible if not probable agents of their own deaths. This division is the thing that has undone the nation so completely. So anyway, how about interviewing say John Lee, or Stephen Jenkinson of the book Die Wise? Both have spoken and written about death and dying and societies understanding of it.
I thought the same thing as you. And then I examined the implications of what he was saying. When faced with two alternatives, neither of which you would choose, you have to decide which one has the least impact upon the human rights of the public. He was not saying that it was right for private venues to demand proof of vaccination, just that that was preferable to the government continuing with a blanket lockdown and closure of those same premises. I suppose it is up to us to make a case against the governments (one step removed) coercion of a population to undergo a medical procedure by avoiding businesses that insist on it and patronising those that don’t. We could also make the moral decision that it is preferable to carry fake certification but that would be a more cowardly thing to do as it still reinforces the obnoxious principle.
For my part, I will take the vaccination willingly and gratefully but I will never carry proof of vaccination unless it is for arrival in a foreign country. There should not be two classes of citizen, able to enjoy different privileges, based upon violation of their bodily autonomy. What next, bar codes?
At about 48 mins Lord Sumption refers back to the “craving for security” driving behaviour. I wonder to what extent this observation was intended to be applied to academic modellers and those other entities subject to discretionary funding by more or less goal-seeking vested interests, just as much as to individuals.
“I do not believe that there is a moral obligation to obey the law… You have to have a high degree of respect, both for the object that the law is trying to achieve, and for the way that it’s been achieved. Some laws invite breach.”
Yes, ones that smug liberals regard as beneath them. But what stops anyone deciding the same way for any law? Sumption appears to have no idea of why most people obey laws. The Law has to be considered authoritative if it is the result of a legitimate process, ‘unjust’ or not. If the Government is suddenly taken over by private actors, say in a civil war, who introduce their own ‘laws’ against the system and the tacit acceptance of the totality of the subjects in a realm, OK, the necessity for consent may evaporate, but we are not in that position. We are a civilized country with a long history of legal discussion and observance. To claim the generalized individual right to ignore laws (rather than openly, conspicuously breaking them and taking the resulting punishment) is in effect to set oneself up as an independent, groundless, ‘authority’.
Respectfully disagree. Every citizen must use their own conscience in a civilised country as to whether a law deserves to be obeyed and take the consequences. We have a right to make an individual stand as to whether it is in the best interests of an individual and/or all…I am not talking about speed limits here..but we are heading towards laws about snitching on neighbours for example that reek of fascism. We have little control over the detail of laws made sometimes and public resistance may be the only way to send a message.
According to one BBC Radio 4 report at the start of the Jan 2021 lockdown, the lockdown legislation had already suffered 65 amendments in 10 months. It was like a bizarre mixture of tyranny and anarchy. The public had no effective say in any change. You had to be a specialist lawyer to keep abreast of the changes and represent a client competently. And the police were often uncertain what to do and how to use their judgement.
FT: ‘Italy blocks shipment of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine to Australia’
Never mind civil disobedience: First the EU says the Oxford vaccine doesn’t work, then it blocks it from going anywhere.
War?
What did you expect? They are all Fascists, Gaullists or National Socialists at heart.
So what it all seems to boil down to is that some people place a higher value on freedom while others place a higher value on safety, and that’s an irreconcilable difference.
“…while others place a higher value on safety…” No, that’s not at all an “irreconcilable difference”. Most intelligent people place a high value on both. It’s just that what you consider safe or unsafe may differ from what others consider safe or unsafe, depending on whether you believe the panic narrative with the worst case scenario or whether you examine the actual figures and assess the actual risk. Someone of a highly nervous disposition may decide that it’s unsafe to fly, so they refuse to board an aeroplane. Someone else may acknowledge that there are risks, but so minor that they consider it perfectly OK to board the same aeroplane. Freedom is being allowed to make the choice.
Freedom does sometimes have to be curtailed in the interests of safety. But there must be good supporting evidence. There is overwhelming evidence gathered over many years that the wearing of seat belts saves many lives; so it’s good that it was made compulsory. There is no such evidence in the Covid scenario for lockdown or compulsory universal vaccination. So your statement is false.
Never before in history have the well been locked up or forcibly treated to ‘protect’ the sick.
The nations that did not lockdown (even very poor Belarus and Nicaragua) do not have a higher Covid death rate than we do – they have a lower Covid death rate than we do. The terrible costs (including health costs) of the lockdowns have not produced the lower death rates that were promised. As for right now – the Covid death rate is falling in Britain, but it is also falling in Sweden and other countries that did not lockdown.
How could someone imagine these are all random events, that just happen to follow a predetermined path that benefits an agenda that billionaires and politicians have been writing about for decades?
Universal suffrage democracy has been promoted as the sole viable system of government for every nation on the planet, and that is because, combined with a controlled distribution of information, it means eternal rule by an elite minority.
Even allowing that the primary assumption in the defense of universal suffrage democracy, that each person is an equally capable individual is somehow true, the information they are absorbing is coming from somewhere.
If “fake news” can sway people’s reaction to a deadly virus, or change the course of an election, then people are not the universally discerning individuals that it is assumed they are, and all public reactions are changed by mainstream news, and that it is absurd to simply assume that mainstream news is always accurate.
The internet has allowed for all types of information to be shared, and for individuals to give their own information true or false to whoever is willing to listen to it.
So the natural thing for the system to do is attack the free distribution of information by regulating the internet.
It is a very bizarre thing to witness, this claim that free access to information limits the freedom of democracy, as if their primary assumption is true, it should do the opposite.
The reason that fake news is advertised as this big problem, with the media claiming that people are so stupid they will believe anything, is that they want to shut down real news.
What they are clearly trying to lead people to is that the only way “democracy” can work is if free speech is banned and only a centralized, government-run body is allowed to decide what the people are or are not allowed to hear.
They are going to have to admit that the term “democracy” doesn’t have anything to do with voting or “government by the people” and instead refers to a system of tyrannical domination of the peasants by a tiny elite minority.
Governments has used this lockdown to:
o Completely define the role of government in our lives
o Strip us of virtually all of our most basic freedoms
o Transfer trillions from the middle class to billionaires
o Completely destroy the concept of small businesses by closing them down and transferring their share of the economy to multinational corporations
We know they want transexuals, they want child transexuals, they want wars with China and Russia, they want billions of Africans flooding every corner of the planet.
How does any of this benefit the people they supposedly represent?
What we do know is this: the coronavirus isn’t and has never been a serious threat.
Millions of people are going to die as a result of this lockdown, and the same cannot be said of coronavirus. Many of those who survive will be wishing they hadn’t, as we enter into a dystopian nightmare of a tyrannical government, backed by an ultra-wealthy elite, ruling over a huddled mass of penniless peasants.
I’m very concerned about the scientific data I’ve read regarding the coronavirus vaccine. It is an entirely new type of vaccine, categorized as an mRNA vaccine. The vaccine enters your bloodstream and overrides your messenger RNA, sending messages to the cells to produce a protein that the scientists claim with help you build immunities to the coronavirus. I’m very uncomfortable with all of this, in any context, given that there are so many obvious problems, even to a layman, that could come up during the process of manipulating the body on a genetic level like this.
Even if this was a genuine plague that as a young, healthy person I was at some risk of dying from, I would have questions about this vaccine, and I would be extremely put off if the government told me I couldn’t ask any questions about it, and then proceeded to use military intelligence to prevent me from asking questions.
However, I already know as a matter of fact, and the official government health bodies have already admitted, that I am not at risk for experiencing complications from this virus. So I have to ask why it is that they are demanding that I take it.
I don’t know the answer. No one does.
Involving military intelligence (77th Brigade) in efforts to convince me to take it does not make the vaccine appear any less sinister.
Wow! I’ve now finished watching Jonathan Sumption being interviewed by Freddie Sayers. I’m stunned by Lord Sumption’s arguments.
Lord Sumption concludes the interview saying “But there are some issues which are so central to the dilemmas of our time, which are so important, where I think that you have to be prepared to stand up and be counted”.
One would think that challenging a questionable government-mandated medical intervention such as fast-tracked experimental coronavirus vaccination would be an important issue where one would have to be prepared to stand up and be counted…
But no, Sumption is prepared to cave in and accept coercive vaccination for all, so that fearful people will be willing to come out and go to the theatre! Honestly, you couldn’t make it up!
Sumption knows that COVID-19 is a disease “from which at least 99% of people recover and survive”, but because the population has been deliberately terrified by the UK Government and SAGE about the virus, it seems he thinks it’s justifiable to coercively vaccinate everyone with fast-tracked experimental vaccine products to placate their fears, and ostracise those who refuse to buckle to questionable coronavirus vaccination.
Meanwhile the UK government and SAGE gets off scot free for terrorising the population and turning society and the economy upside down, when they actually should both be stood down, and an investigation undertaken into this fiasco, which has had a massive impact on the world, emanating from the UK…and yes I mean the UK, as well as China.
I suspect Sumption knows little or nothing about the vaccine, of which he says he has had one dose, he doesn’t say which brand. People are being pressed to have these vaccines, but how many are being informed that these vaccines have been provisionally approved under emergency authorisations, i.e. they are not fully approved. All these people being vaccinated at the moment are part of a massive vaccine trial, and most of them don’t know it…
We have no idea if these vaccines will prevent transmission. And don’t believe all the feel good hype that’s being spread about the vaccine products at the moment, they’ve only been in the community for a few months, we have no idea how this rushed vaccine campaign is going to play out.
The worst thing is these vaccine products are going to be pressed upon the entire global population, people of all ages, when most people, as Lord Sumption knows, are not at risk with this virus. Not only is this a questionable medical intervention, but think of all the money and resources that are going into this over-the-top vaccination response that could have been spent more effectively elsewhere.
Lord Sumption is 72 years old. He might think it worth the risk to take an experimental vaccine if it gives him freedom to go to the theatre and travel. But like many older people, he’s not thinking of young people, who are being set up for a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination, which most people do not need. How can he not see that it’s wrong to subject literally billions of people to a lifetime of unnecessary vaccination, with who knows what long-term consequences?
Who decided that mass vaccination of the entire global population was the appropriate response to SARS-CoV-2? This needs to be tracked back now, to see how this grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted response happened.
agree entirely. It is only a small section, 30-34 minutes more or less. the rest is OK.
It is always good to seeSumption’s brain at work. The ideal system of government is benign dictatorship; the problem is finding a benign dictator and ensuring a benign successor. If you read Etienne La Boetie’s essay ‘On Voluntary Servitude’ (written in the 1570’s) you will see why all systems of government fail. Anarchy is the only system not doomed to end in voluntary servitude and there have been wise advocates of a form of anarchy (William Godwin, Karl Popper).
There used to be a paucity of remarks but they were the right side of nuts. Is it something Sumption said or has the number of nutty conspiricists and antivaxxers multiplied exponentially in recent weeks, just as we begin to emerge from the lockdown cave. Maybe being too long frightened and in hiding has wrought a terrible psychological effect on our minds. In which case Lord Sumption your point is proven.
It was Plato – not Aristotle – who thought democracy eventually became tyranny. Aristotle argued that the best and most stable form of government was constitutional monarchy.
Indeed it was, well done Sir!
‘Greats’?
Young people need to wake up…quickly… Think about what they’ve been doing in socially isolating people, interfering with free movement and association, hindering people from gathering and talking freely about what is going on.
You’re being lined up for coronavirus vaccination throughout life. They’re planning to start from birth…
It seems most people aren’t at too much risk with this virus, but they want everyone to be compelled to have these experimental vaccine products – why?
Why are they insisting everyone has to be vaccinated against a virus which isn’t a risk to most people?
To protect the NHS? How about they make the NHS fit for purpose, which they could have been doing for the past year. Instead, untold billions have been squandered on developing very questionable vaccine products, highly questionable testing, and the apparatus which is being used to control us, i.e. masks, QR codes for surveillance, vaccine passports etc.
Who has gotten very, very rich on the back of this ill-targeted and disproportionate response?
It’s up to you young people, take it back, demand accountability from ‘your’ despotic government, otherwise you’re in for a very grim future indeed.
The government and SAGE have to go, and an urgent investigation established into the events of the past year – but who can be trusted to fill the void?
Don’t rely on the old people to help you, so many have let you down already.
Look at people such as Jonathan Sumption and Peter Hitchens, they’ll sell your future down the river so they can go back on holidays. They’ve keeled over on the vaccines, submitting to coercive medical interventions, vaccination. The risk is worth it to them, they haven’t that many years ahead of them. But young people are being set up for a lifetime of coronavirus vaccination, being made dependent on the vaccine industry, which will steal your natural defences against the virus. Think about this…
We don’t know what lies ahead with the global rollout of these experimental vaccine products, the unknown consequences. This is unprecedented, and it’s young people who will have to deal with the fallout.
Think about it young people, think about what you’re being set up for, this is a very bad situation.
You make your case very vehemently Elizabeth, which with your lavish use of bold type may provoke a negative response – “Conspiracy theory”, fearmongering and so on ( as distinct from the fearmongering coming from government sources?). Maybe you’re exaggerating, I don’t know. But I do fear the vaccine rhetoric could be paving the way for just such a scenario as you describe. It seems unbelievable or extremely unlikely, just because we as a nation have been so used to living in a liberal democracy and assuming this would continue automatically along with cream teas, cricket on the green and the Last Night of the Proms. To contemplate the alternative is too disturbing, and to suggest that the alternative may already be reality is seriously scary. So the natural impulse (mine too) is to dismiss it or at least downplay it.
But for a moderate, thoughtful and erudite discussion by two biologists on the topic of Covid vaccinations for children, see Bret and Heather Weinstein on YouTube, “COVID vaccinations for children and adolescents (from Livestream#69)” Sorry, can’t get the link to copy onto here, but you can search it in YouTube.
It’s certainly food for thought.
Yes, I do make my case vehemently Hilary, because in my opinion there should not have been a vaccine response to this coronavirus which isn’t a serious threat to most people. It’s insane that there’s now a plan to vaccinate the entire global population, potentially every year or even more often.
It’s astonishing there isn’t more pushback on this, but at the same time it’s not surprising because there has been a concerted effort over the years to hinder any questioning of vaccination policy. The ‘anti-vaxxer’ tag is applied to anyone questioning vaccination, this has become a no go area. As a result, the vaccine schedule is going through the roof, and most of the avid ‘pro-vaxxers’ out there wouldn’t have a clue, and certainly haven’t had all the vaccines and revaccinations that children are subjected to now. Coronavirus vaccination is looming for children to add to the vaccine load, it’s wrong that they be subjected to yet another vaccination against a virus which doesn’t appear to be a threat to them.
My position is challenging over-vaccination, a matter I took up in regards to pet vaccination, when one of my dogs became very ill after a regular annual vaccination and was put down. I subsequently discovered dogs and cats were being grossly over-vaccinated, e.g. with dogs being subjected to annual vaccination with ‘live’ vaccines for parvovirus, distemper virus and adenovirus – this would be like giving people an MMR every year of their lives. I had some success in having this matter addressed, see my webpage on the subject here: Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice.
It’s very notable that specialists in veterinary vaccination* have warned “we should aim to reduce the ‘vaccine load’ on individual animals in order to minimize the potential for adverse reactions to vaccine products”. Meanwhile, vaccination of humans is going through the roof – we really do need to challenge what is going on.
The veterinary vaccination specialists also acknowledge “there is gross under-reporting of vaccine associated adverse events, because of the passive nature of reporting schemes, which impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”. This is also very relevant to human vaccination, there is great reluctance to acknowledge adverse events after vaccination, and this seriously “impedes knowledge of the ongoing safety of these products”.
*Guidelines for the Vaccination of Dogs and Cats, compiled by the Vaccination Guidelines Group (VGG) of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA). Journal of Small Animal Practice. Vol. 57. January 2016.
Hilary, I’ve made other comments on this article re Covid statistics; the impact of Neil Ferguson’s ‘modelling’ around the world; vaccination and the Helsinki Declaration; the number of vaccinations and revaccinations on the NHS schedule; the growth of the vaccine market from US$46.88 in 2019 to US104.87 by 2027; and the Gates Foundation’s investment in vaccines.
There are serious matters to discuss about coronavirus, and the ill-targeted and disproportionate response to this virus, including proposed global vaccination. But this is part of a bigger picture of a vaccine industry in over-drive, which has colonised vaccination policy, an area that is steeped in conflicts of interest.
This is a massive scandal, and we have no effective ‘fourth estate’ to investigate.
It is unfortunate that judges tend to see it as their role to play dumb over science deferring to government bureaucracies rather than being remotely inquisitive – they are abdicating responsibility and it puts society in danger. They may persuade themselves that they would be technically out of their depth, but all too often it is about entrenched ideological positions in which inconsistency would manifest itself with only a little probing, well within their intellectual capacity. Like so many politicians judges are being intimidated and it ends up with placing unchecked powers in the hands a rapaciously corrupt technocratic elite.
Western Australia is a great example of how the UK could have moved i.e. swift lockdown. However at some stage, business and tourist visitors will be wanted and citizens will also want to travel for business and leisure… then those unvaccinated need protection… thereby it’s better to vaccinate sooner-than-later to recover an economy…?
There is strong evidence coming out from several sources that both the Pfizer and the Astra-Zeneca vaccines ensure the recipients will be almost completely free from passing on any infection. And as vaccination ensures any infection will not be severe, the viral load involved would not be very high anyway. So, as a vaccinated person in the UK, I am safe to mix with anyone whether vaccinated or not and I am doing just that. I believe it’s the responsibility of individuals to make their own risk assessments based on available evidence and not retreat into a quivering funk just because the Government says so! I despair when I see how many people, many older who should have been vaccinated, walking around in the open air with masks strapped to their faces!
I am rather surprised that during the entire 50-minute discussion the USA was not mentioned once. I understand the emphasis on UK matters, of course, but it is surely worth mentioning that the oldest democracy is the American one, formed in the late 18th. century, and, furthermore, that it quite clearly stands out amongst the Northern hemisphere Western nations (excepting, possibly, Sweden) as one that has taken a less Draconian approach to mitigate/suppress the spread of the virus. Since the end of true lockdowns in April-May 2020, most US states have kept non-essential businesses open and have not enforced social-distancing rules with a heavy hand (no squads of police roaming streets, parks, etc., enforcing absurd rules). Indeed, some states have maintained quite relaxed rules, much to the consternation of segments of the population that do not agree with such an approach. Where I live, Massachusetts, for instance, *indoor* dining has *never* been prohibited since being allowed to reopen in early June 2020 – and our state is considered one with some of the more rigid restrictions.
I guess this is because the number of covid deaths in the US is so staggeringly high, that it would be rather against their anti-lockdown argument.
I know, you would say that deaths per million are comparable with the UK, but there is this magic of straight numbers, more than 533 thousand deaths, this is truly scary.
“more than 533 thousand deaths, this is truly scary”.
Really, not if you are Chinese!
I don’t understand the point being made about absolute numbers versus per capita ones. It seems obvious enough that number of deaths per million inhabitants is the only sensible way to compare nations. The all-cause, pre-covid19 number of yearly deaths in the US is also “staggeringly high” by your line of argument. And so?
The point is that much of the US has followed the somewhat more balanced approach that Lord Sumption seems to be advocating, with a covid death toll (per million) that is less than that of the UK. But, indeed, if the thing that you care about above all else is suppressing covid deaths, then let’s forget about “balance” and look favorably at the Wuhan example.
Surely the old Dutch Republic was a Democracy in existence well before the USA?
However, thanks to your recent ‘election’ the US is a somewhat toxic subject at present.
Of course there were democracies in existence before the US (and before the old Dutch Republic). The US is considered, by most measures, to be currently the world’s longest-running democracy. Lord Sumption made the remark that Western democracies are only about 150 years old and then went on to say a few things about the history of democracy in England.
Yes but the Dutch Democracy is still with us, despite the unnecessary addition of a Constitutional Monarch in 1815, therefore well predates the upstart United States. QED?
Presently the government says the lockdown will end shortly – good. But another lockdown must not be imposed – if another virus just happens to appear after “Gain of Function” research in some lab in Wuhan, with the virus then “escaping” (and perhaps it really was accidental), the public will not accept another lockdown. Instead they will ask who funded the research and what was the purpose of having the virus escape. Once may be accident – but not twice.
He said a very intersting thing. Government didn’t think they could get away with it (impose lockdown) until China did then Italy copied China.
What he is alluding to is the fundamental attitude of government. In this case it appears that government has been most preoccupied with control for itself not governance of the population for overall public benefit.
Yes, agreed. I think that was one of the most interesting things he said, and the source he referred to was something Neil Ferguson said in The Times, which I am going to try and find.
Whilst I agree with Lord Sumption on what has happened to shift public opinion to the realm of intolerant conformism, I was surprised that he appeared afraid to emphasise that his self -professed Christian belief provided the basis for his opinion that there is more to life than a fear of death;,the avoidance of death is pivotal to secularism but that death is not the last word is grounded in Christian belief. Lord Sumption has my support as he is right in what he has said, but he should stand behind his faith which has grounded his intellect.
Never has such a hysterical attitude been voiced with so much calm. Lord Sumption has made himself ridiculous during the last year simply by going way beyond the limits of his competence.
Very balanced and I totally agree with him re lockdown. The economic, mental and no-covid health cost of lockdown is huge and is building like pressure in the volcano. It has been negligent of the Government to ignore and naive to rely on a very limited caucus of SAGE scientists. Even now when the data is so good and the vaccination roll out working wonders they are ignoring the opportunity to reconsider and bring forward the staggered release. In fact, as the weather improves, SAGE policy is increasing risk by herding us into limited outdoor locations as the parks and playgrounds over the last 2 weeks have shown. All outdoor sports should back on and arguably controlled indoors like gyms and hairdressers where much has been invested to be covid safe.
It is ridiculous that we are one of the only the few western countries not allow to outdoor sport, from kids to adults especially school and university students sport is the balance to study and the lack of it is doing much damage – even Scotland has not closed down golf
Personally I dont mind a Health Passport – we have so many numbers and licences and certificates its about time they combined them into one and gave us an ID card like the US and Europe
Terrifying to see what happens we grow old
77th are we?
There are a lot of benefits in growing old and keeping fit. Such as freedom of movement, freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Not to mention not having a boss to slave under. The great enemy though is passivity which will be bad for your mind and bad for your body. In a way it takes more discipline than working but is well worth it to live a productive and healthy life. Retirement is a real danger. There is no such thing as healthy retirement. Once you learn that you can make it work for you in a big way.
Unfortunately the freedoms of which you write are more true for those with a good income in retirement. Many people have choices limited by a lack of funds.
time for a check up on his mental/physical situation. its a shame but we all get old and think we know how to run the world.i know this is true because i am always right.HAHAHA, theyre coming to take me away…………
Are you saying the vaccine does no more than mitigate symptoms in the vaccinated – i.e. they can still catch it and be infectious to others?
I think that is awaiting proof. Nobody knows at the moment. The vaccine makes your antibodies work and therefore a far less chance of getting it.
That is what the literature given to my sister who works in the NHS as a therapist very clearly said. This is, after all, not a vaccine, so it doesn’t work like one.
Are you trying to claim that the Covid-19 vaccines are somehow “not vaccines”? Some evidence would be nice for such a (let’s be kind) bizarre claim.
No I didn’t say that. It was one of the scenarios used to make my point.
When the vaccine was first approved the only claims made were that it would mitigate symptoms, not that it would prevent transmission. This is how vaccines work. However, if someone has no symptoms or very mild symptoms the viral load is lighter, making transmission difficult or less probable. However, the same goes if you contract the disease naturally, a fact which we have been consistently been misled about in the media (all the credible scientific body of evidence says that there is no such thing as asymptomatic transmission, although it is possible to transmit when you are presymptomatic).
The vaccine has not been approved. It has been granted distribution under emergency protocols. Look up Pfizer.com
Also, after Reagan granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries under the 1986 Vaccine Act, where is the incentive to produce safe vaccines? There is a litany of examples throughout recent history where this has come back to bite governments on the ar$e. Buyers beware !!!
You think there is no deterrent in the certainty of serious reputational damage, or the lack of a market for it once your hypothetical “unsafe” vaccine problems emerge?
BBC Future has an article entitled “Can you still transmit Covid-19 after vaccination?” that discusses this issue for current vaccines. It’s unusually detailed for a popular media organisation publication, and it has links to its sources.
Here are some extracts – google should allow you find the rest of the article.
Oxford-AstraZeneca
‘…the reduction in the number of infections – and therefore the potential for transmission …was promising, [but] further data was needed to confirm the findings.’
‘…a new paper published in pre-print on 1 February… found that the vaccine cut the number of cases with detectable virus by 67% after a single standard dose, and wrote that this shows “the potential for a substantial reduction in transmission”. ‘
Pfizer-BioNTech
There isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can prevent people from being infected with the coronavirus – and therefore halt its spread. But there are some early signs that it might…
…the Israeli Ministry of Health (MoH) looked at the health records of a million people in the country, and found that – a week after being fully vaccinated – just 317 people out of 715,425 tested positive for the coronavirus.
In short – we don’t definitively know, but the signs are very promising.
The link to the BBC article (in a separate post, in case it gets filtered out) is https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210203-why-vaccinated-people-may-still-be-able-to-spread-covid-19
The BBC said it, so it must be true! 🙂
One of the key words used by Lord Sumption is “Objective”, used to describe how governments should behave. In other words, we, the public, should be given both or all sides of a problem, not the one sided presentation, given in very patronising fashion, by Boris and Co. We are not children, and they are not our masters. The government is an elected body, elected by the public, to serve the public. With regard to this vaccine, anybody concerned about side effects, will need to do their own research, as very little (if any) information is given by our politicians, on this subject. Thousands have died after taking the vaccine, and many more have suffered serious side effects. There are organisations set up to monitor these side effects, but they are not mentioned at the government health broadcasts each afternoon. Deliberate concealment of the facts, in order not to discourage anybody from taking the vaccine.
Watch as many of these videos as you can. No less than 10.
By that time you should begin to get some idea of what is going on:
https://lbry.tv/@TruthVault:0
I couldn’t agree with you more! As I was watching the interview, I became crestfallen as I realized even this highly respected intellectual could contradict himself. Freddy’s reaction was priceless; it’s almost as though he couldn’t believe his ears. At the very beginning of the interview, Lord Sumption said the disease was not worth the unprecedented measures as it affects only a small segment of the population severely. A vaccine passport to go into public places is another unprecedented measure and only serves to bolster fear-ridden people’s misgivings about others and create a health elitism. I do wonder if he will listen to this interview of himself and regret what he said.
I don’t think the lockdown was about protecting us primarily…. it was about protecting the NHS to avoid a terrible political stain
Exactly. I was very surprised by his stance on vaccine passports also because it’s completely inconsistent with what he said previously about the severity of the virus itself. I wonder if it is because he personally is in a more vulnerable age group. The vaccine and this idea of vaccine passports has gained traction on the back of the whole exaggerated coverage of the virus and subsequent policies – if you believe the wrong approach was taken there, there is no justification for imposing further restrictions on our liberties based on a belief that the only way out of this is a magic jab.
repeated
This is a line of argumentation which deserves due consideration.
This is about the balance between freedom for the individual to pursue their own interests when their actions don’t harm others, and restrictions on that freedom when the actions potentially do harm others. Things in that area are not open and shut, they are tricky.
Since this is about the UK, an example which comes to mind it the strict blackout regulations during WWII. Suppose some people rebelled and felt that the State should not be able to tell them not to have lights on with windows uncovered – or even host lighted parties in their yards. They could reason that the chance of an individual home’s lights causing that home to be bombed is slight, and that each individual should be able to accept or decline that chance based on their own estimates of the risk and willingness to accept the consequences.
On the other side would be those who argued that allowing German bombers to more easily locate cities would cause additional risk to others who do not consent to take that extra risk; the risk is not entirely a personal choice, because it affects others.
It would seem that the line of argument proposed by Sumption would tend to support the former.
My point here is that in real world issue of this sort, it’s a semi-practical question of where to set the thresholds, rather than a matter of asserting absolutes based on abstract arguments, such as about whether the State should have absolute power over the individual.
Reasonable people can advocate for different thresholds. This involves both objective issues (such as incrementally refining our scientific understanding of the probabilities so as not be be deluded about the risks and benefits) and subjective ones (how much risk to take in trade for how much more freedom).
While I appreciate some of the Judge’s viewpoint, I don’t think it’s strongly useful in setting the proper threshold.
Civil disobedience like chaining oneself to a fence (imposing no risk on others) would be different than “civil disobedience” consisting of a known infectious person breaking quarantine to hang out in a pub.
The difference between the latter and hosting an illegal party is more quantitative then qualitative. The risk of the known infected person spread the disease is higher than the risk of people of unknown disease status spreading it, and that difference in probabilities might cross some people’s preferred threshold and not others.
Another probabilistic question for society is criminalizing the act of driving while intoxicated. Some have pointed out that this consists of punishing somebody not on the basis that they have actually injured somebody else, or have the intention of doing so, but on the basis that they are statistically somewhat more likely to do so than people who are not intoxicated.
I don’t see how such issues can be addressed with the absolute and abstract arguments used by the judge, nor do I see that “civil disobedience” is a good answer to them (DWI, blackout lights, or breaking quarantine).
The evidence is that those vaccinated do not transmit.
You are implying binary effects – either a vaccine completely protects people from any danger, or a vaccine completely allows passing the virus on. In practice, the data is that the vaccines substantially to greatly reduce the chance of being infected, and likely substantially reduce the chance of passing it on. So a vaccinated person is still safer if not exposed to the virus, and others (vaccinated or not) are safer around a vaccinated person.
This still leaves the question of “how much safer and should that matter”. But we can’t analyze or debate those questions until we abandon binary thinking.
Hi , the only point I would make in response to Trish, (speaking as someone inherently suspicious of the rushed out vaccine) is a vaccinated person is considerably less likely to end up hospitalised and a burden on the NHS. So whilst I agree with the premise of her argument that vaccinated or unvaccinated It may not effect onward transmission of the disease, it will materially effect the burden on the NHS, the wheels coming off of which is the one thing the government are utterly understandably preoccupied by.
It says here there are 379 comments but I can only view perhaps a hundred.
Britain might have been considered a democracy in the past, especially in relation to countries like France in the 1800s, Russia both under and after the Czar, and Zululand under Shaka. But its never been a democracy in every sense, elections have always been fixed and free speech has never actually existed.
Democracies and clubs. I don’t think vaccine passports are right. I don’t think banning smoking or being forced to wear seat belts and crash helmets is right. It appears that leaves me in a minority but I am not ready to become a hermit. If Greece or other holiday venues insist on me having a passport I have a choice. If they insist I must comply. Why should an antivax person become a burden on, or a perceived threat to, their health service? I imagine the travel insurance people will have the last word.
Like every election, whoever loses doesn’t like the winning side. The Covid thing has revealed not only nervous frightened people but also the thoughtless both of whose uninformed opinions have formed their actions. If the majority think you need a jab to go in a pub then the pubs should decide not the police. I imagine the pubs will follow the money or their local clientele. If I’ve had my jab (I have) why should I care if the person next to me has not? However, my younger friends and family, as yet unvaccinated, do not have such an easy choice. Enforced vax passports will cause far more unpleasantness than Brexit, or historically, Civil Wars worldwide.
I am happy to notice such a brilliant partaker of the establishment has now gone public with his mind about the dismantling of our freedoms ! But i think he is to vague about the vaccine issue .. also if the government had been more determined to act by actual data and fight back the fear instead of creating it it hadnt been a need for this civil disobedience … and as for me i think this and the fearmongering is a part of a sinister plan to rob us of our civil rights and create the dream situation for governments with no opposition and a coffebreak to pass new laws and regulations !
Dear Freddie Sayer, you had said that you would interview Johan Gisecke and Anders Tegnell of Sweden again a year after the start of the pandemic to see how their “non-lockdown” policy had panned out. Maybe you could do that now without waiting longer? The latest 7 day rolling average of deaths per million as of today ranks the European countries as follows (highest to lowest): Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Spain, Moldova, Italy, Malta, France, Romania, Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom, Portugal, Russia, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands,Switzerland, Denmark, Norway.
And maybe you could ask the dissenting Swede who was demanding lockdown, Fredrik Elgh, whether he has changed his mind now?
In the UK it now transpires that the majority of deaths were of people who became infected in care homes or after being admitted to hospital for other illnesses.
I was a legal secretary for 35 years. I worked for the largest law firms in America, for some of the best attorneys. My first question about the Lockdown, was “Where are the lawyers?” In America, this was unconstitutional. Not a single major law firm raised an objection. That is how I knew that they agreed to stand down. These same law firms rushed to protect their clients, but were silent on the subject of shutting them down, under the assumption that there was a Pandemic. If their clients had been faced woth Lockdowns under any other circumstances, they would have filed for injunctions the same day. It was evident to me that these corporations and bankers had already set a Lockdown in place, intending to take the profits of the last fifty years, and cut the competition. Still it remains, not a single major law firm raised a single objection. You cannot have a Constitution or a free nation, if the lawyers are unwilling to defend it.
One person’s freedom can curtail someone else’s freedom.
Lord Sumption’s notion is that a person has the moral right to decide whether they respect the law before deciding whether to obey it. I think this must bebased on the assumption that such a person is mentally equipped to possess the right moral reasons to respect that law.
The problem is that we live in a world where the distribution of IQ is already fairly dispersed and, worse still, the centrepoint of the distribution is in itself in steady decline.
I don’t want my life to be threatened more than is unavoidably neccessary by someone who has less common-sense than I have. By the same token from a government worm’s eye view, I don’t want my life to be threatened by a model of democracy that has been over-fuelled with liberalism.
An excellent article … it deserves to be read and understood by all. Prior to my 30 years in business, I spent almost 10 years (undergrad and post grad) in the philosophy dept at university, I believe that it is an article of real value … an excellent and clear application of well known philosophical principles and concepts to our present human condition. Ian Wilson. Edinburgh
Given that the vaccines haven’t been tested and will turn people into GMO humans (check out Professor Dolores Cahill ) and are arguably killing more people than Covid, I think there is a very good reason not to have them.
What they will do long-term as they apparently turn our own immune systems against us, doesn’t bear thinking about!
It seems the pharmaceutical industry is self regulatory as well, so I’m sure we can see why there may be vested interests there!
Another thing is that if people want to have a vaccine that they believe will save them, that is their choice, so why should they or anyone else mind if other people don’t have it, as presumably they think they will be immune to it, so where would be the need for anyone to have a vaccine passport, apart of course from the fact that the more vaccines rolled out, there more money that is made for Big Pharma?!
Another thing that hasn’t been touched upon by many, is that there are plenty of natural cures for Covid symptoms (check out Dr. Judy Mikovits, who worked on making drugs from natural products but was fired when she spoke out about what was going on), without there being any need for vaccines.
Also, the state of most people’s immune systems is severely compromised by their diets, which for many, will be mostly processed foods containing high amounts of carbohydrates and sugar and very low amounts, of fresh organic vegetables.
That is a major area that needs to be addressed for us to properly deal with any infections.
Many people who have died with possibly Covid (and I say that because a court case is ongoing about the 90+% false positives of the PCR tests (check out Dr. Reiner Füellmich:- https://youtu.be/HhvIYfRnK-U ),
have had underlying issues, and sometimes the figures have been falsified by putting them down as Covid deaths.
Pressure has been put on people to falsify death certificates.
The main stream media and the government have, I believe, grossly exaggerated the figures.
If you look at the main government Covid site which says there have been many thousands of new infections in a day (this was a few weeks ago), their other site for notable infectious diseases (http://gov.uk/government/publications/notifiable-diseases-weekly-reports-for-2021)
said that there were less than 100 new cases in England and Wales for that same week. I smell a big rat!
The fear that has been created by the media, which is largely owned by the big corporations and the the likes of Bill Gates’s W.H.O., is more coertion that’s has been taking place, no doubt with the express purpose of making money from vaccines.
At last I’ve got around to listening to this interview in full. I like Sumption, but can’t believe he is suggesting ‘civil dosobedience’ and at the same time a supporter of a tiered society when it comes to vaccination for covid which, as he says himself over 99 pcent of people recover from. Maybe he isn’t educated on vaccine safety and doesn’t realise that there are perfectly good treatments and prophylactics for covid which our govt are absolutely criminal in not promoting through ur ‘health system’. His assertion that it’s making the better of two bad decisions is not acceptable. And, no, I’m not an anti vaxxer, whatever that means to people. I’ve just learned to question virtually everything and make valued judgements based on data and risk and personal experience.
Too right Lord Sumption. It saddens me to think that people will do as they are asked, without thinking about it, and believe that what they are doing is right. Surely your heart tells you that it is wrong to leave your elderly parent unattended for weeks on end. It is cruel.So many folk have blindly followed the government’s expectations over the last year,not thinking about the terrible consequences. As Lord Sumption states, conventions take decades, if not centuries to come about, only to be broken overnight. I fear for the future. I feel our liberties can so easily be taken away. What a state to be in?
Well said Lord Sumption.
Good on him – hope for the UK if the people respond accordingly. Disobey!
“Here is the key difference between authority in everyday life and the power of the state: the state’s edicts are always and everywhere enforced at the point of a gun.
It is interesting how little we think about that reality, but it is the core reality. Everything done by the state is ultimately done by means of aggression, which is to say violence or the threat of violence.” —Lew Rockwell
“It’s easier to fool people … than to convince them they have been fooled” Mark Twain
Thanks for an insightful interview. Please pass these few links on to Lord Sumption so that he can reconsider his assumptions re vaccine safety, though in this instance we are actually talking about an experimental gene therapy:
Legal debate on mandatory vaccination between Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy Jnr: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfnJi7yLKgE
Dr David Martin exposes Moderna:
https://freedomplatform.tv/david-e-martin-exposing-moderna-the-star-of-plandemic-indoctrination-reveals-the-truth/
Millions against Medical Mandates: https://mamm.org/
Vaccine damage – leaked data: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/03/24/big-pharma-gene-therapy.aspx?ui=4b40882430868459d064eebb8d9051cf04011b5a1fd0a4a4fb1a9d0c81f3ac6e&sd=20191029&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20210324&mid=DM838718&rid=1115231626
many more available to shine a light on this filthy business.
The government’s communication was based on the best available scientific advice / consensus on the impact of the pandemic. SAGE minutes are published, go read them. You could argue the vast and diverse SAGE team of medical and related experts were wrong, but that is not a straightforward argument ot make. Their conclusions do not differ from every other main group of experts in the field or any other major nation on the planet. To suggest the government should of relied on expert advice from a scientific fringe and ignored the mainstream is about as unscientific and undemocratic as you can get. It would of also of been politically impossible.
Polling has also shown the public overwhelmingly support the government’s covid restrictions, indeed if anything they believe they have been too liberal.
So the experts said we should lockdown. The people wanted to lockdown. And the restrictions in essence are about to end in 5 days.
Somebody remind what the problem is exactly?
Lord Sumption gave a heartening, rallying commentary on the requirement for the protection of a fragile democracy against a leadership that was setting dangerous precedents in the use of pre-existing medical vulnerabilities of all mankind to directly, vainly and despotically reduce the liberties of man, woman and children. However, it seemed to be a contradiction of his stated views on the coercion and despotism applied by the state to suggest that everyone should carry a vaccine passport with them, giving private businesses and public services the opportunity to discriminate against those who have not had the a COVID-19 vaccine and making all and sundry privy to an aspect of one’s private medical history and/or political views. This also contradicted his views so clearly expressed that the necessity for lock-downs for the whole country (or world) has never been justified by the number of excess deaths; ergo, the necessity to combat the said unjustified illness with the vaccination of an entire major demographic or population is also unsubstantiated. The interviewer picked up on that seemingly blunt contradiction but Sumption made scant attempt to provide further support to such an apparent about-face. Strange. Am I to assume that Sumption was making, in his words, ‘a personal risk assessment’ which determined he was better of promoting the vaccine, despite its moral contradiction to his principally espoused opinions that a debased gov’t was using coercion to enforce a plan of action that drastically and unjustifiably limiting the liberty of private men, woman and children? His only comment that could remotely pass as a justification was that the vaccine and vaccine passport was preferable to draconian lock-down, house arrest measures. Such measures that he had already claimed carried sufficient reason for civil disobedience on account of their irrelevance to the claim of fighting a virus. He went on further to report, in my view accurately, that the gov’t was in a precarious position in, at once, promoting the vaccine, whilst also claiming that the vaccine was not responsible for the reduction in cases. As I final rebuttal against the disappointing contradictions in Lord Sumptions otherwise motivational commentary on the requirement for each individual to conduct a daily and personal risk assessment from a morally mature standpoint, is that there is ample proof to show that any promises government makes towards the vaccine (i) allowing people to see their loved one’s, (ii) to ditch the mask, (iii) to travel freely even within Britiain, (iv) to conduct their business affairs or return to work unfettered, (v) to open restaurants fully, and so and so on, are not being fulfilled. Thus demonstrating that the vaccine is unlikely to release the masses from their life of coercion and servitude. As he rightly said, only an English style, independently minded, visible objection to the “rule by decree” will have the subtle but penetrating effect of bringing this utterly deplorable state of affairs to satisfactory close.
Lord Sumption gave a heartening, rallying commentary on the requirement for the protection of fragile democracy against a leadership that was setting dangerous precedents in the use of pre-existing medical vulnerabilities of all mankind to directly, vainly and despotically reduce the liberties of man, woman and children. However, it seemed to be a contradiction of his stated views on the coercion and despotism applied by the state to suggest that everyone should carry a vaccine passport with them, giving private businesses and public services the opportunity to discriminate against those who have not had the a COVID-19 vaccine and making all and sundry privy to an aspect of one’s private medical history and/or political views. This also contradicted his views so clearly expressed that the necessity for lock-downs for the whole country (or world) has never been justified by the number of excess deaths; ergo, the necessity to combat the said unjustified illness with the vaccination of an entire major demographic or population is also unsubstantiated. The interviewer picked up on that seemingly blunt contradiction but Sumption made scant attempt to provide further support to such an apparent about-face. Strange. Am I to assume that Sumption was making, in his words, ‘a personal risk assessment’ which determined he was better of promoting the vaccine, despite its moral contradiction to his principally espoused opinions that a debased gov’t was using coercion to enforce a plan of action that drastically and unjustifiably limiting the liberty of private men, woman and children? His only comment that could remotely pass as a justification was that the vaccine and vaccine passport was preferable to draconian lock-down, house arrest measures. Such measures that he had already claimed carried sufficient reason for civil disobedience on account of their irrelevance to the claim of fighting a virus. He went on further to report, in my view accurately, that the gov’t was in a precarious position in, at once, promoting the vaccine, whilst also claiming that the vaccine was not responsible for the reduction in cases. As I final rebuttal against the disappointing contradictions in Lord Sumptions otherwise motivational commentary on the requirement for each individual to conduct a daily and personal risk assessment from a morally mature standpoint, is that there is ample proof to show that any promises government makes towards the vaccine (i) allowing people to see their loved one’s, (ii) to ditch the mask, (iii) to travel freely even within Britiain, (iv) to conduct their business affairs or return to work unfettered, (v) to open restaurants fully, and so and so on, are not being fulfilled. Thus demonstrating that the vaccine is unlikely to release the masses from their life of coercion and servitude. As he rightly said, only an English style, independently minded, visible objection to the “rule by decree” will have the subtle but penetrating effect of bringing this utterly deplorable state of affairs to satisfactory close.
The global Wearable Technology Market report by Value Market Research provide evidence-based information and covers all the market details such as the latest technology trends, market opportunity analysis, and competitive landscape.
Sumption does not understand how human societies work. His views are based on a classic liberal fallacy. Humans like other apes are group–living animals and it is essential for us that the group which is most important to us ( at present, our nation state ) is competent to satisfy the important objectives that we need from it and which only it can reliably provide ( like helping us stay alive ). To achieve this, at times ( as in warfare ) a state may need to make demands on its members that would normally be unreasonable. The key issue is not that this happens, but whether the government doing it can be trusted to restore acceptable balances between individuals and the state when the emergency is over. Luckily, we can trust this Government to do so, unlike ( e.g. ) the postwar Labour government which continued wartime controls for ideological reasons in its attempt to create a socialist dictatorship. This created problems that are still being felt today
So there is insufficient data to start restoring some outdoor rights now?
Probably. The pace of the liberalisation plan that the govt has set out seems within the range of reasonable options to me
I agree with the staggered approach but good weather means people are herding into parks and playgrounds and perhaps the cause of small increase in infections in high density population areas – club organised out door sports across the board would help spread people out
Well I can play tennis from the 29th March apparently. What’s more it will do me a lot of good.
Just time for a last bit of Fox hunting as well!
What bliss! The hounds will love it.
The test will be when Covid is over.
It will never be over! This is Armageddon, start digging.
Lord Sumption is very misinformed or disinformed on covid and the vaccine:
Everything you need to know about the covid fraud is here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8aesRBKk7luP/
https://theconsciousresistance.com/the-pcr-deception/
It’s time to revisit and critically consider Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report No. 9, dated 16 March 2020.[1]
It’s mind-boggling to consider this report put much of the world into lockdown, (and facilitated fast-tracked experimental COVID-19 vaccine products), with devastating consequences for global societies and economies.
This was always about implementing ‘the vaccine’ and control of the people…it’s all clearly laid out in Ferguson et al’s report. Also keep in mind that Ferguson has received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[2], the organisation which is dominating international vaccination policy.[3]
To deal with COVID-19, in March 2020, Ferguson et al considered mitigation and suppression strategies, deciding on the more aggressive suppression strategy, which facilitated the draconian lockdowns.
Ferguson et al say: “The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package…will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) – given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed“. (My emphasis.)
See page 20 of Ferguson et al’s report for a graph that shows going in and out of the suppression strategy, i.e. lockdowns. In other words wearing people down with these debilitating and isolating interventions so people would be more than willing to submit to anything to get out of lockdown, e.g. vaccination, as evidenced by Lord Sumption’s, and Freddie Sayers'[4], willingness to cave into coercive COVID-19 vaccination.
In regards to the remarkable and devastating influence of the Neil Ferguson et al report, consider this exchange between Lord Sumption and Freddie Sayers:
Asked by Freddie Sayers “What would you say that you have learned about society and where we are at the moment, looking back on this episode that you didn’t know before?
Lord Sumption replies “I will conclude that some of the fears that I have always had about the way that mass democracy works have proved to be true in concrete detail, and sooner than I expected. I will have learnt the enormous power of governments to influence opinion by promoting fear in a technical area, which many people could understand but in practice don’t. And those are dismaying lessons, I would want to learn from them about how we repair things in future. And my first proposal is that governments should not treat information as a tool for manipulating public behaviour. They should be calmer than the majority of their citizens, they should be completely objective. My second lesson would be that governments dealing with scientific issues should not allow themselves to be influenced by a single caucus of scientists. They should always test what they are being told in a way that, for instance, judges test expert opinion by producing a counter expert, and working out which set of views stacks up best, those would be the two most specific lessons that I would derive from the particular way in which things have gone during this epidemic.” (My emphasis.)
Using Lord Sumption’s evaluation, it looks like the UK government responded to the virus in the worst possible way, by promoting fear in the people, using information as a tool for manipulating public behaviour, being the opposite of calm in their response, not being objective. Crucially, the UK government was dominated by the fear-mongering SAGE, and particularly Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report No. 9[1], and apparently did little to test the opinion of SAGE or Ferguson with counter experts.
References:
1. Neil Ferguson et al. Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. 16 March 2020.
2. See this BMJ article for discussion on SAGE member’s interests, particularly reference 1.: Covid-19: SAGE members’ interests published by government 10 months into pandemic. 17 December 2020.
3. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is currently the top funder of the World Health Organisation, which appears to be a front for the vaccine industry, this must be investigated. The Bill & Melinda Gates founded Gavi Alliance is a major player in the vaccine industry and also top funder of the WHO, see for example WHO Funding by contributor updated until Q4-2020. In regards to Bill Gates influence on the ‘race for coronavirus vaccines’, see his article: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. GatesNotes, 30 April 2020.
4. Freddie Sayers. How lockdown changed us. Unherd, 24 February 2021.
I look forward to the spectacle of Lord Sumption conducting his own defence when hauled up before the Inner London Magistrates for breach of Covid 19 regulations!
Hypocrisy – “I do not believe in that kind of political manifestation” – while all year long doing exactly that. Bee in bonnet with erudite attempt to justify. Not surprised his peers are distancing. So many holes in his argument, not least the disaster to this country which has resulted from being too lax, too late with both lockdown and borders. Two things reduce spread. Behaviour and immunity. Behaviour has been shown to be a problem unless constrained, immunity is getting there thanks to science and the vaccines. The balance is shifting towards immunity, but it has some distance to go with the remarkable progress being rightly lauded, but only 30% partially immunised. It needs to get to over 90%. The cautious approach is the right one.
‘There is only one person affected by vaccine status and that is the individual making their decision one way or another.’
For those of us who still do not understand the difference between a common good and selfishness let me recommend Wolfgang Munchau on Eurointelligence
it’s a bit ironic to demand that others do what you want while also lecturing them about selfishness.
The style is not very good but the fact of being immunised might save you getting it and spreading to others?
No. The aim of vaccinating a whole population (bar those who for medical reasons cannot take one) is to achieve HERD immunity. I know many people don’t seem to like that concept. Parents who don’t allow their kids to have the MMR are putting other children at risk especially when many take this view. Not all kids can be vaccinated for medical reasons and for some the vaccine does not give them protection. So mumps and measles start rampaging through the community – damaging some children. Its a form of selfishness in my view and a facet of woke faux liberalism.
In case you have failed to think it thru when you wrote it, no one is a liberal – Big L or Small l – if they go by the title “Lord.” It’s sort of like Trump saying he is the common man’s friend, when he did not before nor does he now spend anything but “mouth time” with anyone average. He spends and has always spent an immense amount of time sucking up to Big Money and bribing Big Power. This guy talks to you and talks DOWN, not WITH anyone. Lord, this, Lord that, lord over,….
Just another Brit asshole, among millions of present and past British imperialists. They rule; they do not govern.
Next,
The Andyman
Good, and very relevant that Lord Sumption had reached the point that retirement was appropriate. Why bother to interview him ?
Another Eton boy. Data from Israel. Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit’s Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis.
They claim that Pfizer’s shot causes “mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc.”
Sumption is wrong. Just plain wrong – he’s been wrong since he started his scientifically ignorant rant at the beginning of this and he is digging his hole ever deeper. Apart from the simplicity of his argument focusing solely on death as the outcome for each of us, apart from ignoring the issue of the consequences to our medical services, he ignores the obvious evidence available that lockdowns work to stop the spread of this very nasty virus. We are now in a position where about 30% of the population are vaccinated – to an efficacy reported variably as between 65 to 90 %. We have two measures to stop spread – (social distncing – masks and lockdown) – being one – vaccination towards herd immunity being the other. The relation between herd immunity and the natural unmitigated R rate and efficacy is a simple one. H – (1-1/R)/E. Before spread is stopped from running out of control at an efficacy of 65% and an R of 3 – needs 100% immune – i.e all not immunised will get it. At 90% efficacy H needs to be 74%. We are at 30% or less. I’m afraid Sumption is just trying his level best (as a practiced advocate) to justify his original, but very wrong position. Thank goodness he is being ignored.
The last time government overruled basic liberties across the whole country was WW2 when we accepted a command or totalitarian government for a short while.
But and it is a big but, there was a hostile enemy physically on the doorstep seeking to overturn Parliament and take over ruling the country.
There has never been such a threat during this so called emergency. Neither did the pandemic threaten the ability of the government to govern by way of making so many of the working sufficiently ill as to be physically unable to work and do basic things like deliver food and keep the lights on. The slogan has always been to focus on the health service.
The NHS is a huge undertaking and the biggest employer in the country, but it is not the country. It is a service. To make people into criminals for a service is forgetting the rason for the NHS.
Not war, but a national emergency of a different kind. So far it has killed more of us.
Citizens have a duty to disobey despotic laws but are the anti-Covid measures despotic? They would be if they were to survive the neutralisation of the virus but we are not there yet.
In France, millions of people – including my own GP – oppose masks and millions of others think they should be mandatory. The latter prevail. Everyone wears one in obedience to the precautionary principle. We don’t know whether masks work or not but better safe than sorry.
Sumption has no right to disobey masking at the risk of infecting his neighbours of whom I am one; we use the same supermarket when he’s in residence at his French castle. He wouldn’t be allowed into an enclosed public space anywhere in France unmasked.
I share the libertarian suspicion of the state which never voluntarily gives up a power it has acquired. Macron and the national assembly are up for re-election next year. Do we really think they are cheerfully infuriating a large part of the electorate with controversial curbs on their freedoms?
“Sumption has no right to disobey masking at the risk of infecting his neighbours of whom I am one.”
This one sentence encapsulates everything that has gone wrong over the past year. The right to live a normal life – and to decide for yourself what risks you will take – has been completely subordinated to coercive control by government. And fearful people now assert that their anxieties should over-ride the lives and freedoms of everyone else. What a disaster.
From the beginning of this lockdown, I started to think it was a fantastic exercise em mass control. The same as scientists would study rats in a control group, I suppose many specialised people are now studying this pandemic situation very closely.
Nevertheless, if you think about the more than half a million deaths in the USA probably, as I did, you would be surprised by this number but, if you think demographically, in my view, the nearly a quarter of a million people dead in the UK represents much more than the number of deaths in the USA and this is indeed a tragedy!
So, hiding under the freedom argument and alleged to protect us, Lord Sumption has been irresponsible and his discourse, criminal. There is a say, that with freedom comes responsibility.
I would ask him:
“What is the freedom of a super spread person to walk around, contaminating hundreds of people who will be in an exponential way also contaminate other thousands.”
“Do you worked on a UTI of an already overcrowd hospital?”
“Are you able to foresee the apocalyptic scenario this behave can unleash? Are you – really – concerned with the wellbeing of the population?” (I don’t think so!)
The way I see, Lord Sumption is just clearly defending only the interests of the big corporations.
Believe me, nobody is ignoring the suffering, the economic problems, the damage and depression lockdown is causing on the society as a whole, but this government and Lord Sumption in particular, are complicit in this disinformation war which is putting people against the government measures to contain the spread of Covid-19. With the excuse of freedom and saying, he is defending us against tyranny Lord Sumption is negating or minimizing science, lockdown and vaccines in favour of business.
I believe, when people act like children, do not behave properly and disrespect the life of others, the fathers (or government), should take over and control the situation! Nobody like a paternalist state but, let’s not try to avoid the light of the Sun with a sieve! Sometimes, the reality is not as we wish! Just ask this question:
“Who gains with it? What does a LORD get from this? What he knows about people?”
Of course, it would be much better if people did not need to have a father figure telling them what to do but, unfortunately, this is not the case!
In regards to deaths attributed to Covid-19, there have been around 2.5 million deaths over the past 13 months, and these must be seen in the context of a global population of 7.8 billion, with around 59 million deaths expected annually.
There’s certainly been a desire to beat up the number of ‘cases’ and deaths to justify the over-the-top response to this virus. These statistics now need to be subjected to careful scrutiny.
Where did you get your figures for UK C-19 deaths? 250K is far too high.
Officially our (UK) figures are 124K dead. Incidentally the average age of death is 82.4, whilst life expectancy is a mere 81.1!
Broken down further our casualties have disproportionately slaughtered the fat, Black and the previously ‘knackered’.
Conversely the thin, the fit, and the young (anyone below 60) have little to worry about.
I am surprised that Lord Sumption is exhibiting a distinct lack of proportion in relation to lockdown. But he’s not the only one judging by the comments here.
We’ve had this thing for a year now. The government directed us on advice to surrender some liberty for a while for the common good. It is easy to play down the severity of this pandemic – the death rate is astronomical and the mind boggles at what it would have been like without the lockdowns. This idea of our government using the lockdown as an excuse to curb our basic liberties is totally out of proportion and worthy of a place in the annals of conspiracy theories. Come on Lord Sumption and the rest of you – get a grip!
“the death rate is astronomical”
Really in comparison to what may I ask?
The Black Death, the first day of the Somme, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the 1918/19 misnamed Spanish Flu?
As they said in Dad’s Army, “Don’t Panic.”.
I was thinking of the death rates of flu and COVID between January and August 2020 as published by ONS.There were 48,168 deaths from COVID and 394 deaths from flu. I think I’m entitled to use the word astronomical in the light of these figures.
To be honest I think there are real pragmatic reasons to disagree with Lord Symptom; most laws are there because of our moral duty to others. Hence motorway speed limits may appear frustrating if you drive a performance car but actually prevent others from dying resulting from the increased probability of an accident if you exceed them.
In the same way obeying the lockdown rules will help prevent the spread and resulting health outcomes if you happen to have asymptomatic Covid.
I believe that when think of ‘liberty’ we have to consider how our liberty affects the right of others to be free from disease. The argument that you are ‘unlikely’ to be a carrier does not mean that you aren’t.
Driving a car carries with it the risk that you may have an accident and injure or kill someone, just by being on the road. This is a higher risk than the combined likelihood that you are (1) carrying the virus without any symptoms (this would be the prevalence at the time) (2) manage to infect someone else while being asymptomatic, despite taking precautions (even among close contacts, this is surprisingly low) (3) the person you infect goes on to become very ill and die. Should driving cars be banned?
No but the appropriate laws need to be in place for either to ensure these freedoms don’t impinge the freedoms of others!
The argument that you are ‘unlikely’ to be a carrier does not mean that you aren’t.
Doesn’t mean that I am, either, and when did the expectation of a 100% risk-free environment become the norm? This reads very much like a “prove your innocence” approach, which is not we do things.
Laws can be useful but they 1) have to make sense and 2) draw moral authority from those who pass them. The second point is huge in this ongoing covid mess. When the proles see their betters doing things the rest of us are barred from doing, the law is undermined. When a particular business is shut down for arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with contagion, the law is undermined.
The right of others to be free of the disease – well a form of focussed protection on the elderly and vulnerable and self imposed isolation or shielding by those interacting with said cohorts would have been a more practical approach than forcing everyone into such a restrictive LD. Lots of lesson re closing borders, having a proper TTT system etc to be learned
I also agree that as the NHS bed capacity became pressured a tight lockdown was necessary. However measured response now requires a re-assessment of the staggered release – I think this is Lord Sumptions point – LD cannot go on when the justification for it is no longer there and thus some sensible breaches out it are occurring. I haven’t see my Father who lives on his own since October, he had his 2nd jab over a month ago so I drove 200m to see him
The Governments outdoor restrictions are also too restrictive. if infections re picking up again its because people were rammed into parks and playgrounds over the last two weeks instead of being spread out. People rebel when there is an obvious lack of common sense
How is it possible not to understand the necessity for controlling multiple contacts between people to avoid a rise in the number of deaths during a pandemic ?
Or does Lord Sumption believe that more deaths (of mostly obese people according to The Times today) do not matter compared to civil liberties ?
I’m sorry that Lord Sumption’s life has been inconvenienced, but at least he has had plenty of attention from the media, and been able to put forward his rationalised version of his discontent, backed up by his position, articulacy and wealth. I do not agree with him.
The majority of people in the UK have knuckled down and done their duty, whatever it has cost them, to save other people’s lives.
Maybe the lockdown sceptics are right and we are all fools, or maybe not.
I understand the temptation to think that the sacrifices we have made have been a necessary act of alturism, in fact I’m sure people need to believe that.
But the fact is, it is experimental – much of what we have done (lockdown; facemasks) was cautioned against in previous evidence based pandemic preparation protocols (see the UK’s own plan for instance, or WHO guidelines).
I’m afraid there is no great moral revelation behind the abandonment of previous understanding in order to give all lives equal value.
It’s just a terrified attempt to control something we previously knew could not be controlled except at enormous human cost. Without being asked, we have all (obese or otherwise) been forced to pay.
Where’s the fairness in that?
Really well put – people need to believe that we can control nature, and that our sacrifices have been worth it. Any evidence to the contrary isn’t questioned, it’s deemed immoral – there’s a feeling of WW1 to it.
We can control nature to some extent, that’s what we do everyday in farming, fishing, gardening, medicine etc.
Going to war in WWI was not immoral, unless you are a pacifist I suppose. No insult to pacifists intended.
The purpose and use of the UKs involvement in WW1 is of great debate – I come down on the side that it’s wasn’t wrong to go to war on balance.
However the prosecution of the war was needlessly wasteful of lives. Killing 100,000s by consistently using out of date tactics, terrible living condions & poor supplies supplies was not required – it was counter productive. The deaths of many was of very low, zero or negative military value (losing a trained soldier and kit has a high military cost) . The ‘experts’ & leaders of the day used the death of heroes to cover up for their ineptitude. We could have had better Covid & other excess death outcomes with a better more focused use of restrictions, guidance and state support.
It is ironic that you consider the greatest sacrifice of millions so that we could live free worth it, yet you’re happy to throw away that freedom for the illusion of safety.
I am not ready to throw away our freedoms Luke, I just recognise that a degree of suspension may be necessary during a crisis, as it was during WWII.
I agree with what you say about the prosecution of WWI to some extent, but much like the present situation events overtook human’s ability to make ideal decisions. Back then technology had galloped ahead whilst experienced generals were stuck in their old ways = carnage.
In WWII we sacrificed young lives to protect our freedom, livelihoods and way-of-life.
Today, we sacrifice our freedom, livelihoods and way-of-life to protect old lives.
The sad thing is we’ve still failed to protect those lives. In fact early on the government sacrificed 20,000+ care home residents lives. The only plausible explaination for this is that the BS modelling predicted that hospitals would be overwhelmed.
The continued restrictions have still failed to protect those lives as witnessed by the huge death tolls. Focused protection of the vulnerable was always the right option, with the rest of us under much more limited restriction. The UK lockdown has been like giving everyone a dose of chemotherapy, too little to help the cancer sufferers, and needlessly damaging for everyone else.
WW2 was an existential threat to our entire country way of life and freedoms. The relatively small restrictions during WW2 were largely proportionate.
What’s sad is that if you look at the UKs Covid response and it’s outcomes on an international scale. We’re the 3rd most locked down & the 4th highest death rates.
The hardest most draconian restrictions have been an utter failure – this is key to understand. The bulk of deaths are from health setting aquired viruses (care homes, hospitals) – stopping students having parties is an exceptionally poor way of dealing with this. Providing focused testing and sick pay to carers would have saved far, far more lives.
Students spread the virus – others die of it.
By this logic nobody should be allowed to drive. As by driving they risk injuring someone else without meaning to.
We are all at risk of dying from someone else’s actions but to stop people carrying out acts which could lead to injury to others would stop all activity.
… Useful idiots divide on behalf of those who (mis)rule.
If vulnerable people were protected properly and took precautions it would save a lot more lives that locking up the non vulnerable.
In WW1 the Generals refused to adapt to reality, much like the current UK government – going over the top failed time and time again, like many of our restrictions.
The tragedy is that to learn from you mistakes, you must first admit you made a mistake. Instead the pro lockdowners continue to present their carnage as a success story, so the mistake keeps being made. Look at the currenly modelling, on Feb 10th they predicted 5 weeks to get deaths below 200, it took 2 weeks. The modelling is dangerously useless.
Luckily real tested Science in the form of vaccines will save us from these fools.
The lockdown measures imposed upon us today are more stringent than those in World War II, bar countries that were occupied by the Germans.
Personally, I fear government overreach more than I do a virus that I would have been completely oblivious to if I didn’t read about it in hysterical mainstream media.
Remember it was a Liberal Government under that pervert, Herbert Asquith that committed
us to the Great War.
A war that not only bankrupted us, but spawned the virus of Marxism that is still poisoning our society to this very day.
After such a war it is anathema to even think it may have been a mistake. It takes about seventy years before you can do that, and so it will be with this present ‘Great Panic’.
Then why did you mention pacifists when many went as medical orderlies, stretcher bearers (sometimes under fire) etc?
I was referring to whether an individual would consider entering WWI moral or immoral was I not ?
“I suppose” implies some doubt on my part.
Perhaps you are being overly sensitive to criticism for some reason, but I am well aware that pacifism has it’s own courage and was NOT referring to that at all.
“Where’s the fairness in that?”
Life is’nt fair.
It is indeed “experimental”, it could not be anything else, if we had done it your way, that would have been experimental also.
“Protocols” sometimes have to be adjusted according to new evidence.
Ok, the problem with the ‘life isn’t fair’ refrain is that anyone of us could use that to shoot down any opposing argument, until it becomes an excuse not to aspire to fairness in the first place. It effectively becomes the go to excuse of the sadist and the despot.
Life certainly isn’t fair to the cancer patients, captive abuse victims, impoverished children, income less families etc who are victims of lockdown – it seems very fair to ….. Well, to who exactly? Computer modellers who have been validated ( though not vindicated), NHS managers who have been spared from having to plan for winter by a prohibition against human activity during winter?
What was the new evidence for which the protocols (written for a highly transmissible respiratory virus), had to be adjusted? What was the risk assessment that said such a radical and inhumane readjustment was justified in the face of this new threat? The previous protocol – whilst also experimental (but based at least on learning from precedent) – was at least holistic in its consideration of human health. This response has assumed a moral authority to suspend all other considerations of human health and liberty to face one threat. It is therefore a lot more than just ‘unfair’.
There was no “new evidence” that supported lockdowns as a method of pandemic management.
No other method was available. Social distancing by itself, failed even in Sweden.
In what respect? They came out of the first wave with a lower death rate than hard lockdown countries and less economic damage than all European countries.
The second wave arguably happened because the virus didn’t spread fast enough to confer herd immunity by the time winter came – in other words, it didn’t do what the alarmists say it did when they wanted an excuse for lockdown – spread exponentially.
One of many ironies behind the lockdown fixation.
Why do you you say we failed? I think Swedes have followed the gov recommendations to a tee.
Protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it (i.e. Work)
A healthy economy is key.
Of course there was, Covid 19 was a completely unknown disease, we did’nt know for example just how contagious it was at the start, that it would cause multiple organ failure etc
There is an interesting and informative Gresham lecture by Chris Whitty given on 30th April 2020, which is now out of date to some extent, due to “new evidence” as he predicted would happen in the lecture.
Restrictions were the experiment, do nothing is absolutely the standard.
You are right that “Protocols” should be adjusted with new evidence. The evidence so far is that a large number of our restrictions are utterly pointless and often counter productive.
But it HAS been controlled !
Far fewer people in the UK have died than would have died if we had taken the Bolsonaro route.
I don’t think the idea that lockdowns have succeeded is provable. In fact, states in the US that did not lockdown have shown overall slighlty lower death rates (as far as I am aware). There is also the very real cost in lives of locking down to set against any supposed benefit.
Even if they worked the case for a ‘smart lockdown’ remains overwhelming.
I think this will be disproved once we look into figures post pandemic.
UK death rates are based on people dying with covid19 within 28 days of diagnosis. There are many other methods used in other countries, some excluding deaths at home for example.
Plus we have in no way controlled the loss of life from disease that has gone untreated during the successive lockdowns.
Not sure what you’re basing that on.
It still leaves you with enormous collateral harm to human health that will surpass the damage of the virus (but will be blamed on the virus rather than the response).
Ultimately, it was always ethically wrong. You can’t justify doing absolutely anything in order to stop a virus.
You do realise that Brazil’s deaths from Covid % of population is still lower than the UKs?
Why not go the full Peru, have the earliest, hardest lockdown? That really didn’t work.
It’s hard for people to accept that the UK government has got it really badly wrong on everything except the vaccine rollout.
Our lockdowns have been exceptionally harsh and ineffective by international standards, given our relatively wealth and sacrifices the outcome has been exceptionally bad.
Vulnerable people can and should shield themselves. People who are sick should take precautions against infecting others. But unfocussed suppression measures amongst those who will, at worst, be inconvenienced is not just unwarranted, but there is even evidence that it is counterproductive to the supposed aim of protecting the vulnerable.
In any epidemic, the period of greatest risk is during the epidemic phase. Eventually, a highly infectious pathogen will reach endemic equilibrium, at which point management for the vulnerable becomes much easier. Unfortunately, the unfocussed suppression attempt merely extends the dangerous epidemic phase. It is the exact opposite of good policy which should aim at the rapid safe spread of the virus amongst the non-vulnerable.
Arguably, our general spread suppression policy has caused more Covid deaths than would otherwise have been the case. For example, Southern California (under draconian lockdown) has done a lot worse than open Florida which has a comparable climate. And that is despite Florida having a demographic profile much more skewed towards the aged than California.
The policy advocated by the Great Barrington Declaration was always much more rational than what we pursued. Now we have reasonably effective vaccines that work with vulnerable groups, the argument for abandoning the counterproductive general suppression strategy is even stronger.
Bottom line: you have fallen for a flawed (but superficially plausible) argument that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
I sincerely believe that a more focused approach would have saved lives. We knew from day 1 that old fat frail males were most vulnerable (sorry in order should be frail, old, obese, male). Massive state assistence should have been focused here.
Instead of encouraging the obvious at risk groups to stay at home and put in massive state support – we locked down 5 year olds and scared healthy 20 year olds to death. Meanwhile half the eldery population seemed to carry on as before.
Honestly it would be like encouraging 80 year olds to stay at home because there was a peadophile on the loose – whilst letting young children out and about.
How is it possible to still not understand after 12 months that for the vast majority of the public the virus is not a threat? The guidence should take this into account. That study after study shows that most people reduced contact voluntarily when cases were high, those that didn’t generally ignore the law anyway. In all 3 lockdowns cases had peaked or were falling prior to lockdown, it’s there for anyone to see. In my experience many lockdown advocates are the worst offenders anyway, viirtue signallers at best.
How is it possible to not understand the evil & idiocy of a policy that locks up children whilst the vulnerable continue going out and about?
How is it possible to not see that the UK policy has failed absolutely, miserably, we have lockdowns and restrictions that have failed outright to achieve their aims – when we’re compared to far less restrtictive regimes it’s embarrassing and tragic.
I’m sorry that you think months of near house arrest are a mere ‘inconvenience’, it’s millions of people’s lives, being wrecked.
And if you don’t understand the the issues of the government breaking all convention and riding roughshot over centuries of accrued civil liberties then I weep for you. Using fear and threats to treat the population as children is not the actions of great country.
The old saying “People who trade their liberty for safety deserve neither’ – as shown time and time again the truth is “People who trade their liberty for safety get neither”
Deaths v civil liberties. Why fight wars to protect civil liberties? Why allow any movement of people – restricting movement would definitely reduce deaths. Deaths v money. Why not devote the entire budget to medical care – this would reduce deaths?
The problem is that there is always a balance to be struck. An approach of lives at any cost has never been practically achievable, for obvious reasons. Except for now. Now suddenly the conversation has shifted to that of lives at any cost. And if you disagree you’re essentially viewed as selfish and de-platformed.
All one ought to expect is a proportionate, balanced approach that is based on actual statistics that are fully interrogated and where there is an underlying commitment to the protection of individual agency and hard-won civil liberties.
I agree there is always a balance to be struck but there was not the time for the ideal “balanced” approach, every country in the world has had to deal with it as best they could, some have been luckier than others.
I don’t think lockdown sceptics are “selfish”in particular, I think most of us are, but I do think they are mistaken.
Civil liberties have to be constrained at times of crisis,eg, during wartime and pandemics. Maybe I am wrong, but I think we will get our civil liberties back as soon as possible, it is in the interest of the country’s economy and therefore in the government’s interest to arrange it.
If you think our civil liberties will be retuned to us, I have some fake diaries by a well known dictator that you might like to buy from me. (I am currently reading a collection of Hugh Trever-Roper’s letters, so decided to dispense with the customary reference to London Bridge).
You’ve lost me a bit there, but anyway I’m busy with Medieval Lowestoft by David Butcher, which is fascinating, and an excellent piece of historical research, I recommend it to Lord Sumption, it might keep him safely occupied for a little while.
David Slade said it better than I could – there is not a direct equivalence between questioning the methods and death rates.
What we have seen is the perverse reaction of a government paralysed by needing to control the here and now of opinion polls and statistics. The short term need to “do something” in the face of a pandemic trumped any longer term nuanced or effective decision making.
Maybe.
Common sense. Please find a way to get a platform for him on main stream media. Didn’t go far enough. Our government are are war criminals. Each and every one of them should be investigated to see if they or their buddies have benefited financially. Furthermore, they should be made to pay for wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money on a PCR test that is not fit for purpose and vaccines that are untested. They should come face to face with the parents who have lost their teenagers through suicide and made to explain why they continued to take advice from people and groups like sage who time and time again were proved to be WILDLY inaccurate. To apologise for lying to us and taking away our freedom of speech and freedom over our bodies. They should have their freedoms removed from them for all their corruption and coercion.
…latter-day “Nuremberg Trials” will be held at some point. Most of the perpetrators of all this will have flown to their bolt-holes by then, so we will also need some latter-day “Simon Wiesenthal”s to flush them out and bring them to justice.
I may take up knitting to occupy my time in between sentences being carried out.
Absolutely and if they don’t get their comeuppance then it will not only mean they got away with it but that the future will still be a boot stamping on our face.
Government will almost always take the decision that gives them the greatest plausible deniability and least risk.
I don’t think Boris or any other lockdown “leaders” thought anything other than:
“If I lockdown and there are few deaths then I look good because I locked down; if I lockdown and there are many deaths then I did what I could (and everyone else also locked down); if I am brave and don’t lockdown and there are few deaths then I look great; but if I am brave and don’t lockdown and there are many deaths then I will be labelled a butcher. Lockdown is a complete political-risk-mitigation decision, I’ll take it.”
I think BJ also wanted:
1 His Churchill moment
2 To be able to blame some of the inevitable short term Brexit problems on something else.
Otherwise that must be basically right. No one willing to be brave and do different to what others were doing even though they all knew, from their existing pandemic plans, that what they were about to do was not only unnecessary but would actually make things worse. They could always argue that it would have been even worse if they hadn’t; and that is what they are doing even though there is plenty of evidence that lockdowns have, if anything, only made Covid worse (eg see https://thecritic.co.uk/mutant-variations-and-the-danger-of-lockdowns/ ) let alone the collateral damage.
It’s funny you mention point 2. A good friend of mine is on a lobbying group, attended last week by Grant Shapps, who apparently said that the government isn’t exactly displeased that COVID economic chaos is masking Brexit economic chaos.
Shapps is an odious little shít, but I don’t doubt that on that point he is entirely correct.
The fact that govt ARE of that mind tells us all how they are manipulating the situation.
‘Manna from heaven’ springs to mind.
Not a bad assessment of whoever would have been PM, and the same as was faced by every leader around the world.
What would your decision have been? WITHOUT the benefit of hindsight.
I would not have panicked.
Extraordinary measures require extraordinary justification – especially when they deviate from a long-standing pandemic plan endorsed by the WHO.
Not only was justification weak (an absurd model from Fergusson with his very poor track record over decades), but the scientific evidence against unfocussed lockdowns was already formidable.
We already knew the vulnerability profile in January. We had all the data we needed for a worst case scenario in the Diamond Princess cruise ship by February. We had the public analysis by Prof. Michael Levitt.
Even if you went along with the panicked “2 weeks to flatten the curve” first lockdown, the data showed no discernible effect on hospitalisations attributable to the lockdown (which had very high compliance). That should have been the end of lockdowns from May onwards. Had we opened up in May, the damage caused by lockdown would have been minimal.
The current policy is, at best, rear-covering theatre. But like the similar rear-covering Dreyfus Affair, the failure to admit error and change course will prove much more politically damaging than an early admission of error would have been.
….and the longer it goes on the harder it will be to ‘u-turn’ because they will then have to explain away the ‘mistakes’ in admitting the error.
That (unt Ferguson is actually mostly to blame. And of course S.A.G.E. (you see what they did there?), Bozo Johnson and Matt W@nksock for following his ‘advice’.
Incidentally, Ferguson has no medical training or qualifications whatsoever. He’s a ‘mathematician’ who models from biomedical data. Nothing else. Mike Yeadon hesitated to even call him that!
It’s a tricky one.
I am not excusing the politicians, but given the cards they have I do understand why they chose to do what they did.
It would have taken a politician of extreme backbone to go against the lockdown, and we have some pretty supine invertebrate jellyfish in command. And even now with 12 months’ hindsight we’re not out of the woods so I do not even think we can 100% say either way.
I would like us to have gone the Swedish way – as we appeared to be doing initially. Yet as I say I am not 100% convinced that is the right way.
This wouldn’t have happened under Maggie T !
Brexit would have been done&dusted within 6 months of a referendum (which would have been held much, much sooner).
And the UK would have broken ranks with the rest of the world and allied with Sweden’s stance in regard to this pLandemic.
Maggie was an Oxford educated scientist! ie The best of the best.
Well it was back in the day when she was educated. More recently…..
In a nutshell I would have followed the approach proposed by Dr Johan Giesecke. An approach proposed in circa March 2020 and largely followed by Sweden. Later, I would have followed the Great Barrington approach.
An intrusion on freedoms should be an absolute last resort.
Would have been a tough political decision, especially if I cared more about my political career than anything else.
It is all about political optics for sure.
Agreed
Its possible not to understand if you only have yourself as reference, an do not realise that other peopes’ choices affect you. Apparently many commenters on here are like that.
depressing isn’t it ?
Again – this is not a valid argument because it could just as easily be made by your opponents against you. Do you not understand how your support for domestic vaccine passports risk creating a two tier society? Do you not understand how ceasing economic activity in the West produces economic deprivation plunging hundreds of millions across the world (men, women and children) into extreme poverty?
Where does the altruistic imperative actually lie with those who unquestioningly support the restrictions (and obligingly don the rainbow coloured masks for their Twitter handle)?, or is it those who put their own fear and anxiety about the virus aside and try and see the greater harms being inflicted on their fellow man?
The number of libertarian loons posting comments here, is dispiriting.
Struggling to control your progressive instinct to ‘cancel’, Tony?
Resist , with all your might…
Quite a disparity of views posted – you make quite a broad and strong statement, have you read the comments?- perhaps you have strayed unbeknownst onto a site that suggests a little more developed response
I personally have found it terrifying how expressing robust views on civil liberties that were seen as mainstream and entirely in keeping with the classic liberal tradition up until about five minutes ago are now seen as dangerously ‘libertarian’ and quite possibly mad. As if being disturbed by the power given to people like Neil Ferguson or seeing politicians like Sturgeon musing on whether we’d be allowed to see people for Christmas is somehow on par with abolishing government and taxation.
Oh please Nicola can I see my grandchildren for Christmas? I promise to be a good boy.