April 2, 2020 - 3:41pm
Peter Hitchens talks to Freddie Sayers about the government’s liberty-eroding Covid measures on Day 10 of Lockdown TV. Watch above…
Peter Hitchens on Coronavirus
Peter Hitchens talks to Freddie Sayers about the government’s liberty-eroding Covid measures on Day 10 of Lockdown TV. Watch above…
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAlways talks sense to me and so often misunderstood and shouted down. Just wish people would actually listen and read his writings on many subjects before just saying cliche responses to him
Yes, I sense that Hitchens is largely correct. He usually is.
Peter wants to have hard evidence. I’d like that too. But I have come to realise that it doesn’t actually matter. It makes no difference because people won’t listen. Very few people are interested in facts. Most people are driven by fear and emotion. And the drivers of fear and emotion are narratives ….. stories that seem plausible. Someone once said facts that tell something unbelievable won’t be believed. But a plausible story is a wholly different matter.
I was happy enough with the herd immunity approach. It made sense from the knowledge we have of viruses in general.
I even went along with a short lockdown after it became apparent that the NHS had done sod all about preparing for a pandemic.
I thought that Johnson had little choice politically after most of the world locked down. He’d have been slaughtered as soon as a young person with no-known underlying conditions died. And lets face it the MSM has gone to town over every death under 40. You’d think that never, ever happened.
Eventually people will realise that the cost of a lockdown will outweigh all the other costs: economic, freedoms and so on. We might, however, lose a lot on the way to that.
I’m definitely not clapping. The NHS needs total reform and all of this clapping will just mean no politician will even try.
Thank God. I have been trying to find someone who thinks the things i do for so long. There is no way I am clapping the NHS. I have had too much abuse from NHS staff (the worst from so called ‘specialists) and they have left me to rot. The are no way a health service. They are a ‘keep as many people alive for longer sicker to make the statistics look good service’. I am sick to death of the ‘more money for the NHS’ mantra. It is a bottomless pit. You pour more money in and they waste it and throw it away. No one every mentions the incompetant, useless, corrupt management. THey hide behind the excuse of under funding. And now we all have to give up our liberties for the sake of an institution which has been broken for a long time. The french have a much better health system. They contribute twenty percent. We should look to what works. There’s no point in having a service which is free at the point of entry if it isn’t really a service. It’s like saying, here have this English sellotape, it doesn’t stick at all but it’s free. If you buy the French stuff which is actually sticky, you’ll have to pay 20p. But all we ever do is pretend we are in the same place we were in the 1940s with smiling white angels by bedsides.
Totally agree Cally . The NHS is like some sacred cow. Much of the billions poured into it is scandalously wasted. We should look to other systems to see how it could be improved. We should not be partisan over this. Use whatever system works .
Excellent as usual, Peter. Two things though, you should talk about the Constitutional protections we have against the removal of our freedom, I noticed you did that bit talking to Brendan o Neil. Also you should talk about the nation of atheists and the fact that barely anybody believes in God anymore, and therefore great numbers of people are terrified of death.
Nonsense. I would argue that it is religious believers that have always been terrified of death, not Atheists. After all, it is theists that have the need of a mythology of a blissful and eternal life to sustain them, not atheists.
Agree with you Alison.
A cogent, sobering and objective argument.
Bring on more of this kind of debate.
Well done UnHerd for facilitating.
For me the point made about the difference between the Spanish Flu and the present Covid virus being that the former killed any hitherto healthy people but this virus is survivable with only mild symptoms unless one has a serious underlying weakness and ,usually,being elderly is paramount because the government seems to have issued their guidance/decree based on the advice that we would be subject to the Spanish Flu disaster conditions..When they should instead have concentrated all their efforts in trying to protect those at serious risk and left the rest of the population to get on with life as normal . .In particular the closure of schools was egregious.
I too am highly sceptical about the entire lockdown and angry about the effect this will have, for decades, on the economy. My question is based on the sort of calculations made by NICE when it evaluates whether a particular drugs is worth spending on a particular type of patient. Down the years we have heard umpteen cases of, say, a mother whose child has a condition that requires very expensive drug treatment, and NICE calculates that the benefit does not outweigh the cost and refuses to provide it on the NHS. So, how can the benefit of this lockdown and decades spent recovering from the economic damage be justified by the relatively small number of deaths, especially when we know that the vast majority of deaths are of people who are likely to die relatively imminently anyway.
In the Netherlands, with intensive care beds almost over-capacity they are already considering saying: “Mr X, you are very unlikely to be able to survive the intensive care treatment that would be required in hospital; stay at home, where you can still be with your family, and die there.” Brutal maybe. But is that the correct policy option? No change to anything in civil life apart from recommending social distancing; if there is an upsurge of cases seeking medical treatment, we treat those with the best chance of survival within current capacity limits, as we always have done before. Net cost: zero.
Wonderfully logical and precise arguments until it is you or your child on the gurney being wheeled into the corridor to die alone. The problem with your argument is that you are able to put a seemingly low abstract value on the person dying. Would your argument still be valid if it were Einstein on the gurney? Or perhaps you? Ask not for whom the bell tolls sir.
David Brown do you realise that the gvt have now brought in laws which mean that doctors can decide who is worthy of being saved on basis of status in society. So if you are pro this ridiculous totalitarian state we have become, i hope you are a one of the ‘acceptables’ in society. If you’re not you will be chucked out with the garbage like the rest of us. Disabled people are now terrified because of these draconian laws. You claim to be on the side of humanity. Think carefully about wha that means
I totally agree with Peter Hitchens I cannot understand why the hell we are destroying the fragile economy on unproven statements from government. i also feel the oppisition just rolled over and dont clap the NHS fund properly instead – Boris and co have gone rogue!
My wfe and I (both over 70) are coming round to this sort of conclusion, especially as it becomes clear there is no practical exit strategy. Does anyone believe we could make an on-off lockdown work, as the policymakers appear to be planning ? Htchens is also abs correct re the NHS. If I say the NHS is an appalling outfit, people accuse me of failing to appreciate the work done by doctors, nurses, paramedics etc. The truth is the complete opposite. I hat the NHS because I see at first hand how hard they work and then compare that with how poor the results on any international comparison (except for the USA). No wonder ! In the NHS, a large proportion of staff time, effort and energy is spent on making the whole cumbersome bureaucratic system work. The NHS is the burden its employees have to bear while treating us. It used to be in the habit of boasting of being the biggest employer after the Red Army – as if that were some knd of accolade. I suspect that veterans of the Red Army would emit a hollow laugh.
Totally agree with you and Mr Hitchens. The NHS gobbles up billions but so much of it is wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy. As so often happens, too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Mr Hitchens is right about the Government response too. Never thought I would see such staggering incompetence in my lifetime. I am 70.
I mean – If only Peter Hitchens had listened more and talked less it would have been so much better.
Not necessarily. He was there to talk and give his opinion.
I agree with Peter. He talks alot of sense. And brave for speaking out. THe mere fact that I have to say that shows how freedom of speech has been destroyed already in this country. People are afraid to say what they think because of the thought police. I would go further in saying that it is very obvious that this lockdown has little to do with the virus anyway. Laws are being brought in which are supposed to be temporary, but they will remain on the statute books and become permanent. They will get away with this at first by continually making them ‘temporary’. This is the beginning of the end of any liberal democracy. We’ve never really been a democracy anyway, we are a monarchy and you can’t be both. Our democracy has always been a lie, and now our liberty has gone. We are turning very quickly into a totalitarian regime. People are spying and shopping their neighbours in for the most pathetic things. As Nietschze so rightly said. ‘The sheep will police the sheep’. Government knows that. They just have to set the ball rolling. Then sit back and watch the busybodies do the rest.
Sadly what you say is true. I can’t believe how quickly this country has simply rolled over and gone along with being told what to do. It must make people feel safe. But authority is often wrong. It does no harm to protest. Indeed we must.
Freddie, May we assume that this video ‘exchange’ was intended to be a discussion? Or an interview even?
I counted somewhere around 20 attempts by you to inject more questions or challenges into Peter’s promotion of his own non-expert view and fulminating denunciation of the UK (and other) governments’ treatment of COVID-19 as a pandemic most likely posing such extraordinary risk to health and life as to justify mass isolation measures. Almost all your attempts were unsuccessful Whereas every time Peter wished to interrupt you, you gracefully gave way.
The result was, unsurprisingly, a video largely comprised of Peter’s own views (obstinately held as always) and his personal rationalization of them.
I hope this gives contributing unherd.com journalists pause for reflection on how such interactions may be better managed. For instance, should more preparation have been made to manage / balance both Peter’s steamroller style and anticipate key foundations of his rationale particular to this subject? Should a no-nonsense expert epidemiologist been involved? Ought the discussion to have been moderated? And so forth.
It might be argued that even Paxman would have trouble conducting a fairly shared to and fro with Peter Hitchen. Nevertheless, I’m sure the video chat format would benefit from some further thought. The unherd site seems a good concept and I hope it flourishes.
I suppose what you say is right. But I still listen to Mr Hitchens for brave common sense more than anyone else. Let’s agree to differ.
I fully agree with Peter Hitchens. And what an irritating young interviewer – reminded me of Cathy Newman
Weird… I see “approved” comments published here long after I’d submitted one. My comment merely made critical/constructive observations around how the video discussion unfortunately seemed to have become an extended opportunity for Peter Hitchens to justify his personal views on the COVID-19 pandemic and continue his denunciation of the majority view among physicians.
The comment was not disrespectful and didn’t breech unherd’s comprehensive participation conditions in it’s community guidelines. I’m always loathe to assume things and don’t want to assume that it has been unfairly censored because unherd is somehow precious about constructive criticism…
But has it? :-/
Before commenting on this matter per se, I think it’s worth reflecting on what it is people in general are trying to achieve by this debate.
That is, personally my main interest is ending the lockdown, but obviously not everyone is agreed that is the thing to do.
So I think the debate is mainly about whether the lockdown is justified or not, but of course many other issues have been thrown up by this whole saga, such as the credibility of scientists, the behaviour of government, police and the media, and indeed the behaviour of the NHS.
I note Jennie Jones below expresses a need for major reform of the NHS, and I agree about that too (and most everything else she wrote) but I don’t think that is the number one priority at present.
I see the main issue as about accountable, competent and representative government.
Because that is really at the basis of this disaster, because even if we sooner or later get out of this disaster in mostly one piece, this is really only one of a long sequence of disasters that have already happened in the last several decades, and will no doubt be succeeded by possible even worse ones, if we don’t somehow get that accountable, competent and representative government that surely we should have in a democracy, and current events suggest we really need.
And to have accountable and representative government, we need to have an electoral system that produces that, which this one clearly doesn’t.
The truth is that we don’t have a genuine choice, as electoral candidate lists are generally out of the public’s hands, and so we only in fact get to choose from a list of candidates none of whom we ever approved or chose to go on that list.
Whereas for example if any member of the public was allowed to stand for parliament, and presented themselves on say a 5 minute YouTube video, the public could choose who they wanted, on that person’s own merits.
Likewise, the 3 party system dictates that we vote for parties mainly, not for the actual local candidates at all, who we quite often don’t even know.
But the fact of the matter is, one of those candidates will become party leader and possible prime minister, so the 3 party system has to go as well, which is basically a “closed shop” under FPTP, and only full PR will allow all our votes to count, and to vote for somebody who approximately represents us.
For at present a party can have several million votes and not even get one MP at Westminster.
So that cannot possibly be fair, when most of the public don’t have anybody whom, they feel much represents them to vote for, so it can’t be real democracy.
Of course, the main parties know this very well, so are absolutely determined to stop full PR, as they know their “private members club only” domination of politics and government would be over.
So that is not really opinion, it is just a logical truth – i.e. if you can’t vote for someone who represents you, and the current system won’t allow you to select candidates who represent you, then you can’t have representative government.
Sadly, too many people don’t think about this, so instead of demanding change of the electoral system, they just grumble about the politicians we have, and vote another not terribly different bunch in next time, who do the same or worse than the last lot.
So the sad truth is that this will continue until enough people suffer enough to decide they want to do something about it, and likely even this current mess is not much going to motivate them to do that, unless it has pretty horrific consequences for a lot of people.
When most of the people are comfortable, busy enjoying their pleasures, they won’t lift a finger to change the system, so I’m afraid my feeling is if you think this is bad, just wait for the next disaster (unless the aftershock of this is as bad as people like Peter Hitchens think it may be), as it will be far worse.
Because clearly, our government is not very wise or sensible or competent, and so when you have not very able captains at the helm of the ship, then you do of course end up on the rocks sooner or later, or indeed the ship goes down and everybody drowns, with little or no chance even of escape, you know, somewhat like the Titanic.
I would however like to finish by saying why I think this lockdown is happening, and it doesn’t seem like those in power, are willing to listen to any sense, don’t seem to be aware of all the potential disasters they are courting by tampering with the fundamentals of our personal, social and economic lives, in this really very unprecedented and in my view very dangerous way.
And I think it is being driven mainly by two factors, the first, far more powerful than the second.
Firstly, we have got this unprecedented culture of parents using their parents for the care of their children, i.e. the grandparents are looking after the children while the parents work.
An enormous number of families are now depending on such grandparents for childcare, while the parents go to work.
So as from the outset it was made clear that (like seasonal flu) it was mainly the older generation at most risk, I suspect this “sound bite” has taken root in millions of minds. And as these families are in great fear that if these grandparents die, they might no longer be able to work, and might lose their careers, and also salaries, they will so to speak “do anything” or “agree to anything” that they think might stop that catastrophe.
Then there are also a very large group of carers, I think about 5 million or more when I last checked, whom though caring is of course possibly a very tough job, often 24/7 and 365 days a year, also have a great vested interest in keeping the old people they are caring for alive. As it provides them security and indeed a role, in these difficult economic times, in which jobs are hard to find, and the benefit regime is very repressive.
So those two factors would explain why a lot of people support these measures who never otherwise would.
They aren’t terribly interested in theories that this virus may not be as bad as they’ve been told, however well argued those are, because it is a case of “first impressions last” and their first impression and the idea fixed in their heads is “grandma/grandad” or whoever is going to die of this “killer virus” if we don’t do absolutely whatever it takes to stop this thing, regardless of any other factor or how repressive it is on everybody else’s lives.
So likely even our top government officials have somebody in the family at risk, many MPs and journalists also depending on elderly parents for childcare for example.
So whenever a decision maker, e.g. Boris Johnson maybe even, says “Look, this is too dangerous, we could run the whole nation into the ground…” somebody around him says “Yeah but…what if granny/grandad dies (or even ourselves or our children) of this thing…our life as we’ve known it won’t work any more, may be over…”
Not seeing the bigger picture, that if the economy goes to rack and ruin then everybody’s life as they knew it may be over.
So it’s up to government to see “the big picture” – they can’t as the saying goes “please all of the people all of the time” – they have to do trade-offs – people die every year and every day in fact, because of government decisions which protect some people while harming others.
It’s not possible to take care of everybody to the maximum possible extent even if we had a bottomless pit of money, the cost of operations for example being so high.
So the fact is, unless there was evidence this virus was in a similar league to 1918 Spanish flu, or something far worse, like the bubonic plague, then as government officials have already downgraded the likely death toll massively from about 1/2 million to 20,000, surely sound decision making cannot possibly justify this to continue, just based on hypochondriac type fears, and the repression of the lives of the many for the possible benefit of the few.
Because otherwise, surely if this is no worse or not significantly worse than seasonal flu – which the above figures from the government itself now suggest to be the case – then if we are going to allow this to continue, then we are going to have the same call from the same people desperate that granny/granddad must not die of the flu, every year, and I don’t think even the most unrealistic lockdown fan, believes that would be acceptable to anybody or safe for our economic security and so on.
Piers Morgan would check my grammar Peter Hitchens would adjust my opinion thank you Peter
Hitchens emerges as the forbearing curmudgeon that he seemingly has to be to fend off ” gotcha Gonzo” interrogators like Sayers.
Expected far more, Sayers clearly knew little about any of this, just singing the New Company Song.
You had half an hour to test what he’s already said, you should have known as much as he did; and he deserved some critical friend support for his position. He’s right. And his quoting Sumption shows that he’s not alone.
Heard much about this site, please improve.
There is a utilitarian argument that PH conveys that we have lost a sense of proportion and who could not feel that PHs bravely contributes to an important debate even if one doesn’t agree.
The problem I have with the viewpoint is a practical one – how in reality would we manage the increased influx of patients, more clinical staff absence, ambulance crews never getting to a home and more of the public personally, without professional help, having to manage end of life situations with loved ones in serious respiratory distress? Who in this stream of comments knows what that is really like to be trying to get help for a breathless loved one and not being able to access it? Can you imagine what that is like? Can you imagine the fear, the panic when you know help is not coming because it has been overwhelmed? And then multiple it by thousands. This would be the consequence of easing the lock down right now. It’s very different than a line on a graph. It may be seen as melodramatic but unfortunately it is not. It is the reality of what you’d be supporting. Spend a few minutes in a hospital right now creaking under the load, and then ponder the issue again.
Now maybe 100 years ago dealing we were more ‘normalised’ to such tragedy and death before our own eyes. But we aren’t those people anymore and I’m glad of that.
As regards whether the NHS is force for good or a ‘national illusion of inefficiency’ – it’s not really the debate for now. All health services are creaking. Nobody has got out of this yet. Let’s save the reckoning for when we all have more comparable facts.
Peter was talking perfect sense ..and is nearer the truth than anything this Government is dishing out to the nation at the moment..
If only Peter Hitchens had listened
You’ve already said this twice. We get your message.
If only Peter Hitchens had listed more and talked less it would have been so much better
Do you seriously believe he would have this point of view if it were himself gasping for air and life on the gurney? Would you still agree with him if it were your child or grandchild looking at you in utter terror as they fought for every breath instinctively knowing they were losing the fight for life? Take a serious moment to ponder it. Shame on every one of you, including the arrogantly callous sociopath Hitchens. Every life is worth a thousand economies. It is so so easy to have abstract opinions in the comfort of your living rooms. It appears empathy, that highest level of knowledge (in that it requires the ability to put yourself into another’s situation) is sorely lacking in many of you.
Calm down old chap. You are twisting what Mr Hitchens says. He did not say lives are worth less than the economy. You are being melodramatic. But the NHS will suffer if and when our economy tanks and we can no longer afford it (the NHS).
As a 70 year old, I’m content to be locked down for a long as it takes to discover four things: the trend of deaths (and therefore the seriousness compared with other causes), whether the NHS has been overwhelmed or not, a test to find out who has had it, and therefore the true statistics. At that point there needs to be a review of lockdown, which may or may not mean a relaxation. In the meantime, I prefer people to be ordered not to do something that could infect me rather than have it left to their judgement.
I too am 70 but disagree with you. You should not place so much trust in governments. It is totally out of order for them to try and order us about. Provided no-one coughs or sneezes on me, and vice versa, then I am content. I am not content to be confined to barracks, even though, like you, I am used to it. What I resent is that the government thinks it has the power to stop me, even though they are well-meaning. Authorities do not always know best. Let’s agree to differ, my friend.