Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Anguilla
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bonaire
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
British Indian Ocean Ter
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Canary Islands
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Cocos Island
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cote D Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Curacao
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Ter
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Hawaii
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea North
Korea South
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Midway Islands
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nambia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherland Antilles
Netherlands (Holland, Europe)
Nevis
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau Island
Palestine
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn Island
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Republic of Montenegro
Reunion
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saipan
Samoa
Samoa American
San Marino
Sao Tome & Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
St Barthelemy
St Eustatius
St Helena
St Kitts-Nevis
St Lucia
St Maarten
St Pierre & Miquelon
St Vincent & Grenadines
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tahiti
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks & Caicos Is
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City State
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands (Brit)
Virgin Islands (USA)
Wake Island
Wallis & Futana Is
Yemen
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe
2nd MAY 2020 critique
LORD SUMPTION: The lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history. 02
Locking up the elderly until coronavirus is defeated is a cruel mockery of basic human values: Former Supreme Court judge LORD SUMPTION gives a withering critique of the Government's lockdown 03
By LORD SUMPTION 04
PUBLISHED: 22:00 BST, 2 May 2020 | UPDATED: 23:13 BST, 2 May 2020 05
COVID-19 is not the greatest crisis in our history. It is not even the greatest public health crisis in our history. But the lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history. 06
It is normal at this point to add 'in peacetime'. But we can forget that. Even in wartime, we never confined the entire population to their homes, 24/7, if they did not have some excuse acceptable to a Minister. 07
States have always tried to confine people known to be carrying dangerous infections. But we live in a new world in which, if we are ill, the State will try to cure us. 08
From this, it is said to follow that the State can take control of our lives against our will even if we are healthy, lest we fall ill and need its services too much. 09
Suddenly, it is our duty to save the NHS, not the other way round. 10
It is now pointless to object to the imposition of the lockdown in the first place. It has happened. The question is how we get out of it. 11
LORD SUMPTION: The lockdown is without doubt the greatest interference with personal liberty in our history. 12
It is a pity that the Government did not ask itself that question when, in the blind panic following the delivery of Imperial College London's Professor Neil Ferguson's statistical projections, it legislated the lockdown on the hoof in a late-night press conference. 13
They now find themselves trapped by their own decisions. 14
Ministers have formulated five tests to be satisfied before the lockdown is lifted. What is wrong with these tests is that they are all about health and only about health. 15
The Government has formulated them in their own interest. They think that this will allow them to avoid criticism by sheltering behind the scientists. But that is just an evasion of political responsibility. 16
Of course it is understandable that politicians should want to shelter themselves from criticism. But there is no reason why the rest of us should help them do it. 17
Ending the lockdown is a political decision, not a scientific one. 18
It boils down to a single question. Is it worth it? That depends only partly on the science. There are also moral judgments, constitutional values and economic consequences involved. 19
But since the Government likes its tests to come in fives, here is a five-part test which tries to address the real issues. 20
What kind of relationship do we want with the State? 21
First, the medical issue. I am not going to argue about Professor Ferguson's projections. They have caused some discomfort among reputable professionals. They are based on some rather arbitrary assumptions. 22
And they leave out of the account important considerations, such as the adverse health consequences of the lockdown itself or the number of people who would have died anyway from underlying clinical conditions even without Covid-19, maybe a few months later. 23
But let us take it as a given, since it is probably true, that the lockdown will save a significant number of lives, albeit fewer than Professor Ferguson projects. 24
Second, we need to ask how many deaths we are prepared to accept in order to preserve other things that we value. However valuable 'saving lives' may be, it is not the only valuable thing. 25
Some comparison is therefore unavoidable between the lives we gain and the other things we lose by a lockdown. 26
To say that life is priceless and nothing else counts is just empty rhetoric. People say it because it is emotionally comfortable and avoids awkward dilemmas. But they don't actually believe it. 27
We went to war in 1939 because lives were worth losing for liberty. We allow cars on the roads because lives are worth losing for convenience. We travel by air although pollution kills. We tut-tut about it, but we willingly do it. 28
Third question. What sort of life do we think we are protecting? There is more to life than the avoidance of death. Life is a drink with friends. Life is a crowded football match or a live concert. Life is a family celebration with children and grandchildren. 29
Life is companionship, an arm around one's back, laughter or tears shared at less than two metres. 30
These things are not just optional extras. They are life itself. They are fundamental to our humanity, to our existence as social beings. Of course death is permanent, whereas joy may be temporarily suspended. But the force of that point depends on how temporary it really is. 31
Viruses don't just go away. This one will never disappear unless and until there is enough exposure to it to produce collective immunity or an effective vaccine appears. 32
Talk of compulsorily 'shielding' (in plain English locking up) the old and vulnerable until one of those things happens is a cruel mockery of basic human values. 33
Fourth, there is the money question. People decry attempts to measure the mortality of Covid-19 against the economic cost of reducing it. But this too is rhetoric, and hypocritical rhetoric at that. 34
Ending the lockdown is a political decision, not a scientific one. 35
Money is not just for plutocrats. You and I and the editor of The Guardian and the driver of the No 9 bus and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the cashier at the supermarket all value and depend on money. 36
Not just in the sense that it pays our wages or pensions. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are going under. Millions are moving from jobs to universal credit. A thriving economy, of the kind that we are now throwing away, is the source of our security and the foundation of our children's future. 37
We would do well not to sneer at it. Poverty kills too. And when it does not kill, it maims, mentally, physically and socially. 38
Last but not least, we have to ask ourselves what are the limits to the things that the State can legitimately do to people against their will in a liberal democracy. 39
To say that there are no limits is the stuff of tyrants. Every despot who ever lived thought that he was coercing his subjects for their own good or that of society at large. 40
One of the more impressive observations of the Swedish epidemiologist Professor Johann Giesecke, in the interview in which he justified Sweden's refusal to lock its people down, was not about epidemiology at all. 41
His point was that there are some things that may work and that a totalitarian state like China can do. But a country like Sweden with its long liberal tradition cannot do them unless it wants to become like China. 42
We, too, have to ask ourselves what kind of relationship we want with the State. Do we really want to be the kind of society where basic freedoms are conditional on the decisions of politicians in thrall to scientists and statisticians? Where human beings are just tools of public policy? 43
A society in which the Government can confine most of the population without controversy is not one in which civilised people would want to live, regardless of their answers to these questions. Is it worth it? 44
My own answer is no. Guidance is fine. Voluntary self-isolation is fine, and strongly advisable for the more vulnerable. Most of them will do it by choice. But coercion is not fine. There is no moral or principled justification for it. 45
Not everyone will agree, which is fair enough. These are difficult value judgments, on which one would not expect general agreement. 46
The fundamental point is that these questions need to be confronted and publicly discussed by politicians without the kind of emotive evasions, propagandist slogans and generalised hype that have characterised their contribution so far. 47
start here 01
RSM In Conversation Live with Lord Jonathan Sumption - YouTube
link to the article
counter view The Law Society Gazette Jonathan Compton
covid-19
former senior judge - lord justice
Lord Sumption BBC interview lockdown MAY20
the BBC interview
rationale for lockdown is incoherent
mark of statesman prepared to stand up for national interest
no real reason to continue the lockdown other than to space criticism
more virulent than actually is
covid 19 will be with us long-term that is the likely outcome
NHS has more than doubled its intensive care capacity
and not to run away for public opinion
evidence is NOT that a terrible toll has been taken
consistent with science and does not just go away
need to follow the logic of it
more than 9 tenths show there were multiple causes
consistent with statistical analysis
attacks people with pre existing vulnerabilities
immunity or vaccine
you don't have to take the risk of infecting other people -4.06
would have died not much later in any case
lockdown should become entirely voluntary -4.23
it's up to us to decide what risks to take with our own bodies
rest of us can get on with our lives
world will never be risk free
you can voluntarity self isolate
since 1918 this one is right at the bottom (Cabinet info)
would go to a crowded pub with no hesitation
we will have to live with covid-19 for a long time
will people make sensible decisions? -1.00
I would take the risk
that is part of life
we are entitled to take risks with our own lives -2.05
cannot imprison a whole population because of a few silly ones
massive scale enormous damage
never been a price worth paying for the not impressive results
all people make choices for themselves -3.27
that can be attributed to the lockdown
comply with law so as not to put weapon in hands of people like journalists
yes - we're gown ups and can take sensible decisions
this is a mild epidemic (if no serious condition)
life is only worth living if inevitably it involves risk
this lockdown is destroying livelihoods -0.17
start here
link with universalrisk.org (2005)
Universalrisk
risk attitude
global resource management
new era politics
new era economy
SO - what can WE do with this NEXT?
buddy@ universalrisk .org
think hard
things I learnt ...
PRESS HERE
most important plans MIPP Most .. Create Your Own .. Register .. Contact a Buddy
JOIN Thortspace! Personal interactive Wiki in 3D
consider options
Daily Telegraph FEB21
CARE! this is work in progress still