The very nasty Laurence Fox

like the chap on Big Questions this morning, who insisted that some lives are worth more than others
Doodledog it’s Lord Sumption you’re referring to. Another piece of work.

Indeed but Lawrence fox has no health issues, hes a coward really. If he so believes in his freedom not to wear masks and the principles behind that, he would argue for that, but no he hides behind a lanyard he doesnt need.

Grannyrose
No. I should get one but I will persevere with a mask.

What is Laurence Fox's medical condition that he needs an exemption?

I agree that medical conditions are private. My reading of his comments suggest he disapproves of lockdown and all that goes with it. He doesn’t claim exemption, simply dismisses the possibility masks may protect any of us. He’s entitled to that view, my objection is to his inflated sense of entitlement. We’re in this together but some of care more about the herd.
By the way, I’m not criticising his looks, wouldn’t dream of it. My comment was he doesn’t look well.

Whilst I do not agree with his tweets/opinions I totally defend his right to have/express them.

janeainsworth

^like the chap on Big Questions this morning, who insisted that some lives are worth more than others^
Doodledog it’s Lord Sumption you’re referring to. Another piece of work.

I had to switch that off. So many ridiculous people. “When will we be allowed to go to football matches again?” “Why aren’t students being vaccinated as a priority, we need to get back on campus and see our tutors and socialise”
Grrrrrr!

janeainsworth

^like the chap on Big Questions this morning, who insisted that some lives are worth more than others^
Doodledog it’s Lord Sumption you’re referring to. Another piece of work.

That's the one. It's all very well him saying that lockdown is restrictive for the entire population, so older and vulnerable people should basically take their chances or take the 'option' of self isolating. My guess is that his version of 'isolating' would be to wander round his estate chatting to his staff from a distance. He wouldn't be spending months on end alone in a small flat or a council bungalow, relying on the TV for company.

I dont think anyone has said he shouldn't express his opinions, challenging his opinions is a different thing to saying he shouldn't have a right to say them.

I think Sumption‘s point about some lives being more valuable than others (but I’m not sure that’s the best way of expressing what he meant) is to be looked at in terms of life years lost. I might not have got that technical term exactly right. I think his point is that my life, for instance, isn’t as valuable should I die now, in terms of life years lost and in terms of usefulness to society as, say, that of my 11-year-old grandson.

I agree with that outlook. My life isn’t even as valuable to me as my grandson's is.

Speaking philosophically

Baggs, Your life is valuable to your grandson though so keep yourself safe for him!

Baggs I have to disagree, every life is as important as the next. Just because someone is old doesn't mean they are not able to make a contribution to society. Of course you feel your grandson's life is important, as it is, but so is yours.

John Glenn went into space aged 77
Col. Sanders started KFC aged 65
Grandma Moses started painting aged 76
Roget invented the Thesaurus aged 73
Webster completed his Dictionary aged 70
Mandela was elected SA President aged 75
Christopher Plummer won an Oscar aged 82

In ordinary circumstances all lives are equally valuable but, again philosophically speaking, in extreme circumstances they aren't. There is an old moral philosophical problem that's often presented as a choice on a forked train track. A train is speeding towards the fork and a decision has to be made about which fork it takes. It cannot be stopped in time. On one fork, several people are trapped (usually expressed as strapped to the line by criminals). On the other fork, one person is in a similar dreadful position. A decision has to be made about which way to switch the rails.

As I understand it, most people think the track with more people on it must be the one from which the train is diverted.

This is a classic moral philosophical dilemma and it is what Sumption is talking about. Not having heard exactly what he said and in what circumstances and whether qualifications as to meaning were included (I suspect they were), I get where he is coming from.

Nobody wants to make decisions like this but sometimes such decisions have to be made therefore we have to be able to talk about them and weigh things up. That's what Sumption is doing in the scenario that people are upset about.

Oldwoman70 , what an amazing list! Thanks for posting ?

wasn't there someone back in the 1930-40s who thought like that!

Yes lemsip, there was

So, to those who think what Sumption said was wrong

Isn't it entirely natural to want our children/grandchildren to outlive us?

Wouldn't we agree that saving the life of a 2 year old is more important than saving a 93 year old?

Wouldn't the 93 year old say the same? Or 83 year old? 73 year old?

Didn't we admire/agree with this woman?

www.boston25news.com/news/trending/coronavirus-90-year-old-with-covid-19-says-no-ventilator-said-keep-it-younger-ones/OLIN2MUR4BBMLDBRZOXTMIWPDE/

The media , (Daily Mail) has reported this in its usual sensationalist fashion. I watched the programme. And on this I agreed with him.

I certainly don't agree with everything he says but in this he was spot on.

And I think we all know it.

The scenarios being put forward do not relate to the current situation. If you had to choose between allowing a 93 year old to die or a 2 year old - in that one would definitely die - then yes I think the majority would chose the 93 year old to die.

The current situation is different, if a 93 year old is vaccinated it doesn't mean a 2 year old will die. The younger generation has been shown to be less susceptible to the virus and on the whole if they do catch it they tend to not get it as badly as an older person. (Yes I know some young people have had serious cases and regretfully some of died), whereas if an older person gets it they are more likely to have a very bad case (and more likely to die).

Baggs, I couldn't agree more with you. We would give our lives for our DGS'. We value their lives much more than our own.

But lemsip is also right. I know my GS needs me and that need affects the choices I make about my life. How I live now is very different to the way I would choose to live if he didn't exist. But I do it, happily, because he is the apple of my eye, joy of my life (insert soppy cliché here).

I had the same experience GrannyRose and got my lanyard on line. As you have posted, no one should be challenged if they're wearing one; it must be taken on trust.

It is of course wrong to have one just because you don't want to wear a mask, as opposed to being unable to wear one.

The man you referred to in your post Visgirl was clearly pushing the boundaries as he had a mask on him that he could wear if challenged. The fact that anyone can leave their home and is able to for example turn up for an appointment does not negate their genuine need for a lanyard.

They state that they are for people with "hidden disabilities". Just because you can't see that someone has a genuine reason for not wearing a mask, doesn't mean a genuine reason doesn't exist.

The current situation is different, if a 93 year old is vaccinated it doesn't mean a 2 year old will die. The younger generation has been shown to be less susceptible to the virus and on the whole if they do catch it they tend to not get it as badly as an older person

Yes, that is an extremely simplistic view, Oldwoman70.

A 2 year old will not receive the vaccine, but probably will in a few years time if Covid is still around (which I am sure it will be as it mutates).

However, the more older people are vaccinated, the less pressure on the health services; the fewer people who become very ill with Covid, the quicker life can return to normal. Consequently the 2 year old will have a more normal future to look forward to.

Exactly Callistemon.

No, I don't know it Lucretzia. My understanding is this lady has terminal bowel cancer. Her life is not worth less than anybody else's life.

The conversation on the show had evolved from Covid though

This bloke is anti-lockdown and they'd started to discuss value of life

He then pointed out that older people are less valuable Probably not the best way of putting it but hard to argue with.

It appears that most people would opt to save our children/grandchildren and would rather die than them

Piers Morgan was doing his usual shrieking at Sumption this morning. Deliberately ignoring the man's point.

Nothing new there!

This isn't the first time Sumption has talked about lives in the abstract and caused offence.