The NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens, for instance, has said that shielding the elderly would be a form of ‘apartheid’. Meanwhile, in one highly-regarded bioethics forum, shielding-based policies were compared to a ‘genocide of the aged, the disabled, and the sick’.
From The ethics of lockdown, by Alberto Giubilini
This is bizarre. Me, I’m over 70 with conditions, so I’d be one of those “shielded”, or -- according to Stevens -- subject to “apartheid”, in danger of “genocide". Really! “Genocide”! Steady on, lads.
All the folks in my age range that I know would prefer that lockdowns be focussed, and focussed on them. Not on the whole population, which only hammers the lives of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Like me, they’d all rather have school and working age folks get back to study, work and play. And for the protections to be focussed. As per the Great Barrington Declaration. I’ve not seen a better idea since.
Giubilini goes on:
Such loaded, politicised language runs contrary to rational ethical analysis. If shielding is a far worse idea, then the idea should be properly assessed and weighed up against the alternatives. Of course a full lockdown should not be ruled out on principle — it is good to keep the option on the table. But if it is to be a measure of last resort, then we must examine the alternatives.
BREAKING (16:00 HKT): hearing that there’s a vaccine in the UK that can be rolled out. .... Zoom shares have slumped on the news.
