Brazil, Mark Van Rennes, India discussed on The Edition
Enormous satisfaction and so returning to be able to think about those things. I think it'd be really really useful for people. I mean one of the things. I'm really pleased to be on the cigarettes chatsworth about castro new freedom so well about that actually although we dread the word desk only active death and it's It's held up to us as the ultimate horror. What you've reminded us with all your work over the last decades and things you've written said is when it actually comes to it. It's very Him frightening shorting to people. So long as people you around us in hospices and places helping us to come to town. It's actually release it all spaces you have to raise. You should have known to his inflicted this millions of people. But i think there's a deep truth in that. Thank thank you for those kind words and and i do think that usa two things that are very important to be heard together. There one is that there is a who canary dying that for most people but not universally for most people is not too dreadful for most people is probably not the most uncomfortable day they've ever had by a long shot but also alongside that you've commented that it's because there is symptom management not necessarily because they've needed specialist in palliative care. But we do have the wherewithal now to be able to enable people to be comfortable enough and there's always another dangerous and there've leaping into expecting perfection in whatever it is that we're looking for to be comfortable enough to have a wits about us to appreciate the people who matter to us to finish the tusks that are important to us and relax into a process. That is biologically ordinary and extraordinary. If you like as giving birth as we understand the process of giving birth but we've absolutely lost sight of the process of dying lure. You've written a book a pale rider on the one thousand nine hundred and influenza pandemic and be very interested to hear how you would compare the attitudes towards death between then and now so i'm a little flummoxed by this entire conversation i have to say i mean i probably share a lot of common ground with catherine andrew about our attitudes to death and how we need to rethink mortality but it seems to me. We are missing a crucial step at the beginning of the conversation. So i'd like to take it back. I think andrew's article is an absolute mess and a disgrace and spectators schinder published it. His thinking on what is wrong with lockdown. It's so muddled and floored that he should be ashamed of it. He doesn't even mention for example. The deaths that have been the lives that have been saved by on. This is a very nuanced and complex debate which he oversimplifies not just like to mention that vein that over the last fifteen months i've spoken to three respected scientists who are trying to save lives in three different countries all of whom have received death threats presumably from people who've read that kind of claptrap one of them. Mark van rennes spoke to just the other day in belgium. The virologists on their national council scientific council is living in safehouse on the police protection. So perhaps he should look at the facts before he writes such rubbish. I think before we come to the main question about our attitudes to death. We need to make a separation between death from communicable diseases so we are in a situation of global contagion if somebody decides that they would rather not wear a mask nocco vaccinated. Go to the theater. Expose themselves to another group of people who are potentially vulnerable. They're not just making decisions about their own life and death and making decisions about others deaths and that's the big difference. I think that. I'm probably in line with a lot of work. These catherine things pap sandra to on on on death from in the end of life in general but when it comes to limiting other people's freedoms and nothing limits people's freedom more than illness and death. I think we have to nuance the conversation. Obviously if you went to theater and there was some diseased flow overseas or some other disease was rampaging pinch. I'm paging also taken the risks. I didn't really think argument Hopes nor do i believe. Do you believe your three experts. The cases completely been made that works. Well it depends what you mean by lockdown. I thought maybe you raise your eyes from on the for a minute and look what's happening in brazil and india to see what the alternative might have looked like well of course but we also don't i mean at any moment looking at brazil in as fortunate in the west. Can i make a comment here. That actually locked down or pandemic contagion management is not only about avoiding death. It is about avoiding a catastrophic failure of the infrastructure of society where people there are too many people sick to provide the infrastructure services utilities health care education which in fact we eventually chose to close supply chains shops food. This is about how we preserve a society and it's really really important that contagion management and lorca speak to this really eloquently and reflecting on previous experience is not just about avoiding dying. It is about preserving society in a healthy enough state that it can pick itself up again. Afterwards of course is entirely agree and they intended. The goal of public health is to the greatest good for the greatest number different definition of what the scientists should be doing at the moment. Please suggest it and when you talk about bussey scientists. I mean the fact that you are seventy s. You got in that article in that. You're in good health and able to string. A few sentences together has a lot to do with what body scientists have done over the last century. So you know. Patchy shouldn't be so dismissive. Leave case that all this lock terms necessary and the fact that we've been locked up and as has been says very much imperilled with ordinary society is doing along and destroyed the tournament ruin lots businesses. Excuse me that. He's exactly the opposite of what i said. What i said was that contagion management locking down is to preserve the workforce in essential industries from being too sick to provide those industries. I don't think that any of this is necessarily work. That's what i'm suggesting. I'm not convinced that the numbers of people who die whether in brazil or in great britain would have been very different. If we hadn't had this posting of attached to you know how do you know. But that's what we model these things that there is. The point is is a nuanced and complex debate but anyway perhaps we should move on from that since. It's not the main topic of the conversation. I think it would be good to get back because the main topic i think of andrews articles coach less year than is a scientific question request very interesting and so would like if it's the right to get back to would like to hear a little bit about the attitude towards death that that you've found from from your studies off the.