Coronavirus

[ProfessorDavey]

No that's not the guidance - it says "Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.
What we have seen so far is that children with coronavirus (COVID-19) appear to be less severely affected. It is nevertheless important to do your best to follow this guidance."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection

Which part of:

'However, if you have any of the symptoms above you should self-isolate at home.' and

'if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram'

is consistent with driving 260 miles to Durham.

Cummins broke his own rules.

[Roses]

Which part of:

'However, if you have any of the symptoms above you should self-isolate at home.' and

'if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram'

is consistent with driving 260 miles to Durham.

Cummins broke his own rules.

Of course he did.

[SusanDoris]

Thanks Susan. Yes I found the questions from some of the reporters at the Press conference very rehearsed and seemed to have no bearing on the actual statement made by Cummings. The reporters would have been better off finding some evidence to back up their allegations of Cummings breaking the lock down rules. I would have focused on the jolly to the Castle, as the drive to Durham seems to be within the published Government guidance if the reason Cummings went there was that it was the best way to care for a vulnerable 4 year old while putting the least number of people at risk of getting very sick from Covid-19 caught from said 4 year-old. I would agree with the assessment that a 17 year old and 20 year old were at less risk of getting very sick compared to a neighbour or relative or friend of a similar age to Cummings.

Reporter: The British public want an apology /resignation because you broke the lockdown rules because you consider yourself special

Dom: No I didn't - the guidance allows exceptions to the "stay at home" rule if you left to care for a vulnerable person such as a 4 year old child

Reporter: That's a loophole you have found. And other people don't have the privilege of having parents with cottages on private land so you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of any option that the rest of the public do not have access to, if you are claiming we are all in this together. Think of the single mothers and the cancer patients denied treatment so show some solidarity and put your son at risk too"

Dom: Eh no thanks - I'm a parent so won't risk dumping my 4 year old with the nearest neighbour, plus the 4 year old could get sick/   be a carrier of Covid-19 and could make my neighbour very sick. The exception is there in the published government guidance for the public to avail themselves of it if the public think it necessary, because the government always thought caring for a vulnerable person is more important than staying at home during lockdown.

Reporter: You have suddenly introduced the idea that people can use their own judgement

Dom: Um no - it was always in the published government guidance to use your judgement in exceptional cases such as caring for a vulnerable person

Reporter: The public are angry because they haven't seen their relatives and you have so you should apologise and resign

Dom: I wasn't in Durham to visit my parents - I was there to isolate myself for 14 days while also protecting my vulnerable 4 year old child in the event that my wife and I both got too sick to care for him and did not want to dump him on random neighbours, plus I did not want to infect said random neighbour by asking them to care for my 4 year-old...….Plus my neighbours hate me and my boss - because I am a slimy individual with questionable politics and  my boss is a tit. (Okay he didn't say that last part)

Again - well said indeed! And thank you for posting the text of that particular exchange. Yes, I think Cummings replied sensibly and well.
********
This morning the Age Concern lady who has been doing my shoping for me (and better than I do it myself too!) came as usual to collect the list and go to Tesco. When she returned, she took it all out of the bags, put some of the things in the fridge, vacuumed the kitchen/dining room floor and managed to open a tin of rhubarb I had been unable to use the tin opener on, tried to sort out the sealing strip round a roll of foil that I had tried and failed to do, then went on an extratrip to a smaller shop to get a roll of foil.
I have no reason at all to think that there is covid 19 in this area, but even if there was, there is no way I could have wiped everything she had touched. This does not worry me - there's no point in getting in any way stressed about that. I shall not be getting anywhere near anyone for at least a week, so I'm self-isolated anyway.
and that's life these days.

[Nearly Sane]

Fintan O'Toole on Cummings behaviour


https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/26/cummings-contempt-lockdown-rules-public-catholic-church-ireland?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course he did.

And that's before we even get into his jolly to Barnard Castle under lock down (no longer self isolation) which, let's not forget, was on his wife's birthday.

He clearly contravened the rules at the time on lock-down which only allows someone to leave the house:

1. To travel to work (does not apply)
2. To get essential supplies and as infrequently as possible (does not apply)
3. Once per day for exercise - at the time that specifically did not allow you to drive somewhere for the exercise (rule broken and he actually admitted he went for exercise twice eon that trip).

And on the 'checking his vision' front - if he was actually concerned about sight impairment then the last thing you must do is drive to check it out. Indeed to do so constitutes an offence.

From:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621557/inf-188X1-standards-of-vision-for-driving-cars-and-motorcycles-group-1.pdf

The legal eyesight standard means that you must be able to read a number plate from 20 metres. You must not have been told by a doctor or optician that your eyesight is currently worse than 6/12 (decimal 0.5) on the Snellen scale. If you are in any doubt, you should discuss with your optician or doctor. If required, you may wear glasses or corrective lenses to meet both of these standards.
If you do not meet this standard you cannot drive on a public road. If you do drive on a public road, you are guilty of an offence.

[SusanDoris]

In due course I comment in more detail on your lengthy post as it contains numerous inaccuracies. But this one I can mail straight away.

A 4 year old child is most definitely NOT considered to be vulnerable in the context of child protection or COVID-19 simply because the are a 4 year old child. They would only be considered vulnerable were that child to have certain underlying health conditions or where there were specific safeguarding concerns - as far as I'm aware neither of those apply to Cummings son.

As you may or may not know I am the owner of a nursery - and when we were required to close we were allowed to remain open for the children of key workers unable to look after their children and children legally defined as vulnerable. We have about 30 4 year olds on our books - not a single one is classified as vulnerable in the legal context which is what would apply in terms of justification of breaking lock-down/self isolation.

The government has provided guidance on who is, and is not, considered vulnerable in cover-19 terms - it does not include 4 year old children.

You use the phrase, 'as far as I know' which means that you simply cannot eliminate the child's possible particular needs.

[Nearly Sane]

And another little oddity about Cunmings  'truth'


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265011724111011845.html

[ProfessorDavey]

... while also protecting my vulnerable 4 year old child in the event that my wife and I both got too sick to care for him and did not want to dump him on random neighbours ...

Emotive non-sense.

What is wrong with your wife's two brothers who live just a couple of miles down the road. And it has been reported that Cummings has family in London too.

Risible.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course


https://metro.co.uk/2020/05/26/barnard-castle-means-pathetic-excuse-durham-dialect-12757215/

[ProfessorDavey]

You use the phrase, 'as far as I know' which means that you simply cannot eliminate the child's possible particular needs.

I said that as I cannot know for sure that he is vulnerable as defined by the government guidelines. Do you have any information to the contrary, for example that Cummings' son is defined as vulnerable which means his is:

aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)

And if he was, then the most dangerous place to be would be in a car for 6 hours with a person with symptoms. Were he actually vulnerable (as defined by his own guidance) the child should have been removed from a household containing self isolating people to a safe place (again according the Cummings own guidance) - but he wasn't - he remained with symptomatic people for 14 days including a 260 mile car journey in a small confined space.

[Nearly Sane]

Adam Tomkins Tory MSP calls for Cummings to be sacked, asks that the leader of the Tory party in Scotland's parliament, Jackson Carlaw does the same (indications are that he has done)

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18475063.tory-msp-says-clear-cummings-should-sacked/

[Nearly Sane]

And a detailed thread looking at the claims and timings from Aamer Anwar

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1265241537962749953.html

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which part of:

'However, if you have any of the symptoms above you should self-isolate at home.' and

'if you live with others and you are the first in the household to have symptoms of coronavirus (COVID-19), then you must stay at home for at least 7 days, but all other household members who remain well must stay at home and not leave the house for 14 days. The 14-day period starts from the day when the first person in the house became ill. See the explanatory diagram'

is consistent with driving 260 miles to Durham.

Selective quoting. The part in the guidance that says if you are living with children we are aware that not all these stay at home measures may be possible and to follow them to the best of your ability.

Cummins broke his own rules.

That’s your opinion. Others are available.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Emotive non-sense.....

....Risible.

You’re entitled to your opinion. I feel the same way about many of your posts on this forum.

[Nearly Sane]

Marina Hyde's latest


https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/26/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-terrified-sack-him?__twitter_impression=true

[Nearly Sane]

Confirmation that Jackson Carlaw looking for at least something like a resignation 


https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-tory-leader-jackson-carlaw-says-dominic-cummings-should-consider-position-2864978?hjbnjhbjb

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Fintan O'Toole on Cummings behaviour


https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/26/cummings-contempt-lockdown-rules-public-catholic-church-ireland?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

I get the point he is making. I just don't share the emotion but can understand that some people who feel they have made big sacrifices may feel betrayed. I haven't felt any emotional pain from being in lockdown. Mildly bored sometimes and missing going to the gym, but other than that no big sacrifice here.

I was really glad that we could not all get together and grieve my mother-in-law's death the way we normally would, as she died during lockdown; and her funeral is the best one I have ever been to because the limitation on numbers participating made it very peaceful plus the weather was beautiful and we buried her a day after she died. The family got together online every day for 60 days and recited the Quran together and my ability to recite in Arabic improved dramatically - never would have happened if she had not died and we weren't in lockdown.

I'm not too perturbed that my children and parents cannot spend time with each other - my parents' lives do not revolve around their grandchildren despite having cared for them on many occasions when the children were young, hence they seem to be coping with the separation just fine. But then again they left me as a baby in Sri Lanka for a year when I was about 6 months old, and came to England so that my mum could financially support my dad's Masters in civil engineering, so I'm not surprised that they are coping fine without seeing their grandchildren.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I said that as I cannot know for sure that he is vulnerable as defined by the government guidelines. Do you have any information to the contrary, for example that Cummings' son is defined as vulnerable which means his is:

aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)

And if he was, then the most dangerous place to be would be in a car for 6 hours with a person with symptoms. Were he actually vulnerable (as defined by his own guidance) the child should have been removed from a household containing self isolating people to a safe place (again according the Cummings own guidance) - but he wasn't - he remained with symptomatic people for 14 days including a 260 mile car journey in a small confined space.

As already explained, I used the word "vulnerable" according to the ordinary meaning as in someone who needed safe-guarding, not the Covid-19 meaning. So fixating on the Covid-19 meaning is ignoring the point I was making.

[Nearly Sane]

Now 29 Tory MPs calling for Cummings to go.

[ProfessorDavey]

As already explained, I used the word "vulnerable" according to the ordinary meaning as in someone who needed safe-guarding, not the Covid-19 meaning. So fixating on the Covid-19 meaning is ignoring the point I was making.

The only meaning which has any relevant in terms of the cover-19 guidance and whether Cummings broke them is the use of the term in that guidance. You can use as many definitions as you like, but the only relevant ones are:

aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)

[ProfessorDavey]

Selective quoting. The part in the guidance that says if you are living with children we are aware that not all these stay at home measures may be possible and to follow them to the best of your ability.

The key word there being possible, not preferred option, what is easiest for us, what my instinct says as a parent, nope possible.

Keep following this advice to the best of your ability, however, we are aware that not all these measures will be possible.

So the question is - was it not possible for Cummings and his wife to self isolate at home due to having a child. And the answer is, of course it was possible, they just chose not to.

And the main message is that you must not leave your home for 7/14 days while self isolating, unless it is not possible - it was perfectly possible for Cummings to stay at home, there were plenty of options for him if he and his wife were both ill and couldn't look after the child (not that that actually happened).

The point is that we have all made sacrifices - not done things that our instincts said we should in order to obey the rules - and yet Cummings drove 260 miles when he should not have left his home which is only allowable if it was not possible for him to remain in the house - it was perfectly possible for him to do that.

[ProfessorDavey]

That’s your opinion. Others are available.

Leaving aside the self isolation period - please explain to my how Cummins failed to break the lock down (stay at home) rules when he drove to Barnard Castle, had a walk, drove part way back (had another walk).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The only meaning which has any relevant in terms of the cover-19 guidance and whether Cummings broke them is the use of the term in that guidance. You can use as many definitions as you like, but the only relevant ones are:

aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)
under 70 with an underlying health condition listed below (ie anyone instructed to get a flu jab as an adult each year on medical grounds):
chronic (long-term) mild to moderate respiratory diseases, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or bronchitis
chronic heart disease, such as heart failure
chronic kidney disease
chronic liver disease, such as hepatitis
chronic neurological conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), a learning disability or cerebral palsy
diabetes
a weakened immune system as the result of conditions such as HIV and AIDS, or medicines such as steroid tablets
being seriously overweight (a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or above)
those who are pregnant
people who have received an organ transplant and remain on ongoing immunosuppression medication
people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy or radiotherapy
people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia who are at any stage of treatment
people with severe chest conditions such as cystic fibrosis or severe asthma (requiring hospital admissions or courses of steroid tablets)
people with severe diseases of body systems, such as severe kidney disease (dialysis)

No - the dictionary meaning of "vulnerable" in terms of safeguarding small children is also relevant to the question of whether Cummings acted reasonably in driving to Durham.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Leaving aside the self isolation period - please explain to my how Cummins failed to break the lock down (stay at home) rules when he drove to Barnard Castle, had a walk, drove part way back (had another walk).

You'll have to ask someone else.

See #2105 where I said "it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it."

and #2121 "But I don't believe the journey to a pretty Castle was to test his eyes - it sounds bogus to me."

Don't you read before you post on here or are you just confused?

[ProfessorDavey]

You'll have to ask someone else.

See #2105 where I said "it seems suspect that he went to a local beauty spot by accident. I think it was wrong that he and his wife and son would get out of the car and sit by the river during lockdown instead of going straight back to their cottage - he should have realised how bad that would look if the public became aware of it."

and #2121 "But I don't believe the journey to a pretty Castle was to test his eyes - it sounds bogus to me."

Don't you read before you post on here or are you just confused?

So let's look at the possibilities.

1. We went for a drive to test his eyesight - he broke the rules and potentially committed a road traffic offence.

2. He went to Barnard Castle specifically to go for exercise - he broke the rules as somewhere 30 miles aways cannot be considered 'local' nor a necessary trip for exercise (the rule require you to stay local and not travel unnecessarily for exercise)

3. He went for a drive, not intending to go for a walk, but did anyway - he broke the rules as you can only leave your home for essential shopping, exercise (see above) or to travel to work - none apply.

Conclusion, whichever way you cut it, he broke the rules.