Coronavirus

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.

I note you have volunteered the services of all their relatives for child-care without asking them. Cummings' reasoning was that the 17 year old and the 20 year old would be at less risk of getting seriously ill if they had to look after his son compared to his other relatives and friends and that the nieces had volunteered to do child care duties. Do you know if any of the other relatives had volunteered their child-care services? Or whether the Cummings had the kind of relationship with other relatives where they could ask them to risk catching Coronavirus by coming over to their house or taking the 4 year-old into their own home?

We may have made sacrifices. However, the point is that if the Cummings decided they might not be able to care for their child at home if they both became ill and they came to the conclusion that it was not possible to get someone in London to come and live in their home for 14 days or longer as it was too much of an imposition and it was not possible to send the 4 year-old to someone else's house in London for 14 days or longer because of the risks, then a reasonable course of action was to get their child to a place where they can be looked after with the minimum contact with other people possible. They obviously could not drive to Durham once they were actually both too ill to drive.

Did everyone in the government who had recently been in close contact with Boris go into isolation once he tested positive for coronavirus?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Yep sure - in relation to the "eye-test drive" and getting out of the car to go for a walk to the river because "he felt sick" you and I are in agreement that he seems to have broken the rules.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Sorry to hear about your mother--in-laws death, and yes, I can understand and agree that some issues have felt for individuals as working better when they have been following lockdown rules. I've been with my wife for longer than any period in the last ten years. I have also connected with people I would not have, and had a couple of friendships deepen because of circumstances.

But that doesn't get rid of the betrayal that many who had different experiences of lockdown from you, and for Susa0n Doris to dismiss those angry about having missed being with relatives who died as whingers is another reason why the behaviour of No Regrets Cummings is problematic. It supports people who broke the rules, and spits on those who followed them. As the Metro of all papers managed today, Stay Elite.

Before you reply to this, I would like you to read the Aamer Anwar thread that I posted because your idea that Cummings behaved 'reasonably'  seems ripped apart there.

But leaving that aside, my best wishes to you and your family, take care.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently 41 Tory MPs want him gone.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apparently 41 Tory MPs want him gone.

And a minister has resigned.

And we are into terrifying 'revisionist history' territory now.

Cummings clearly broke the rules as they were widely understood in late March/early April - and those clearly understood rules resulted in people being fined for traveling for unnecessary childcare reasons.

Now because Cummings breaks the rules the government firstly tries to pretend that what he did was always understood to be in the rules (it wasn't) and now to try to rewrite history is looking at fines imposed on others simply to try to make it look like what they did was within the rules.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep sure - in relation to the "eye-test drive" and getting out of the car to go for a walk to the river because "he felt sick" you and I are in agreement that he seems to have broken the rules.

Why can't you just bring yourself to say that he broke the rules. There is not way in which his trip to Barnard Castle can have been within the rules. It is just impossible, whichever way you look at it, and whichever reason for the trip you accept.

And if he broke the rules he needs to go - it is corrosive in the extreme to allow the architect of those rules to break them with impunity.

[Nearly Sane]

And a minister has resigned.

And we are into terrifying 'revisionist history' territory now.

Cummings clearly broke the rules as they were widely understood in late March/early April - and those clearly understood rules resulted in people being fined for traveling for unnecessary childcare reasons.

Now because Cummings breaks the rules the government firstly tries to pretend that what he did was always understood to be in the rules (it wasn't) and now to try to rewrite history is looking at fines imposed on others simply to try to make it look like what they did was within the rules.

Yeah, I think the dishonorable Douglas's resignation has already been mentioned on here. This is quite good but it gets Ross's election year wrong

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/05/four-conservative-groups-want-dominic-cummings-out-and-two-matter?fbclid=IwAR0Sbv62l83RGGDLQUCdoS6N-oU2CjYZG2eCKc0jm8uFCOc33nzuOGPTj6A



https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/05/four-conservative-groups-want-dominic-cummings-out-and-two-matter?fbclid=IwAR0Sbv62l83RGGDLQUCdoS6N-oU2CjYZG2eCKc0jm8uFCOc33nzuOGPTj6A

[ProfessorDavey]

His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.

Actually on the contrary - their normal childcare options were entirely possible.

Their normal childcare options being looking after their 4 year old themselves - which is what actually happened, if you accept Cummings account - neither the sister nor the nieces every had contact with the Cummins household.

Problem was they broke self isolation to drive 260 miles when their normal childcare option was entirely possible in London - in other words Cummings and Wakefield looking after their son as each worked through feeling ill - just as countless others did, while adhering to what the government told them - do not leave your house.

[Nearly Sane]

And now we see that the UK govt has to accept that the laws they applied to others were breached by Cummings and si they might have to retrospectively change them.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/government-to-look-at-scrapping-lockdown-fines-for-families-seeking-childcare_uk_5ecd2557c5b66801e008e3e3?ncid=other_facebook_eucluwzme5k&utm_campaign=share_facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-sRp_A3427zIH250_JJLjVUtJaLbu7z5tsrbPrDJ_jUVeGb16x09Ippk&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9tLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHF9D4RzCY1PLlAgFNZYnhmu6VvuOHD0LSYPvSXP3VaRYcm2j84jtx99LASyhM9vLPN4UUytGgYnepbud2N0O83imusbkaMEtmUQkkWpnnZuNHsqnuf5rFvVD4WrJ5vEnUSWs--oKoWIs8KJgdtNmpU-TbccUl4dHeSaRIgWoHda

[Udayana]

His version is that their normal childcare options were not possible.

I note you have volunteered the services of all their relatives for child-care without asking them. Cummings' reasoning was that the 17 year old and the 20 year old would be at less risk of getting seriously ill if they had to look after his son compared to his other relatives and friends and that the nieces had volunteered to do child care duties. Do you know if any of the other relatives had volunteered their child-care services? Or whether the Cummings had the kind of relationship with other relatives where they could ask them to risk catching Coronavirus by coming over to their house or taking the 4 year-old into their own home?

We may have made sacrifices. However, the point is that if the Cummings decided they might not be able to care for their child at home if they both became ill and they came to the conclusion that it was not possible to get someone in London to come and live in their home for 14 days or longer as it was too much of an imposition and it was not possible to send the 4 year-old to someone else's house in London for 14 days or longer because of the risks, then a reasonable course of action was to get their child to a place where they can be looked after with the minimum contact with other people possible. They obviously could not drive to Durham once they were actually both too ill to drive.

Did everyone in the government who had recently been in close contact with Boris go into isolation once he tested positive for coronavirus?

You don't seem to get the ludicrous logic of someone in a position of power, supposedly helping to put together a policy that would prevent the spread of a plague by people fleeing from highly infected urban areas to relatively unaffected rural areas, felt that that was exactly what he and his family needed to do - because he was unable to arrange child care in the event that he was taken ill.

Someone  in one of the highest positions of power, with Ministers, MPs, civil servants, the Police and NHS at his beck and call was unable to arrange for someone to look after his child? None of them  able to advise him on the correct actions to take?  Did he even try them? If it was necessary I'm sure they would have been able to arrange for him to be taken to his refuge, probably accompanied by a police escort - rather than risk a 250+ mile drive whilst infected and with a sick wife and "vulnerable" child.  And, just don't ask what any ordinary people are supposed to do in the same or worse situation.

Of-course it wasn't necessary. Did he break the rules? - does it matter? They certainly seem to have taken care to have hidden their activities but the fact is that "the rules" are a sham, for the mugs, to make it look as if something is being done. That he was exposed is just an inconvenience, their main care now is for the lock down to be loosened so the economy can get back flowing.
   
You and Susan seem to have fallen for a distraction put together by two professional liars and media manipulators.

[Udayana]

According to Sky they have backtracked from that now:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-govt-to-look-at-fines-given-to-families-in-lockdown-after-vicar-puts-hancock-on-spot-11995052

[ProfessorDavey]

And now we see that the UK govt has to accept that the laws they applied to others were breached by Cummings and si they might have to retrospectively change them.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/government-to-look-at-scrapping-lockdown-fines-for-families-seeking-childcare_uk_5ecd2557c5b66801e008e3e3?ncid=other_facebook_eucluwzme5k&utm_campaign=share_facebook&fbclid=IwAR2-sRp_A3427zIH250_JJLjVUtJaLbu7z5tsrbPrDJ_jUVeGb16x09Ippk&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9tLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHF9D4RzCY1PLlAgFNZYnhmu6VvuOHD0LSYPvSXP3VaRYcm2j84jtx99LASyhM9vLPN4UUytGgYnepbud2N0O83imusbkaMEtmUQkkWpnnZuNHsqnuf5rFvVD4WrJ5vEnUSWs--oKoWIs8KJgdtNmpU-TbccUl4dHeSaRIgWoHda

Cummings can do no wrong.

So when he is found to have done wrong, everyone else who also did wrong must be proven not to have done wrong to prove that Cummings did no wrong.

Anyone listen to or read the article Wakefield wrote for the Spectator (and also on Thought for the Day in late April) recounting her experience with covid-19. She mentions:

Writing in The Spectator, Ms Wakefield described how she was stricken by the disease first and that her “kind” husband had rushed home to look after her. However, she went on, 24 hours later Mr Cummings said he felt “weird” and collapsed.

Weird that she never mentioned the 260 mile drive between the first sentence and the second one. Was she so out of it that she failed to remember it, was a middle of the night mercy dash of 260 miles with a 4 year old child so unremarkable as not to mention. Or did she know that they'd broken the rules so she mustn't mention that all the rest of the article takes place in Durham.

Also note the following:

Downing Street insisted Mr Cummings he had been working from home during his 14 days off work.

In the same magazine, Mr Cummings described being isolated at home with his wife and son as “sticky”.

New definition of home - a property on your parents' estate 260 mile from home. Why so shy at mentioning that little detail if you hadn't done anything wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Cummings can do no wrong.

So when he is found to have done wrong, everyone else who also did wrong must be proven not to have done wrong to prove that Cummings did no wrong.

Anyone listen to or read the article Wakefield wrote for the Spectator (and also on Thought for the Day in late April) recounting her experience with covid-19. She mentions:

Writing in The Spectator, Ms Wakefield described how she was stricken by the disease first and that her “kind” husband had rushed home to look after her. However, she went on, 24 hours later Mr Cummings said he felt “weird” and collapsed.

Weird that she never mentioned the 260 mile drive between the first sentence and the second one. Was she so out of it that she failed to remember it, was a middle of the night mercy dash of 260 miles with a 4 year old child so unremarkable as not to mention. Or did she know that they'd broken the rules so she mustn't mention that all the rest of the article takes place in Durham.

Also note the following:

Downing Street insisted Mr Cummings he had been working from home during his 14 days off work.

In the same magazine, Mr Cummings described being isolated at home with his wife and son as “sticky”.

New definition of home - a property on your parents' estate 260 mile from home. Why so shy at mentioning that little detail if you hadn't done anything wrong.

It's worth reading the twitter thread from Aamer Anwar that I posted earlier that covers the timings including the article.

[Nearly Sane]

According to Sky they have backtracked from that now:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-govt-to-look-at-fines-given-to-families-in-lockdown-after-vicar-puts-hancock-on-spot-11995052

So more lies

[ProfessorDavey]

It's worth reading the twitter thread from Aamer Anwar that I posted earlier that covers the timings including the article.

The item on Radio 4's today in which Wakefield recounts the story of the covid-19 events, while conveniently forgetting to mention a 260 mile trip to Durham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7c_RdD2rJE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0ec02WiXJo9SQ51MDPXtmkUYUzxDvtESRstl-oKnwNFBx7mK_UvnKU8Rg

I wonder why?

[Nearly Sane]

The item on Radio 4's today in which Wakefield recounts the story of the covid-19 events, while conveniently forgetting to mention a 260 mile trip to Durham.

I wonder why?

The deconstruction by Aamer is I think the clearest dealing with the dates so far.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

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

NS - as you asked me to read this, I have done so and my responses are as follows. I would add that I do not believe everything Cummins said, but what I believe and what there is evidence for are 2 different things. Ok here goes:

Thread 1/23,  2/22,  3/23,  4/23 and 6/23 regarding Mary having symptoms of Covid-19: she threw up, which is not a symptom of Covid-19. So Cummings would not be required to self-isolate.

I mention this because I took my aunt (my mother-in-law's sister) to A&E as she started throwing up violently and had severe abdominal pains - it turned out to be pancreatitis and she was admitted to hospital after 8 hours of us waiting in A&E. During that time we were first sent to the non-coronavirus section of A&E and then sent to the suspected coronavirus section. Even the hospital staff could not agree on whether she was showing symptoms of Covid-19 or not. She had no temperature, no cough ,no diarrhoea but some thought vomiting was a symptom while others thought it wasn't and still others kept listing her symptoms incorrectly every time they passed her on to a new nurse or doctor and I had to keep correcting them.

I am actually trying to figure out what the regulations were in relation to Cummings. If you have been in contact with someone outside your home who tested positive (Boris), should you immediately self-isolate or do you only self-isolate if you display symptoms yourself? My understanding is that it is the latter - if you display symptoms yourself.

6/23 - that is a legitimate question but I do not feel I could just ask any family member to put themselves at risk or deal with the burden of caring for my 4 year old. There are some family members I would feel able to turn to and some I would feel I could not bring myself to ask. But it is reasonable for other people to feel that they could ask any family member to do this. I think it very much depends on the dynamics of individual relationships.

7/23 - if the 17 and 20 year old nieces had volunteered to do it then it is ok to consider accepting their help to care for a small child if you are too ill to care for them yourself. On the basis that whoever helped you by caring for the child would have been putting themselves at risk and the younger you are and provided you have no underlying health conditions, the less statistically at risk you are of getting very ill.

9/23 - Cummings said he did not have any symptoms at the time he drove to Durham. He claimed he got the symptoms the day after he arrived in Durham. He could be lying but currently no evidence to prove that.

10/23 - legitimate question and Cummings says no but he could be lying. Again currently no evidence.

Cummings is very ill for a day or 2 he says so that's Sat 28th and Sun 29th and possibly Mon 30th March.

11/23, 12/23, 13/23  - agree the story about being very ill for only a day or 2 and picking his wife up at the hospital on Thurs 2nd April does not tie in with the Spectator piece written by his wife - one or both of them are being inaccurate. Also he said he could barely stand on 2nd April but was ok to drive on 3rd April, which does not make sense. It is possible I suppose but not my experience of illness so I find it improbable that someone could recover that fast. So I suspect he was not ok to drive but did so anyway as there were no taxis and he seems to want to emphasise that he maintained social distancing.

14/23 - Cummings said by Sat 11th April he was weak and exhausted but other than that not displaying any symptoms of Covid-19, so I don't understand the point being raised by Anwar that Cummings had said he never displayed any symptoms. Where did Cummings claim he never displayed any symptoms?

15/23 - agreed -  that's a fair question

16/23 - agreed.

17/23 - agreed

18/23 - fair questions - not sure what the answers given by Cummings were. I think he said he might have stopped for petrol. They were no longer required to self-isolate as it had been more than 14 days since 28th March when Cummings had first shown symptoms.

19/23 - fair question. Cummings answered that this was not the case. Will await evidence to the contrary. 

20/23 and 21/23 - I don't think it was reasonable to drive to the castle.

22/23 - agree that Cummings was not home.

23/23 - that's certainly one option - for Cummings to resign. I assume that depends on how badly the government thinks they need him. Or they could ask the police to look into it and if there is a case to answer apply the same rules as would be applied to a member of the public - fine him. That way it is not one rule for Cummings and another for the public.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry to hear about your mother--in-laws death, and yes, I can understand and agree that some issues have felt for individuals as working better when they have been following lockdown rules. I've been with my wife for longer than any period in the last ten years. I have also connected with people I would not have, and had a couple of friendships deepen because of circumstances.

But that doesn't get rid of the betrayal that many who had different experiences of lockdown from you, and for Susa0n Doris to dismiss those angry about having missed being with relatives who died as whingers is another reason why the behaviour of No Regrets Cummings is problematic. It supports people who broke the rules, and spits on those who followed them. As the Metro of all papers managed today, Stay Elite.

Before you reply to this, I would like you to read the Aamer Anwar thread that I posted because your idea that Cummings behaved 'reasonably'  seems ripped apart there.

But leaving that aside, my best wishes to you and your family, take care.

NS - Thank you for your condolences and wishes. I appreciate it.

Yes I can understand the sense of betrayal some people feel because of their experiences, and also there are many who do not feel a sense of betrayal but do view Cummings in a negative way. I thought the Marina Hyde Guardian article you linked to reflected a lot of my views in relation to Boris and Cummings, but I disagreed with some parts.

I am not sure who Susan referred to as whingers - I will have to go back and re-read.

I have responded regarding the Anwar thread separately. I do not think Cummings acted reasonably in relation to the drive to the castle.

[flower girl]

And the American beliefs on conspiracies

https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html

There's this, and conspiracies about face masks, which has now been proven to be mainly promoted by "bots."  Given that most of these "bots" are controlled by Russia and now China, it would seem that America is in a real fight for its life right now.  Right now?  It's about a 50/50 chance we will survive this.

[SteveH]

At 5/23, Cummings says "For years I have warned about the dangers of pandemics". This, it transpires, is a lie. He edited his blog in April to add the reference to pandemics. https://fullfact.org/health/cummings-blog-coronavirus/

[Roses]

Cummings and Trump have at least one thing in common, they are liars!

[ProfessorDavey]

Thread 1/23,  2/22,  3/23,  4/23 and 6/23 regarding Mary having symptoms of Covid-19: she threw up, which is not a symptom of Covid-19. So Cummings would not be required to self-isolate.

In which case Cummings still broke the rules as the country was in lock down - the only reasons to leave your house being:

1. To travel to work if you cannot work at home
2. To buy essential items as infrequently as possible
3. To exercise once a day close to home

Under which one of those is a 260 mile journey justified?

If fact the government had clarified that you must not travel to another property (second home, holiday let, someone else's house etc) for the purposes of either lock down or self isolation.

It doesn't help - it is quite possible that Wakefield didn't have COVID-19, but it would appear that Cummings did so frankly it makes no difference to the issue of breaking the rules.

[SusanDoris]

Apparently 41 Tory MPs want him gone.

From the safety of an 80+ majority, they probably feel they are on safe ground. I think they should think twice before speaking.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Why can't you just bring yourself to say that he broke the rules.

Because I normally use words like “seem” when I write posts as opposed to making pompous arrogant declarations like you. You have your irritating style of posting and I have mine. If you can’t tolerate it that’s your problem.

There is not way in which his trip to Barnard Castle can have been within the rules. It is just impossible, whichever way you look at it, and whichever reason for the trip you accept.

As I have already said in the first post I made about Cummings’ trip to Durham, I don’t think the trip to the castle was justified.

And if he broke the rules he needs to go - it is corrosive in the extreme to allow the architect of those rules to break them with impunity.

Or like the public in a similar situation, he could be spoken to by the police and fined for driving to the Castle. It isn’t a shock to many of the public that MPs breach rules.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case Cummings still broke the rules as the country was in lock down - the only reasons to leave your house being:

1. To travel to work if you cannot work at home
2. To buy essential items as infrequently as possible
3. To exercise once a day close to home

Under which one of those is a 260 mile journey justified?

If fact the government had clarified that you must not travel to another property (second home, holiday let, someone else's house etc) for the purposes of either lock down or self isolation.

It doesn't help - it is quite possible that Wakefield didn't have COVID-19, but it would appear that Cummings did so frankly it makes no difference to the issue of breaking the rules.

It is bizarre after all the interviews, the article from Wakefield, and Cummings statement that we still don't really know what the.trip was for. It is still unclear whether Cummings or Wakefield thought either of them had Covid 19 at the time of the drive. Gabriella is right that vomiting is not one of the classic symptoms but it isn't clear whether they thought it was something else, or whether they thought it might be an atypical symptom.

If someone were to have norovirus or something similar, the last thing I would do is pack them and a four year old in a car and try and drive 260 miles without stopping. IF they were sufficiently well to do that, then there is no concept of an emergency.


The whole narrative is muddled, and given part of that relates to Wakefield's article, it is hard not to see that as deliberate obfuscation and lying by omission.