Coronavirus

[SteveH]

Latest poll makes grim reading.


https://savanta.com/coronavirus-data-tracker/

Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 loach-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.

I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52784152

ETA: The day after lockdown began, 24 March, the deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, clarified who could look after a child if both parents or carers were incapacitated.
She said: "Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

Any of the government lockdown guidance can be overruled by safeguarding concerns, or prevention of harm, Dr Harries said at Saturday's briefing.
She used the examples of an elderly person with no supply of medication, or a child with both parents too unwell to provide medical care.
"Risk to life" would be a valid reason to break lockdown rules, Dr Harries said.
When Dominic Cummings decided to travel from London to Durham, to stay near his relatives for support, only his wife was displaying coronavirus symptoms. So, he could have cared for their child himself.
But Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said at Saturday's briefing that the welfare of a four-year-old child was the main thing. He said Mr Cummings' actions had prevented the child from being without any support, should things have become worse.

[wigginhall]

I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit.  Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown.   This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better.   Why not?

[SteveH]

The foreign press's view. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/25/cummings-is-the-real-boss-world-press-pours-scorn-on-boris-johnson?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1i5R87zufmRi2VZ584OBNjcXJHUOjfE1a1JyL7RKB0eDYnxlMenPHZlSc#Echobox=1590410906

[Roses]

I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit.  Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown.   This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better.   Why not?

I think a lot of people may start to see it that way, if Cummings gets away with it.

[Aruntraveller]

I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52784152

ETA: The day after lockdown began, 24 March, the deputy chief medical officer for England, Dr Jenny Harries, clarified who could look after a child if both parents or carers were incapacitated.
She said: "Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance.
"And if the individuals do not have access to care support - formal care support - or to family, they will be able to work through their local authority hubs."

Any of the government lockdown guidance can be overruled by safeguarding concerns, or prevention of harm, Dr Harries said at Saturday's briefing.
She used the examples of an elderly person with no supply of medication, or a child with both parents too unwell to provide medical care.
"Risk to life" would be a valid reason to break lockdown rules, Dr Harries said.
When Dominic Cummings decided to travel from London to Durham, to stay near his relatives for support, only his wife was displaying coronavirus symptoms. So, he could have cared for their child himself.
But Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said at Saturday's briefing that the welfare of a four-year-old child was the main thing. He said Mr Cummings' actions had prevented the child from being without any support, should things have become worse.

Still not getting the reasoning for the journey. They have other family in London and with his connections I am positive if necessary, perfectly safe arrangements could have been made for the child in London.

[Nearly Sane]

Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.

There are problems though, the UK govt have a majority that means they can stay easily for the next 4 and a half years. In the mean time in the middle of a crisis people are likely going to be less inclined to follow the instructions on Covid 19 - this may lead to more people dying. It may be the beginning of the end of a Johnson govt but in 4 and half years they could do all sorts of damage under someone else.

[wigginhall]

Still not getting the reasoning for the journey. They have other family in London and with his connections I am positive if necessary, perfectly safe arrangements could have been made for the child in London.

I thought if he decides that this is an emergency, he has discretion over the rules.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit.  Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown.   This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better.   Why not?

The virus isn't paying any attention to how the rules of British politics are being played. The transient joy of a prick like the BBC's Ian Watson over Cummings political Houdiniary cuts no ice with biology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought if he decides that this is an emergency, he has discretion over the rules.

What discretion did people who had operations and treatment cancelled have? This is going to rumble on and on. The decay of lockdown and the premature opening of stuff is just going to compound everything.

[wigginhall]

What discretion did people who had operations and treatment cancelled have? This is going to rumble on and on. The decay of lockdown and the premature opening of stuff is just going to compound everything.

Well, yes, if it becomes a subjective interpretation of the rules, this could be dangerous, a kind of free for all.     I can say that I am following the rules as I see fit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, yes, if it becomes a subjective interpretation of the rules, this could be dangerous, a kind of free for all.     I can say that I am following the rules as I see fit.

The trouble is that somewhere along the line the laws have to be tested. If the law isn't enforced and that results in death or injury then someone is usually liable. If the Government decides they weren't really laws after all, then there is a question of legal negligence, not only was the social contract broken by failure to act it was then trampled by the commission of a herd immunity policy and finally pissed on by a cunt in jeans sitting behind a camping table in a garden all laid on by the prime minister.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I assume the Cummings approach means that I can interpret the rules as I see fit.  Thus, I have a relative who is suffering badly under lockdown.   This is an emergency, therefore I take her on a week's holiday, and she feels better.   Why not?

If the relative is a child that is in danger of harm if left on their own without parental care, and the only way available to you to safeguard the child while minimising the risk of infecting someone else is to leave the country, feel free to fly off on your private jet if that means that you will come into minimal contact with anyone on your journey.

The onus would be on you to justify your actions to the police, if you were requested to do so. If the police think Cummings has broken the lockdown rules they should take the appropriate action. What action are the police taking?

[ProfessorDavey]

I did not mean "vulnerable" in terms of more at risk of getting very ill from Covid-19. I meant vulnerable as in at risk of being physically harmed and needing looking after because their age meant they cannot look after themselves or protect themselves from harm. In this context, anyone with an ounce of common sense would consider a 4 year old child as being vulnerable if both parents were too ill to care for him - though they are not vulnerable in Covid-19 terms of "at higher risk of severe illness"

I'm sorry Gabriella - in terms of the rules on self isolation and lock down a 4 year old child is not classified as vulnerable. The rules on traveling to care for a vulnerable person do not apply on two grounds - first because the child is not considered to be a vulnerable person under those rules and secondly because the Cummings' family were in self isolation not lock down - and of course the notion of someone in self isolation (i.e. with symptoms or in the same household as someone with symptoms) traveling to look after a vulnerable person is clearly a non starter and should never happen as by definition someone self isolating must never take an action that brings them into contact with a vulnerable person.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Still not getting the reasoning for the journey. They have other family in London and with his connections I am positive if necessary, perfectly safe arrangements could have been made for the child in London.

I do not have sufficient information on their other family in London to know if the arrangements for the child would be safe.

I wouldn't trust my brother to care for my children when they were 4 and I would not want to put him at risk as I think he has a somewhat compromised immune system due to treatment he was having for psoriasis  - ok I could be certain that he would not abuse them but would I think he was the best person to make judgements on the health and well-being of my children should my husband and I wind up in hospital potentially dying of Covid-19 - no I don't think he is responsible enough and if I had a much better option 256 miles away that was less likely to become seriously ill if they caught Covid-19 from my 4 year old I would take that option for my 4 year-old. I would make that decision using a mix of emotion and reasoning. As a human being, I would be unable to prevent emotion being an influence on my decision when it came to safeguarding my 4 year old child.

I don't have sufficient information on the availability of perfectly safe arrangements for the 4 year old due to Cummings' connections. How do you define "perfectly safe"?

[wigginhall]

If the relative is a child that is in danger of harm if left on their own without parental care, and the only way available to you to safeguard the child while minimising the risk of infecting someone else is to leave the country, feel free to fly off on your private jet if that means that you will come into minimal contact with anyone on your journey.

The onus would be on you to justify your actions to the police, if you were requested to do so. If the police think Cummings has broken the lockdown rules they should take the appropriate action. What action are the police taking?

Well, that is your interpretation, but I have a different one.    It's as valid as yours under the rules Mk 2.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sorry Gabriella - in terms of the rules on self isolation and lock down a 4 year old child is not classified as vulnerable. The rules on traveling to care for a vulnerable person do not apply on two grounds - first because the child is not considered to be a vulnerable person under those rules and secondly because the Cummings' family were in self isolation not lock down - and of course the notion of someone in self isolation (i.e. with symptoms or in the same household as someone with symptoms) traveling to look after a vulnerable person is clearly a non starter and should never happen as by definition someone self isolating must never take an action that brings them into contact with a vulnerable person.

I'm sorry PD but I already explained that I did not use the word "vulnerable" in the way it is used in Covid-19 regulations. I used the word "vulnerable" in terms of the normal dictionary meaning of the word. I suggest you address that point rather than ignoring it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, that is your interpretation, but I have a different one.    It's as valid as yours under the rules Mk 2.

Whether it is valid or not would be on you to justify - you may have to justify your interpretation to the police....or the Press.

That is generally how the world works - we form opinions, make decisions, and may be called on to justify them later.

[wigginhall]

Anyway, it was nice that they had a trip to Barnard Castle on her birthday.  What a gent!

[Aruntraveller]

As a human being, I would be unable to prevent emotion being an influence on my decision when it came to safeguarding my 4 year old child

You mean like it is perfectly safe to undertake a 260 mile journey with an already sick wife and the fear that you are also sickening for an illness. That does not make sense to me. Stay at home. Call in help. If top government can't organise a bit of childcare for one of its own, then we really are stuffed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry PD but I already explained that I did not use the word "vulnerable" in the way it is used in Covid-19 regulations. I used the word "vulnerable" in terms of the normal dictionary meaning of the word. I suggest you address that point rather than ignoring it.

But in terms of whether Cummings broke the rule the definition of vulnerable in those rules is the only one that matters.

And in terms of the 'exceptional' circumstance of tow parents unable to look after a small child, then clearly the parents must also retain the principle of self-isolation - in other words not leave the property for 7/14 days. So unless it is impossible for the child to be looked after without the parent's leaving the house they must follow options that mean they can still self isolate. Cummings did not follow those options - so rather than using the 260 trip (which clearly broke self isolation rules) as a last option he seemed to take it as the first options. To note.

1. According to Cummings there never was a situation where their child wasn't able to be looked after by one or other parent - as he claimed neither they nor the child had any direct contact with the sister or parents. So the action was pre-emptive and unnecessary. Had they stayed in London they'd have been fine.

2. Why did they not look for solutions closer to home that did not require them to break self-isolation or massively reduce travel so, for example:

What about their normal child-care options. It beggars believe the a couple like Cummings and Wakefield (who will both work long hours etc) won't have extensive options in place. These could have been called upon if needed (they weren't of course - see 1).

What about family in London - it is widely reported that they both have family in London, including Wakefield's two brothers. Why was if better to drive 260 miles with symptoms rather than get close family living close by to help out if needed (it wasn't of course - see 1)

3. Under the rules on lock down and vulnerable people they should have got relative or friend without symptoms to come to them not the other way around. And of course with her brothers just a few miles away they could have come to stay in the house to look after the child (and would themselves be expected to self isolate or pick up the child). That is no different to what they did in terms of support for the child but avoided breaking self isolation rules and driving 260 miles with symptoms.

4. As a high level 'power couple' undoubtedly they could have tapped into a support network, including official support that did not require them to travel 260 mile and break self isolation rules

You will note too that the government put out specific guidance on whether you could choose where to self isolate (or even lock down) if you had a option of places. And the answer was absolutely clear - no - you had to self isolate where you were, you could not choose to travel to a second home (that's effectively what this was) or holiday let, another household etc etc - you have to remain in the same property for 7/14 days. Cummings did not do this - he clearly broke his own rules.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You mean like it is perfectly safe to undertake a 260 mile journey with an already sick wife and the fear that you are also sickening for an illness. That does not make sense to me. Stay at home. Call in help. If top government can't organise a bit of childcare for one of its own, then we really are stuffed.

Cummings acknowledged that it was perfectly reasonable to disagree with the decision that he and his wife made. I believe he said his wife had thrown up but was not displaying the symptoms of the virus such as persistent continuous cough or temperature. Did he say that he had any symptoms at the time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Grim reading for the government; bloody wonderful reading for decent people.

Given that Government and Johnsons own polls have plummeted,I wonder if it will end up with Cummings advising the government that Johnson should resign?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But in terms of whether Cummings broke the rule the definition of vulnerable in those rules is the only one that matters.

And in terms of the 'exceptional' circumstance of tow parents unable to look after a small child, then clearly the parents must also retain the principle of self-isolation - in other words not leave the property for 7/14 days. So unless it is impossible for the child to be looked after without the parent's leaving the house they must follow options that mean they can still self isolate. Cummings did not follow those options - so rather than using the 260 trip (which clearly broke self isolation rules) as a last option he seemed to take it as the first options. To note.

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

1. According to Cummings there never was a situation where their child wasn't able to be looked after by one or other parent - as he claimed neither they nor the child had any direct contact with the sister or parents. So the action was pre-emptive and unnecessary. Had they stayed in London they'd have been fine.

2. Why did they not look for solutions closer to home that did not require them to break self-isolation or massively reduce travel so, for example:

What about their normal child-care options. It beggars believe the a couple like Cummings and Wakefield (who will both work long hours etc) won't have extensive options in place. These could have been called upon if needed (they weren't of course - see 1).

What about family in London - it is widely reported that they both have family in London, including Wakefield's two brothers. Why was if better to drive 260 miles with symptoms rather than get close family living close by to help out if needed (it wasn't of course - see 1)

3. Under the rules on lock down and vulnerable people they should have got relative or friend without symptoms to come to them not the other way around. And of course with her brothers just a few miles away they could have come to stay in the house to look after the child (and would themselves be expected to self isolate or pick up the child). That is no different to what they did in terms of support for the child but avoided breaking self isolation rules and driving 260 miles with symptoms.

4. As a high level 'power couple' undoubtedly they could have tapped into a support network, including official support that did not require them to travel 260 mile and break self isolation rules

You will note too that the government put out specific guidance on whether you could choose where to self isolate (or even lock down) if you had a option of places. And the answer was absolutely clear - no - you had to self isolate where you were, you could not choose to travel to a second home (that's effectively what this was) or holiday let, another household etc etc - you have to remain in the same property for 7/14 days. Cummings did not do this - he clearly broke his own rules.

Clearly Cummings disagreed with your assessment of the situation.

[wigginhall]

Given that Government and Johnsons own polls have plummeted,I wonder if it will end up with Cummings advising the government that Johnson should resign?

I suggest that Boris has a trip to Durham Castle, the air is bracing, most places are shut, so the virus has no hidey-holes, also close to Barnard Castle, ophthamologically of great repute.