Coronavirus

[Nearly Sane]

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

Why should they 'think twice'?

[SusanDoris]

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.

First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts. 

The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!

[ProfessorDavey]

The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!

This goes way beyond the usual 'whingers and moaners' (whoever they may be).

There is genuine anger across the widest span of the population - it takes something when The Mirror and the Daily Mail are on the same side of an argument about politics.

But this is whipped up Westminster bubble story - no the anger is bottom up. Why? Because countless people have made huge sacrifices since March, have obeyed the rules, have ignored their instincts to go and see loving relatives, to see new born children, to look after children whilst ill, not to see loved relatives etc etc etc - because they did not believe they were allowed to under the rules and they recognised that everyone needed to follow those rules to keep us all safe. And then they find that the architect of those rules can break them with impunity - that's bad enough. But to make it worse he (and the government) is now kind of implying that they were really just a framework and we all needed to interpret them and follow our judgement. So effectively they are telling the public they were mugs for obeying the rules, that grieving woman who didn't visit her dying mother was a mug for not 'following her instinct', that father who wasn't present at the birth of his child was a mug for not 'following his instinct' etc etc.

Remember when Hancock looked us in the eye and said 'These are not requests, these are instructions' - we believed him and Cummings and the government are now implying we were mugs for doing so.

That's why there is anger like I've never seen.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

That’s the whole point - I actually don’t think arranging child care for a 4 year old child who was potentially a carrier of Covid-19 is a simple matter in a pandemic when parents might be severely incapacitated and possibly end up hospitalised and dead. Of course the kid could have been dumped with someone or taken into social care but if I had a better option to keep my 4 year-old from having to be dumped with someone for 14 days or longer, I would take it.

Cummings said he had no symptoms when he drove but yes he could be lying but no the Press have not provided evidence that he is lying but yes they can still write articles without evidence stating he drove while showing symptoms.

Yes I get that some members of the public are upset that Cummings had options that they themselves do not have, or think that he is using child-care as an excuse to isolate in Durham. That’s a valid speculation.

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.

Or I can relate to the reason for driving to Durham to isolate near his sister, nieces and parents for child-care reasons and I don’t feel betrayed or even particularly care that he did.

[Roses]

First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts. 

The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!

People have an absolute right to be angry with the way Cummings has behaved. You might not be so thrilled if you picked up the virus from someone who wasn't self-isolating.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I agree - it would be an extremely foolish thing to do, but in normal circumstances there are no rules to prevent them. But under the current rules there can be no justification unless:

1. It is clear you cannot look after the child yourself - that wasn't the case at the point they made the decision nor thereafter.
2. You had exhausted all options for child-care that did not involve you breaking self isolation including
    a) Relatives/friends nearby being asked to support if necessary
    b) Getting someone else to come to your house to help look after the child (they'd need to self isolate themselves, but that is fine within the rules
    c) Removing the non-symptomatic child from the household (separating him form symptomatic people) to stay with someone else (they'd need to self isolate too).

All of those are in the rules and only if all of those are exhausted could there be a possible justification for travel. In reality they never got beyond 1, as they were able to look after the child. But they are completely silent on 2) - and it isn't reasonable to say 'hey my neices offered, so that's what we went with' - they were 260 miles away - the onus was on Cummings and Wakefield to look for a solution that didn't requirement breaking self isolation - it is unclear they ever did.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

My answer has not changed from the previous times you asked this.

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

People have an absolute right to be angry with the way Cummings has behaved. You might not be so thrilled if you picked up the virus from someone who wasn't self-isolating.

And let's not forget that at the time when Cummings drove 260 miles to Durham London was the epicentre of infections and the NE had few. A few weeks later and the reverse is true - the NE is a hot spot - where did all those infections come from?

Also did you hear the really moving story of the ex MP from Barnard Castle - her father was in a care home and died on 24 April. She lived just 200 metres away and she didn't visit, because she obeyed to lock down rules. Now it is unclear whether COVID-19 contributed to this man's death (he wasn't tested), but the point remains that why she was diligently ignoring her 'instincts' to visit her dying father, just 2 minutes walk away, Cummins was driving 260 miles when he should have been self isolating and taking a trip to Barnard Castle on his wife's birthday (Easter Sunday - 12th April) in clear contravention of lock down rules. 

[Nearly Sane]

First, Gabriella, I think all your recent post are far and away the best on this current situation. I admire very much the time and care you have taken with reading and watching and responding. As far as I can see, I agree with all you are saying and thank you for writing such very interesting posts. 

The whingers or moaners are mainly those whom I hear on FiveLive phone-ins. Mind you, since there is so much of it, I have to turn off after a short while every time I turn on!

Nice to see you once again portraying the many people who have had people die and not be able to visit them as whingers.

[ProfessorDavey]

My answer has not changed from the previous times you asked this.

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.

She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.

And you'll note her very words:

"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." - that did not apply - at no time were Cummings and/or his wife unable to look after their child. There was no exceptional circumstance. And even if there were they needed to look for options that did not require them to break self isolation, of which there are of course plenty, not least asking for official support.

[Nearly Sane]

She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.

And you'll note her very words:

"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." - that did not apply - at no time were Cummings and/or his wife unable to look after their child. There was no exceptional circumstance. And even if there were they needed to look for options that did not require them to break self isolation, of which there are of course plenty, not least asking for official support.

This again relates back to the muddled narrative. Cummings and Wakefield had Schrodinger's Covid - it was an emergency because they had it on the drive, but they didn't cause any risk because they didn't have it on the drive.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree - it would be an extremely foolish thing to do, but in normal circumstances there are no rules to prevent them. But under the current rules there can be no justification unless:

1. It is clear you cannot look after the child yourself - that wasn't the case at the point they made the decision nor thereafter.
2. You had exhausted all options for child-care that did not involve you breaking self isolation including
    a) Relatives/friends nearby being asked to support if necessary
    b) Getting someone else to come to your house to help look after the child (they'd need to self isolate themselves, but that is fine within the rules
    c) Removing the non-symptomatic child from the household (separating him form symptomatic people) to stay with someone else (they'd need to self isolate too).

All of those are in the rules and only if all of those are exhausted could there be a possible justification for travel. In reality they never got beyond 1, as they were able to look after the child. But they are completely silent on 2) - and it isn't reasonable to say 'hey my neices offered, so that's what we went with' - they were 260 miles away - the onus was on Cummings and Wakefield to look for a solution that didn't requirement breaking self isolation - it is unclear they ever did.

You do realise they cannot order a friend/ neighbour/ relative in London to provide child-care right?  I would be pretty pissed off if all of my friends/ neighbours/ relatives phoned up and just presumed they have a right to ask me to take on child-care of their possibly Covid-19 infected 4 year-old while I also had to deal with existing responsibilities eg work, my own children’s online schooling etc. If I had offered based on the closeness I felt to a particular person or because I was selfless enough to risk my health that’s a different matter.

It would be even more disruptive if my whole household had to self-isolate for 14 days in order to look after this child.

[ProfessorDavey]

You do realise they cannot order a friend/ neighbour/ relative in London to provide child-care right?

We have no idea that they even asked - do we. Despite Wakefield's two brother both living in London, and I think one of them also has two children of similar ages to the neices.

We are in exceptional times - the only possible justification for leaving self isolation is clearly if you have no alternative and that means working through all the possible options that do not involve leaving their house in London. There was absolutely no justification for leaving their house in London as at that point and for the next 14 days they were able to look after the child themselves. You cannot break self isolation as a pre-emptive move just in case something might happen. Cummings, having been in SAGE meetings etc must have known that even were they both to come down with COVID-19, as healthy people in their 40s the likelihood of them both developing symptoms severe enough at the same that their child could not be looked after is vanishingly small. And that is as it turned out.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

She had made it clear that this was a safeguarding clause - ie. only to be triggering where there are genuine safeguarding concerns - there were no such safeguarding concerns here.

And you'll note her very words:

"Clearly if you have adults who are unable to look after a small child, that is an exceptional circumstance." - that did not apply - at no time were Cummings and/or his wife unable to look after their child. There was no exceptional circumstance. And even if there were they needed to look for options that did not require them to break self isolation, of which there are of course plenty, not least asking for official support.

That was in relation to who could look after a child once the parents are incapacitated- so that means if Cummings and wife became incapacitated it was ok for the sister and nieces to breach lockdown rules to stay with Cummings st their cottage or take the child to their house.

Jenny Harries also said if there are safeguarding concerns or a need to prevent harm, it was reasonable to break the rules. Cummings took this to mean that his concern that Boris had Covid-19 so he could be infected combined with his wife’s illness might make them too incapacitated to look after their child so it was reasonable to take precautionary child-care measures by travelling to Durham rather than wait to be incapacitated when he would be unable to do the trip.

He could of course be lying and he did have child-care options in London and he actually went to Durham because it was more relaxing than isolating at home. He could be lying about the threats and people shouting outside his house or whatever he said. In the absence of more information I will have to see what comes out of any investigation into the matter.

[wigginhall]

This again relates back to the muddled narrative. Cummings and Wakefield had Schrodinger's Covid - it was an emergency because they had it on the drive, but they didn't cause any risk because they didn't have it on the drive.

Yes, in fact Cummings states in his presser that he wasn't tested.   Did they in fact have covid?   I can't see any evidence of that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jenny Harries also said if there are safeguarding concerns or a need to prevent harm, it was reasonable to break the rules.

Indeed she did - and there were no safeguarding concerns in this case.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We have no idea that they even asked - do we. Despite Wakefield's two brother both living in London, and I think one of them also has two children of similar ages to the neices.

We are in exceptional times - the only possible justification for leaving self isolation is clearly if you have no alternative and that means working through all the possible options that do not involve leaving their house in London. There was absolutely no justification for leaving their house in London as at that point and for the next 14 days they were able to look after the child themselves. You cannot break self isolation as a pre-emptive move just in case something might happen. Cummings, having been in SAGE meetings etc must have known that even were they both to come down with COVID-19, as healthy people in their 40s the likelihood of them both developing symptoms severe enough at the same that their child could not be looked after is vanishingly small. And that is as it turned out.

That depends on how they assessed their abilities to be able to look after a 4 year old for many days while sick. You might find it doable, others might think it is beyond their capabilities.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, in fact Cummings states in his presser that he wasn't tested.   Did they in fact have covid?   I can't see any evidence of that.

I think we have to take it that at some point in the Durham sojourn that based on the symptoms at least he did. That however doesn't mean that we clear up if Wakefield did or whether at the time they did the first drive whether they thought either of them had it. If they didn't think they had it, they shouldn't have done the drive, and yet if they did think they had they shouldn't have done the drive either,

It's also unclear what the trip to the hospital while they were staying in Durham actually was about,

[ProfessorDavey]

That depends on how they assessed their abilities to be able to look after a 4 year old for many days while sick. You might find it doable, others might think it is beyond their capabilities.

Ah bless - snowflakes - get a grip Gabriella - we are in exceptional times and the government is expecting us all to make considerable sacrifices to keep the country safe. I might find it hard to look after my 4-year old so I'll break self isolation even though at the time:

1. There was no clear evidence that either had covid-19, and Cummings was well enough to drive 260 miles
2. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time
3. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time and their symptoms would be severe enough to be unable to look after their child.

I'm sorry Gab - this isn't about exceptional circumstances, it isn't about safeguarding, it is about Cummings and his wife taking a personal and selfish decision that self isolating in Durham would be easier for them (despite government guidelines being clear that you cannot cherry pick the place to self isolate). Wakefield even says as much in her article - saying that her thoughts when she became ill was that she and Cummings would have a nice 14 days of self isolation, she'd have him back from work etc etc. That was the context in which they made the decision - that's what she said before she knew that all hell would break loose when people found out about the drive.

Sure it's much nicer to spend 14 days self isolation in a nice rural spot where you can go out for walks on private land etc etc, rather than in Islington. But that's not what the rules allow.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Indeed she did - and there were no safeguarding concerns in this case.

The advice to the public from Harries was you can break lockdown rules in situations where you think it necessary to prevent harm. That would require the public to exercise their judgement.

Whether their actions were justified would have to be determined after they had exercised their judgement and broken the rules.

[Udayana]

...
Or I can relate to the reason for driving to Durham to isolate near his sister, nieces and parents for child-care reasons and I don’t feel betrayed or even particularly care that he did.

I should think that, assuming that they were the true reasons, most parents would understand and relate to them. Neither do I feel betrayed.

However, I do care that, as the spin doctor in chief for the current regime in the current crisis, having taken the decisions and actions that they took,  they attempt to keep it hidden and he does not resign.
   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ah bless - snowflakes - get a grip Gabriella - we are in exceptional times and the government is expecting us all to make considerable sacrifices to keep the country safe. I might find it hard to look after my 4-year old so I'll break self isolation even though at the time:

1. There was no clear evidence that either had covid-19, and Cummings was well enough to drive 260 miles
2. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time
3. There was no evidence that were they both to become ill that they'd both be ill at the same time and their symptoms would be severe enough to be unable to look after their child.

I'm sorry Gab - this isn't about exceptional circumstances, it isn't about safeguarding, it is about Cummings and his wife taking a personal and selfish decision that self isolating in Durham would be easier for them (despite government guidelines being clear that you cannot cherry pick the place to self isolate). Wakefield even says as much in her article - saying that her thoughts when she became ill was that she and Cummings would have a nice 14 days of self isolation, she'd have him back from work etc etc. That was the context in which they made the decision - that's what she said before she knew that all hell would break loose when people found out about the drive.

Sure it's much nicer to spend 14 days self isolation in a nice rural spot where you can go out for walks on private land etc etc, rather than in Islington. But that's not what the rules allow.

You do know that calling someone a snowflake does not usually cause them to change their assessment of their abilities though it might make you feel smug and superior? I get that sounding smug and superior is your usual posting style on here.

The wife is a journalist- I would not take everything she wrote as being factual- she wasn’t writing a deposition. She was writing an article to project particular images that she wanted to share or convey certain ideas. She also said Cummings was a kind husband.

[SteveH]

Breaking news - Cummings caught sacrificing a virgin at the full moon - Gabriella and SusanDoris spring to his defence - "He was exercising his right to freedom of religion".

[Udayana]

The advice to the public from Harries was you can break lockdown rules in situations where you think it necessary to prevent harm. That would require the public to exercise their judgement.

Whether their actions were justified would have to be determined after they had exercised their judgement and broken the rules.

Actually I think Harries should resign as well, she has been rubbish throughout the whole period!

[SusanDoris]

People have an absolute right to be angry with the way Cummings has behaved. You might not be so thrilled if you picked up the virus from someone who wasn't self-isolating.

That's not the point. People have all sorts of rights. As I understand it, Cummings broke the spirit of the rule, but not the letter. And it was not a law that had gone through Parliament and been passed.
I don't think much of Cummings, but with regard to the dreadful behaviour of people shouting abuse at him from their windows, which I understand has been the case, then who is more virtuous, or right or wrong?

If I happen to catch the virus, it will have nothing to do with cummings behaviour and I would not expect him to consider my personal situation.