Coronavirus

[ProfessorDavey]

Or his exercise of his judgement to drive to Durham for child-care was reasonable for both him and the general public - if members of the public had similar child care concerns and had used their judgement to interpret the statements made by Jenny Harries as allowing them to drive for child-care. I guess we'll find out when we have more information from the people who made the rules.

And indeed they did and quite a few were fined as we discovered yesterday.

Stop reinventing what others say - Jenny Harries did not say you were allowed to drive for child care (trust me as someone who owns a childcare business I think I'm pretty clued up on what was and was not allowed for child-care). No - under exceptional circumstances where there was a safeguarding concern you may be allowed to leave your house - that is what the rules allowed.

And these were not exceptional circumstances, there was no safeguarding concern and even if there were degree of proportionality would apply - on other words finding the solution that most closely maintained the self isolation restrictions - that would not be drive 260 miles.

And even in Jenny Harries most recent post-Cummings reinterpretation of the advice she gives no comfort to Cummings as her example relates to a child who is 'significantly unwell and has no support' (her very words) - in what way does that apply to the Cummings situation - it doesn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On the subject of distancing, it could well be said that I have not kept exactly to the right distance. The Age Concern lady who does my shopping for me carries the bags through to the kitchen and takes everything out of the bags. During the time she is in my house, the distance between us can easily be closer than 2 metres. However, I do not worry about that. The instances of covid 19 hereabouts is very low and being a quite long-term volunteer for Age Concern, she is well aware of how to be careful.

From the time of her visit yesterday until the next time she comes, I shall not be anywhere near any other person, so if by some remote chance I have caught covid 19 from her or any of the food packaging - which I certainly wasn't going to wipe every surface of -  then I shall not pass it on to anyone. I realise that I am lucky compared with some of the difficulties other blind people are coping with, according to In Touch yesterday, but not having my reader or my cleaner coming is making life difficult.

Must be really tough for you Susan - I am missing my cleaner, who came ad-hoc when I needed her, which was usually every 2 or 3 weeks, but at least I can clean and she had not been to my house for a few weeks before lockdown.

[ProfessorDavey]

The story is that neither of them were displaying Covid-19 symptoms at the time of the drive to Durham - no continuous cough or temperature so no need to self-isolate until symptoms appeared.

I don't believe that is true - both Wakefield and Cummings in different responses at different times (both before and after the story broke) believed that Wakefield might have COVID-19 due to her being unwell - therefore self isolation kicked in at the moment symptoms developed - at that point the rules required Wakefield to self isolate and not leave her home (in Islington) and for anyone else in the household (including Cummings and the child) to self isolate and not leave the home for 14 days unless symptoms developed in which case self isolation could end 7 days after appearance of symptoms.

But even if the didn't think they were under self isolation (I think it is pretty clear they did), then they were definitely under lock down and none of the reasons to leave the house under lock down apply to their 260 mile journey.

So it really matters not whether they were under self isolation or lock down - they still broke the rules.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hiding things is a natural consequence of having online social media and journalists -  as much as thinking that people are interested in someone else's every movement or thinking that others are interested in every thought that pops into someone else's brain.

There is a fine line between hiding things and downright lying. You can argue that failing to mention a 260 trip to Durham is just hiding things (I think most of us understand why she didn't want to mention it, proved right with the furious response when the story broke), but how about.

But how about Wakefield's claim that Cummings was bed ridden for 10 days solid, while Cummings said he drove to the hospital in the middle of that period - one of them must be lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jenrick's a smarmy looking fuckpiece.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And indeed they did and quite a few were fined as we discovered yesterday.

Stop reinventing what others say - Jenny Harries did not say you were allowed to drive for child care (trust me as someone who owns a childcare business I think I'm pretty clued up on what was and was not allowed for child-care). No - under exceptional circumstances where there was a safeguarding concern you may be allowed to leave your house - that is what the rules allowed.

Got any links to specifics? I would need details before forming an opinion. Also, given the number of times we disagree on here why would I trust you?

And these were not exceptional circumstances, there was no safeguarding concern and even if there were degree of proportionality would apply - on other words finding the solution that most closely maintained the self isolation restrictions - that would not be drive 260 miles.

Prevention of harm is also a reason to break lockdown rules. They weren't required to self-isolate when they drove up to Durham as they weren't displaying symptoms. Let's wait for the investigation to determine what was reasonable. Who is carrying out an investigation Who gets to decide these issues?

And even in Jenny Harries most recent post-Cummings reinterpretation of the advice she gives no comfort to Cummings as her example relates to a child who is 'significantly unwell and has no support' (her very words) - in what way does that apply to the Cummings situation - it doesn't.

Given your history of selective quoting on here I won't take your word for it that this is all she said.

I have a feeling of deja vu. This reminds of our discussion in the Alex Salmond case where I kept saying let's wait for the courts to determine the issue as we don't have sufficient information and you were insistent that Salmond asking for a judicial review of the disciplinary process investigation against him was an abuse of his power. http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16041.275

[ProfessorDavey]

Prevention of harm is also a reason to break lockdown rules.

What harm - if Wakefield and Cummings can leave lock down while their child is in a house with one ill parent and on well parent, due to potential (not actual) harm, then surely anyone with a kid could do so - perhaps to prevent the kids killing each other. Ok everyones getting a bit hot under the collar - could be harm, yup lets prevent that harm - quick trip to the country 260 miles away - yup that should do the trick.

And at that point, surely the only potential harm was the child catching the illness - how does traveling for six hours in a confined car - prevent that harm. Surely it would exacerbate it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't believe that is true - both Wakefield and Cummings in different responses at different times (both before and after the story broke) believed that Wakefield might have COVID-19 due to her being unwell - therefore self isolation kicked in at the moment symptoms developed - at that point the rules required Wakefield to self isolate and not leave her home (in Islington) and for anyone else in the household (including Cummings and the child) to self isolate and not leave the home for 14 days unless symptoms developed in which case self isolation could end 7 days after appearance of symptoms.

Symptoms developing is a matter of fact - either they did or they didn't. Vomiting is not a symptom of Covid-19 therefore symptoms had not developed.

Yes you can think you might have Covid-19 without having the symptoms but the requirement to isolate is dependent on actually having symptoms not based on speculation.

But even if the didn't think they were under self isolation (I think it is pretty clear they did), then they were definitely under lock down and none of the reasons to leave the house under lock down apply to their 260 mile journey.

So it really matters not whether they were under self isolation or lock down - they still broke the rules.

Let's wait for the outcome of any investigation. Who determines whether they did or they didn't break the rules? I think we can agree that it's not you that determines this.

[ProfessorDavey]

Got any links to specifics? I would need details before forming an opinion. Also, given the number of times we disagree on here why would I trust you?

Yes the rules around schools, nurseries and other child-care providers remaining open for the children of key workers (if and only if they cannot be looked after at him) - and indeed that key workers are specifically allowed to break lock down to take their child to that designated child-care (and can be placed at an appropriate setting by the relevant local authority).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What harm - if Wakefield and Cummings can leave lock down while their child is in a house with one ill parent and on well parent, due to potential (not actual) harm, then surely anyone with a kid could do so - perhaps to prevent the kids killing each other. Ok everyones getting a bit hot under the collar - could be harm, yup lets prevent that harm - quick trip to the country 260 miles away - yup that should do the trick.

Let's wait for the outcome of any investigation to determine this. Who gets to decide? I think we've established that it's not you.

And at that point, surely the only potential harm was the child catching the illness - how does traveling for six hours in a confined car - prevent that harm. Surely it would exacerbate it.

Let's wait for the outcome of an investigation to determine of that was the only potential harm. I'm fairly certain it's not you that gets to determine this.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes the rules around schools, nurseries and other child-care providers remaining open for the children of key workers (if and only if they cannot be looked after at him) - and indeed that key workers are specifically allowed to break lock down to take their child to that designated child-care (and can be placed at an appropriate setting by the relevant local authority).

No I meant links to people being fined for breaching lockdown because they behaved in a similar way to the Cummings when they faced similar child-care issues.

[ProfessorDavey]

Symptoms developing is a matter of fact - either they did or they didn't. Vomiting is not a symptom of Covid-19 therefore symptoms had not developed.

Both Wakefield and Cummings believed her symptoms may be COVID-19. At that point you will be required to self isolate until or unless information is forthcoming to the contrary (in other words clinical advice from 111 or a negative test). For obvious reasons you don't work on best case scenarios but on worse case scenarios.

Wakefield in her piece is convinced that she had the disease - she even starts her piece by talking about the different experiences people had:

"My version of the virus started with a nasty headache and a grubby feeling of unease after which I threw up ... "

She thought she had the virus - therefore she needed to self isolate from that moment on.

Cummings thought so too:
"She was ill, she might have Covid "

[Harrowby Hall]

- this a matter of misconduct in his public office role - if he broke his own rules he needs to resign or be sacked from that office.

Is he in a "public office" or is he an employee of the Conservative Party?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is he in a "public office" or is he an employee of the Conservative Party?

He is in a public office as he is the chief advisor to the PM - that is a government appointment not a Conservative party one. He is, in effect, a part of the civil service, hence there was a load of discussion about whether he was actually allowed to make the statement he did on Monday and whether this was a breach of the civil service code.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Both Wakefield and Cummings believed her symptoms may be COVID-19. At that point you will be required to self isolate until or unless information is forthcoming to the contrary (in other words clinical advice from 111 or a negative test). For obvious reasons you don't work on best case scenarios but on worse case scenarios.

Wakefield in her piece is convinced that she had the disease - she even starts her piece by talking about the different experiences people had:

"My version of the virus started with a nasty headache and a grubby feeling of unease after which I threw up ... "

She thought she had the virus - therefore she needed to self isolate from that moment on.

Cummings thought so too:
"She was ill, she might have Covid "

My husband and I believed that he had contracted Covid-19 when he returned from abroad as I heard him coughing occasionally and he had been at a cricket match where one of the spectators he had been in the vicinity of had tested positive for Covid-19. But then again it's an annual cricket match and he always comes home with a cough or a hoarse voice from all the dust and the shouting.

So anyway, I thought we may all have to self-isolate and I was worried that he had the virus.  Then I looked up the symptoms and realised that it needed to be a continuous cough to be considered a symptom - “coughing a lot for more than an hour, or three or more coughing episodes in 24 hours”. He did not have those symptoms so that was the end of any self-isolating. Regardless of what I thought or feared there wasn't any evidence as we did not have the accepted symptoms. There may be all kinds of people who believe that they had the virus but never had the required symptoms of high temperature or continuous cough. I think BHS has something to say about beliefs just being guesses and that they should not be taken as fact.

My body felt a bit achy for a day and my mind sometimes starts wondering if I had had the virus but despite the wanderings of my mind I never had any symptoms of the virus. Until I am tested I guess I will never know.

In Wakefield's case, sure as a journalist she can write an article after she recovered claiming she had the virus because the symptoms of the virus (high temperature) eventually developed but were not there on the day she first started thinking that she may have the virus. So on that first day of no generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 she was not required to self-isolate. Once she developed the generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 - a high temperature - she was required to self-isolate.

Also, Cummings' father apparently informed the police in Durham when Cummings arrived from London - if that's true and the police in Durham have confirmed this - the police have had an opportunity to investigate further. What was the outcome of their investigation? Who gets to decide if Cummings has broken the rules? I think we've established that it's not you that gets to decide. 

[Nearly Sane]

Nowhere have I 'dismissed' people or the upset they feel, and I don't think I called people whingers. I don't think I used the word 'whingers', I think I used moaners and nowhere did I dismiss their feelings of upset. What I challenge is their feeling that because they feel that particular way, whatever their particular  circumstances, others have to do what they wish them to do, rather than what those others consider is correct and more beneficial to them in  their personal circumstances. It is as if I should want to stop Dominic Cummings doing what he thinks is the best for his child because I am unable to get out and about because of my blindness. that would be really stupid. Whatever the moral and factual rights and wrongs of Dominic Cummings' behaviour, it would appear that in London his child  could well have been subjected to
harassment. But I do not know.

I have tried to edit that, but I'll leave it as it  is in spite of the repetition. Wrong assumption. There is much that I have disagreed with gabriella on occasions, and I did notice a minor detail or two which I could have picked up on, but overall I think her posts show a calm, considered and considerate tone.

In your Reply 2201 you refer to whingers. Not that I see much difference between that and 'moaners' . They believe they were following the rules and Cummings wasn't. It's not about their feelings it's about whether the rules as laid out by the govt were followed by a leading civil servant who wrote those rules. And you think they are just moaning and can be dismissed.

And you don't get to just assert that you are not biased as you have done here. We all are. If there was a Inquiry and you were told both Gabriella and Prof Davey were to be on it would you feel happier about Gabriella, If so, why?

[ProfessorDavey]

My husband and I believed that he had contracted Covid-19 when he returned from abroad as I heard him coughing occasionally and he had been at a cricket match where one of the spectators he had been in the vicinity of had tested positive for Covid-19. But then again it's an annual cricket match and he always comes home with a cough or a hoarse voice from all the dust and the shouting.

Clearly pre-lock down so not really relevant, but none-the-less.

So anyway, I thought we may all have to self-isolate and I was worried that he had the virus.  Then I looked up the symptoms and realised that it needed to be a continuous cough to be considered a symptom - “coughing a lot for more than an hour, or three or more coughing episodes in 24 hours”. He did not have those symptoms so that was the end of any self-isolating. Regardless of what I thought or feared there wasn't any evidence as we did not have the accepted symptoms. There may be all kinds of people who believe that they had the virus but never had the required symptoms of high temperature or continuous cough. I think BHS has something to say about beliefs just being guesses and that they should not be taken as fact.

Sure, but until or unless you'd verified through a reasonable route (e.g. 111) that you did not need to self isolate you are expected to work on the basis of worse case scenarios, so to self isolate until released as it were.

In Wakefield's case, sure as a journalist she can write an article after she recovered claiming she had the virus because the symptoms of the virus (high temperature) eventually developed but were not there on the day she first started thinking that she may have the virus. So on that first day of no generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 she was not required to self-isolate. Once she developed the generally accepted symptoms of Covid-19 - a high temperature - she was required to self-isolate.

Unless she and Cummings are both simply lying it is clear that they both believed she may have COVID-19 so they needed to self isolate until they'd ascertained that it was not necessary.

And as I keep pointing out it makes no odds whether they were self isolating or just in lock-down - a 260 mile journey was against the rules even if they were in lock down rather than self isolation.

Also, Cummings' father apparently informed the police in Durham when Cummings arrived from London - if that's true and the police in Durham have confirmed this - the police have had an opportunity to investigate further. What was the outcome of their investigation? Who gets to decide if Cummings has broken the rules? I think we've established that it's not you that gets to decide.

The police are investigating further. We know the police provided advice at the time - I don't think it has been revealed what advice they gave. But remember the police have discretion - if they see that rules or laws have been broken, at their discretion, they may choose to prosecute, fine, advise or do nothing. That the police chose not to fine anyone does not mean that they did not consider that Cummings had broken the rules.

But there are two elements to this - firstly whether under the law the police might get involved - but there is the point about his position. It is extremely common for someone to be sacked from a role, or be asked to resign with having broken a law in police terms - because the rules around professional conduct are very different to the criminal or civil law.

[ProfessorDavey]

And besides the rules require self isolation if you have been in close contact with someone who had subsequently tested positive for coronavirus.

The PM tested positive on the 26th March - Cummings knew about this before Wakefield became ill - from his statement:

'Around midnight on Thursday, the 26th of March, I spoke to the prime minister. He told me that he tested positive for Covid.'

'The next morning, I went to work as usual. I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency. I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four year old child. She told me she suddenly felt badly ill.'

'At this point, most of those who I work with most closely, including the prime minister himself and others who sit within 15 feet of me every day, either had had symptoms and had returned to work or were absent with symptoms.'

Under the rules Cummings needed to self isolate because he had been in regular close contact with a person who had tested positive with the virus. In fact by going into 'work as usual' - he broke the rules yet again.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Clearly pre-lock down so not really relevant, but none-the-less.

Both before and during. He came back into the country on 18th March and lockdown was from 23 March. He had the cough during lockdown and so I looked up the symptoms on the internet and determined that he was not displaying any of the accepted symptoms.

Sure, but until or unless you'd verified through a reasonable route (e.g. 111) that you did not need to self isolate you are expected to work on the basis of worse case scenarios, so to self isolate until released as it were.

Not sure where you are getting that from? If you do not have the accepted symptoms you were not required to self-isolate.

Unless she and Cummings are both simply lying it is clear that they both believed she may have COVID-19 so they needed to self isolate until they'd ascertained that it was not necessary.

Where does it say that on the NHS website? I looked it up at the time and the NHS website said call 111 if you have the following symptoms of coronavirus - new continuous cough, high temperature - and you will be advised what to do. It did not say anything about assuming the worst even if you do not have the accepted symptoms and self-isolating until you can get through to the NHS.

Also while my aunt was busy puking continuously while lying on her floor moaning from severe abdominal pain, I called 111 and there was a recorded message that said there would be a wait of at least 1 hour before I would get through to speak to someone, So think it is a bad idea to advise people to phone 111 about coronavirus unless they actually have symptoms as I don't think 111 are coping with the current call volumes.

I decided not to wait for an hour to speak to someone. I spoke to a relative who was a doctor. He said he could not diagnose anything over the phone as to why she could be puking and shouting in pain so I asked my husband to drop me and my aunt off at A&E instead.

And as I keep pointing out it makes no odds whether they were self isolating or just in lock-down - a 260 mile journey was against the rules even if they were in lock down rather than self isolation.
The police are investigating further. We know the police provided advice at the time - I don't think it has been revealed what advice they gave. But remember the police have discretion - if they see that rules or laws have been broken, at their discretion, they may choose to prosecute, fine, advise or do nothing. That the police chose not to fine anyone does not mean that they did not consider that Cummings had broken the rules.

So currently we have no view from the police whether Cummings broke the rules. Ok so let's wait for the police to comment on that even if they choose not to fine him.

But there are two elements to this - firstly whether under the law the police might get involved - but there is the point about his position. It is extremely common for someone to be sacked from a role, or be asked to resign with having broken a law in police terms - because the rules around professional conduct are very different to the criminal or civil law.

So currently we have no view from the police whether Cummings broke the rules. I assume you meant in your above comment that someone can be asked to resign without breaking the law. So who determines whether the rules of professional conduct have been breached in this situation and that Cummings should be asked to resign?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And besides the rules require self isolation if you have been in close contact with someone who had subsequently tested positive for coronavirus.

The PM tested positive on the 26th March - Cummings knew about this before Wakefield became ill - from his statement:

'Around midnight on Thursday, the 26th of March, I spoke to the prime minister. He told me that he tested positive for Covid.'

'The next morning, I went to work as usual. I was in a succession of meetings about this emergency. I suddenly got a call from my wife who was at home looking after our four year old child. She told me she suddenly felt badly ill.'

'At this point, most of those who I work with most closely, including the prime minister himself and others who sit within 15 feet of me every day, either had had symptoms and had returned to work or were absent with symptoms.'

Under the rules Cummings needed to self isolate because he had been in regular close contact with a person who had tested positive with the virus. In fact by going into 'work as usual' - he broke the rules yet again.

No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.

ETA: I have checked and the advice was contact 111 if you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive and you will be advised what to do. You will probably be advised to self-isolate. So on that basis - everyone who had been in close contact with Boris should have contacted 111 to see if they should be self-isolating once he tested positive.

The question then goes back to whether Cummings acted reasonably by travelling to Durham for childcare reasons when he should have possibly be self-isolating.

[ProfessorDavey]

No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.

I don't believe that is the case - and besides it makes no sense as you have to self isolate if you have symptoms, so the issue of being in contact with someone tasing positive is moot.

From:

https://www.cipd.co.uk/news-views/coronavirus/faqs/employees-self-isolating-symptoms

'Q: One of our workers has been confirmed as having the virus, should we close the workplace?

Where a worker has the virus the position is as follows:

A worker with a confirmed diagnosis should stay at home with immediate effect and employers should advise them to follow the Government's self-isolation advice and apply for a test.
If a worker has symptoms, however mild, or is in a household where someone has symptoms, they should self-isolate, as should all in their household. These people should not leave their house or go to work and employers should advise them to follow the latest government advice.
Whether the workplace should be closed entirely is not addressed in the Government advice and it appears employers will have to make that decision.

Staff who were exposed to the infected colleague should be sent home. Government advice states those who have been in recent close contact with an infected person should self-isolate, breaking the transmission chain.'

My emphasis.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't believe that is the case - and besides it makes no sense as you have to self isolate if you have symptoms, so the issue of being in contact with someone tasing positive is moot.

From:

https://www.cipd.co.uk/news-views/coronavirus/faqs/employees-self-isolating-symptoms

'Q: One of our workers has been confirmed as having the virus, should we close the workplace?

Where a worker has the virus the position is as follows:

A worker with a confirmed diagnosis should stay at home with immediate effect and employers should advise them to follow the Government's self-isolation advice and apply for a test.
If a worker has symptoms, however mild, or is in a household where someone has symptoms, they should self-isolate, as should all in their household. These people should not leave their house or go to work and employers should advise them to follow the latest government advice.
Whether the workplace should be closed entirely is not addressed in the Government advice and it appears employers will have to make that decision.

Staff who were exposed to the infected colleague should be sent home. Government advice states those who have been in recent close contact with an infected person should self-isolate, breaking the transmission chain.'

My emphasis.

I just edited my previous post above. I agree with you. See my post above.

[SusanDoris]

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

You might have noticed that I did not specify at all any particular moaner or any particular story, and that was a deliberate choice in order not to pinpoint one person.

[Nearly Sane]

You might have noticed that I did not specify at all any particular moaner or any particular story, and that was a deliberate choice in order not to pinpoint one person.

Which then generalised it to cover everyone including those who have been prevented from being with their loved ones as they died.

[Nearly Sane]

No - the advice at the time was if you have been in contact with someone who tested positive and you are showing any of the accepted symptoms of Covid-19, you should self-isolate.

ETA: I have checked and the advice was contact 111 if you have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive and you will be advised what to do. You will probably be advised to self-isolate. So on that basis - everyone who had been in close contact with Boris should have contacted 111 to see if they should be self-isolating once he tested positive.

The question then goes back to whether Cummings acted reasonably by travelling to Durham for childcare reasons when he should have possibly be self-isolating.

On the guidance at the time and since, obviously no. Harries talked about it as being a matter of life and death. This obviously was not.