Coronavirus

[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.

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.

Thanks for accepting that I was correct - your lines of argument are one, by one, disappearing.

To have acted reasonably in leaving the house when self isolating (or under lock down) he would need to demonstrate that he had exhausted all avenues to look after the child safely without leaving the house, and to demonstrate that the journey he took was a proportionate response in terms of relative risk (to the child vs to the broader population on public health grounds).

Given that the most obvious route for childcare - the parent's looking after him, remained the case throughout he'd have to argue that although him and his wife were well enough to look after the child in Durham they would have been too ill to look after him in their home in Islington to be acting reasonably. How could they possibly do that?

Their actions were neither reasonable (there were demonstrably other options available that wouldn't require them to leave the house - namely looking after the child while self isolating in Islington). Nor were they proportionate - were they to have had to leave the house proportionality would dictate as short a journey as possible - if only they had family close, perhaps a couple of miles away - oh yes she has a choice of two brothers.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Indeed and she was clearly talking about vulnerable children (Cummings son, as far as I'm aware isn't one) and safeguarding - as far as I'm aware there were no safeguarding issues.

Heaven help us if we end up in a situation where two parents potentially getting ill with a disease that for most people of Cummings and Wakefield's age produces no more than mild symptoms becomes a safeguarding issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this section of Wakefield's account is the most telling in terms of the decision they made that very evening:

'That evening as I lay on the sofa a happy thought occurred to me. If this was the virus then my husband who works 16 hour days as a rule would have to come home. I let myself imagine a fortnight in bed with mild symptoms chatting to Dom and son through an open door. More fool me. My husband did rush home to look after me, he's an extremely kind man whatever people assume to the contrary'

What we now know is that very evening they drove to Durham. Don't forget she wrote this before the story of the Durham trip broke.

Frankly (in Occam's razor sense) the most obvious conclusion here is that they decided that self isolating in rural Durham would be altogether more pleasant experience than in cramped Islington. Not an unreasonable 'instinct' but completely against the rules.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks for accepting that I was correct - your lines of argument are one, by one, disappearing.

To have acted reasonably in leaving the house when self isolating (or under lock down) he would need to demonstrate that he had exhausted all avenues to look after the child safely without leaving the house, and to demonstrate that the journey he took was a proportionate response in terms of relative risk (to the child vs to the broader population on public health grounds).

Given that the most obvious route for childcare - the parent's looking after him, remained the case throughout he'd have to argue that although him and his wife were well enough to look after the child in Durham they would have been too ill to look after him in their home in Islington to be acting reasonably. How could they possibly do that?

Their actions were neither reasonable (there were demonstrably other options available that wouldn't require them to leave the house - namely looking after the child while self isolating in Islington). Nor were they proportionate - were they to have had to leave the house proportionality would dictate as short a journey as possible - if only they had family close, perhaps a couple of miles away - oh yes she has a choice of two brothers.

Yes you were correct that Cummings would have to isolate based on Boris testing positive.

Cummings was arguing that he thought he and his wife might become too sick to look after the 4 year old as his wife had felt unable to look after her son after she threw up and Cummings had to drive home to help. He argued that if they both became too sick and they had no child care options in London, it would be exceptional circumstances. I am not sure if there were any other exceptional circumstances that he listed. Who decides on whether that was a reasonable fear or not and whether the circumstances were exceptional?

We have no information on whether Wakefield's brothers were willing and able to look after a 4 year old that could be infected with/ a carrier of Covid-19. If the 4 year-old was in their house and had Covid-19, the whole household would have to self-isolate. We have no information on whether either of the brothers and their households were willing to do that.

Cummings said his sister and nieces were willing to take on the 4 year old if Cummings and his wife both got too sick to look after him, either by one of them staying in the cottage and isolating with them for 14 days, or the child staying and isolating at the sister's house. Cummings said the reasoning was that the 17 year old and 20 year old had a statistically lower risk of becoming seriously ill than someone in their 40s.

Once an investigation is carried out hopefully we will have a definitive answer on whether there were no reasonable child care options in London that Cummings could access and also, as a result, whether Cummings' reasoning and actions in driving 250 miles to Durham to isolate near his sister and nieces were reasonable and proportionate.

[Aruntraveller]

You really can't make this wonderful stuff up. No really the government needs to put itself up for comedy awards. Brilliant.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-daily-testing-figure-announcement-boris-johnson-uk-a9534761.html?

[flower girl]

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

This morning I read a comment by a FB friend who lives in Omskirk where he suggests the Cummings' fiasco has exposed Johnson's poor leadership resulting in the latter's decline in popularity.  Having followed for awhile the similarities between Trump and Johnson, their actions, their lies, their abject lack of concern for the other 98%, his observations give me hope that we'll soon see a similar decline with Trump as well with his rules for us and different rules for everyone else (beneath us.) 

(I'll invite him to this forum.  He's the most excellent, armchair journalist who's been documenting the political arena over there since the Brexit vote passed, and he often comments, accurately, on Trump as well.)

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting take on Cummings statement - clearly written word for word by laywers:

https://www.ft.com/video/e82b5a00-3ad5-4d2c-9703-ff14942aa5b1

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Harries said at the Press Conference on Sat 23rd May "government guidance always accounts for ‘safeguarding’ of children who have ‘no support’. She added: ‘There’s always a safeguarding clause in all of the advice. The interpretation of that advice is probably for others.’

Would be good to know the definition of "no support" and who is responsible for the interpretation of what is a safeguarding issue. Who are these "others?"

[ProfessorDavey]

Also worth actually looking at the relevant regulations:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

Really struggling to see how Cummings decision to travel (on either occasion) can be justified with a 'reasonable excuse' in which case it means that it must:

'6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

(c)to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph 37 or 38 of Schedule 2;

(d)to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(1), to a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;

(e)to donate blood;

(f)to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the place where they are living;

(g)to attend a funeral of—

(i)a member of the person’s household,

(ii)a close family member, or

(iii)if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;

(h)to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to participate in legal proceedings;

(i)to access critical public services, including—

(i)childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the child);

(ii)social services;

(iii)services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;

(iv)services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);

(j)in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care of, the child;

(k)in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;

(l)to move house where reasonably necessary;

(m)to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.'

[Nearly Sane]

Harries said at the Press Conference on Sat 23rd May "government guidance always accounts for ‘safeguarding’ of children who have ‘no support’. She added: ‘There’s always a safeguarding clause in all of the advice. The interpretation of that advice is probably for others.’

Would be good to know the definition of "no support" and who is responsible for the interpretation of what is a safeguarding issue. Who are these "others?"

She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not. 

[ProfessorDavey]

She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not.

I think the safeguarding clause is a red herring as it is a statutory duty on organisations not on members of the public.

So in this context it effectively means that a child can be removed by a public body from an unsafe household under safeguarding obligations - in other words if there is a concern over physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect. So a child or vulnerable can leave a household (or rather be removed from it) even if not for any of the reasons under section 6 of the regulations.

I can't really see how it applies in any way to Cummings decision.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

She also said as already covered that breaking lockdown was for a matter of life and death. This was not.

I did not see where she said that. Do you have a link please?

[SteveH]

This morning I read a comment by a FB friend who lives in Omskirk where he suggests the Cummings' fiasco has exposed Johnson's poor leadership resulting in the latter's decline in popularity.  Having followed for awhile the similarities between Trump and Johnson, their actions, their lies, their abject lack of concern for the other 98%, his observations give me hope that we'll soon see a similar decline with Trump as well with his rules for us and different rules for everyone else (beneath us.) 

(I'll invite him to this forum.  He's the most excellent, armchair journalist who's been documenting the political arena over there since the Brexit vote passed, and he often comments, accurately, on Trump as well.)

You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!

[Aruntraveller]

You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!

Is that non-believers in religion or non-believers in equality?

[flower girl]

You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!

No doubt, he'd be fine and likely would never bring out the savage beast in anyone.   

[Roses]

You'd better warn him that the non-beievers on here can be savage!

So can people like you!

[ProfessorDavey]

Car crash interview with Matt Hancock this morning on the Today programme.

Hancock was banging on about the new track and trace rules - saying it was people's civic duty to do the right thing, that the government would instruct people who had had contact with someone testing positive to stay at home for 14 days even if they had no symptoms themselves.

At which point Nick Robinson asked whether doing your civil duty, doing the right thing, staying at home allowed someone to drive to a beauty spot. Hancock simply had no answer - he blustered and stumbled but simply couldn't answer.

The most corrosive aspect of the whole Cummings affair is its effect on the next stages to deal with the virus. If someone from the government rings you up and tells you to stay at home for 14 days even though you have no symptoms and may not even know who it is you are supposed to have been in contact with - how many will go, thanks, but no thanks - why should I obey the rules and stay at home when Cummings is allowed to break them.

It is a problem - and trust can only be restored by Cummins either falling on his sword or being sacked. While he stays in place the ability of the government to 'instruct' us to do things we really would prefer not to, is critically undermined.

[Roses]

Car crash interview with Matt Hancock this morning on the Today programme.

Hancock was banging on about the new track and trace rules - saying it was people's civic duty to do the right thing, that the government would instruct people who had had contact with someone testing positive to stay at home for 14 days even if they had no symptoms themselves.

At which point Nick Robinson asked whether doing your civil duty, doing the right thing, staying at home allowed someone to drive to a beauty spot. Hancock simply had no answer - he blustered and stumbled but simply couldn't answer.

The most corrosive aspect of the whole Cummings affair is its effect on the next stages to deal with the virus. If someone from the government rings you up and tells you to stay at home for 14 days even though you have no symptoms and may not even know who it is you are supposed to have been in contact with - how many will go, thanks, but no thanks - why should I obey the rules and stay at home when Cummings is allowed to break them.

It is a problem - and trust can only be restored by Cummins either falling on his sword or being sacked. While he stays in place the ability of the government to 'instruct' us to do things we really would prefer not to, is critically undermined.

I agree. Cummings screwed up badly and should have to pay the price for doing so.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree. Cummings screwed up badly and should have to pay the price for doing so.

The point is that we will all pay the price - it only involves a relatively small proportion of the population to take a 'sod you - if Cummings can do what he likes, so can I' when instructed to do their civic duty by government to increase virus transmission, illnesses and deaths and also to impact more than necessary on our ability to get the economy and broader society back to normal.

[Udayana]

The point is that we will all pay the price - it only involves a relatively small proportion of the population to take a 'sod you - if Cummings can do what he likes, so can I' when instructed to do their civic duty by government to increase virus transmission, illnesses and deaths and also to impact more than necessary on our ability to get the economy and broader society back to normal.

Questionable whether Cummingsgate would be enough to tip over all the support from the public for measures - that could, if people stop and think, keep them and their relatives safe?

But, looks very much as if the test/track/pretend to isolate system is not actually ready for prime time and might be being pushed now to bury the Cummings story.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-matt-hancock-warns-self-isolating-could-be-mandatory-as-he-laughs-off-dominic-cummings-row-11996005

If it fails to stop infection spikes early on - eg as schools, shops open up, then no-one will have confidence in it later.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Questionable whether Cummingsgate would be enough to tip over all the support from the public for measures - that could, if people stop and think, keep them and their relatives safe?

It doesn't need to have a major effect on behaviour to have a major effect on virus transmission sadly.

And I think it will have an effect - not just the 'if Cummings can do it, why can't I' view, but also because in defending Cummings the government has undermined it's own previous line that the rules are clear instructions - they've created confusion and redefined the rules as effectively just a framework around which people can make their own judgments/interpretations etc.

[Gordon]

Johnson said Cummings acted "responsibly, legally and with integrity" and the Guardian Live Blog has just reported (via the Torygraph) that "The prime minister’s most senior adviser did breach lockdown rules when he made the 50-mile trip to Barnard Castle, an investigation by Durham police has reportedly found."......and "that the Durham Police investigation has concluded that this was a minor breach of the guidelines that did not warrant any further action."

That does seem like an incongruous mix of opinions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Durham police's investigation has found that Cummings did breach the lockdown rules.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/28/dominic-cummings-did-breach-coronavirus-guidelines-durham-police/

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Car crash interview with Matt Hancock this morning on the Today programme.

Hancock was banging on about the new track and trace rules - saying it was people's civic duty to do the right thing, that the government would instruct people who had had contact with someone testing positive to stay at home for 14 days even if they had no symptoms themselves.

At which point Nick Robinson asked whether doing your civil duty, doing the right thing, staying at home allowed someone to drive to a beauty spot. Hancock simply had no answer - he blustered and stumbled but simply couldn't answer.

The most corrosive aspect of the whole Cummings affair is its effect on the next stages to deal with the virus. If someone from the government rings you up and tells you to stay at home for 14 days even though you have no symptoms and may not even know who it is you are supposed to have been in contact with - how many will go, thanks, but no thanks - why should I obey the rules and stay at home when Cummings is allowed to break them.

It is a problem - and trust can only be restored by Cummins either falling on his sword or being sacked. While he stays in place the ability of the government to 'instruct' us to do things we really would prefer not to, is critically undermined.

I agree with the idea of maintaining a climate of government scrutiny and accountability to stop them becoming complacent. If they thought they could get away with it they would probably do far worse than what they are doing now. So I think it's good to keep holding their feet to the fire. I watched Yvette Cooper grilling Boris yesterday and it was fantastic - she went to the heart of the matter - what is more important to you Prime Minister - the public's health or your loyalty or need for Cummings. However, many others who have questioned Boris and many of the Press who grilled Cummings in the Rose garden did not IMO ask incisive questions that go to what I think is the root of the issue. I think it should be approached from a legality point of view.

I think the issue of how other people who have made sacrifices feel about what Cummings did is a separate political issue. And I think the problem with mixing the 2 is that it allows Boris to dismiss questions as political point-scoring or media spin. I think the drive to Durham is a separate issue from the drive to the Castle - and I am not sure why the police are so slow to give Cummings a fine for driving to the castle. 

I think it becomes very apparent during a major crisis such as WW2 or a smaller crisis such as this pandemic, when many people in the country face a threat to health or life that the people without whom this country would struggle to operate, are the ordinary workers - the transport, procurement and logistics workers, the health workers, public maintenance workers, the scientists, lab technicians etc. Yes certainly those people have a right to say that they worked 16 hour days or even never came home so that their spouse could self-isolate and take care of their small child while also being incapacitated in bed and sleeping for 20 hours a day, so Cummings you and your wife are "pathetic snowflakes". If we could line some of those people up to ask questions that would be great.

Regarding people who were unable to say goodbye to dying relatives - yes you could argue that the rule about unnecessary journeys meant that they did not travel to see their relatives before they died whereas Cummings drove to Durham for childcare. The people who decide on these things - the police, the CPS and the judiciary will have to investigate and make a decision on whether the drive to Durham was reasonable or not. This may take some time as the investigative and judicial process is slow. I see Cummings started the ball rolling with a statement drafted by a lawyer.

It appears that the decision-makers at the top are actually pretty incompetent - lots of bluster but very little substance. Unfortunately, enough of the public seem to become mesmerised by bluster and spin and that's who they vote for and who ends up in government. Maybe the people who are actually competent to run the country have no desire to serve in office and be exposed to the kind of scrutiny that includes Twitter mobs and the Press making stuff up.

Having said that, I find the idea that people would sacrifice their own health and the health of others because Cummings breached the rules somewhat childish. People in public office are often breaching rules - Blair took the whole country to war in Iraq based on dodgy intelligence (and lots of people died and we ended up with ISIS) against what many (Chilcott) consider to be a satisfactory legal basis for going to war, and which Chilcott considered to have undermined the authority of the UN. I am surprised if anyone has any confidence in any government any more. Regardless of what the government does we still have our own standards and morality don't we?

Cummings should be held accountable after investigation. I believe Durham police are looking into it. Whether he gets sacked or not depends on how useful he is to the government. I am a pragmatist - if he is actually more use in office than out because his replacement would be even more incompetent, I am ok with him staying in office even though I dislike the spin and lies etc. We're stuck with Boris during this pandemic due to our FPTP electoral system and the way election campaigns are run and the limited attention span and attention to detail and the beliefs of a significant number of UK voters  - it's a very imperfect system.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Durham police's investigation has found that Cummings did breach the lockdown rules.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/28/dominic-cummings-did-breach-coronavirus-guidelines-durham-police/

Good - at least someone in authority has reached a conclusion on the trip to the castle.