Quite frankly we're now well and truly into "Mind your own f***ing business" territory. People trying to nitpick who drives and who family members are etc is not news.
The graph showing Durham covid cases exploding after they arrived is a lot less funny knowing they brought Covid into Durham hospital.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
I'm with @Richard_Tyndall on this. In the same situation, I'd do whatever was best for my family. However, if I held a senior government position and doing the best for my family meant breaking government policy (let alone the law) then I'd either resign or expect to get fired.
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
Again, you are not following the science. No scientist is claiming that it's all about 'super spreader' individuals. Rather they are speculating that it's a combination of someone actively shedding large mounts of virus (for whatever reason*), and the location or circumstances in which they do so.
*That might be related to the activity they are engaged in - singing; shouting; vigorous exercise etc - or the current state of their infection, or (less likely) that they are an individual who produces an unusual amount of virus.
Chasing mythical individuals is of far less importance than limiting situations (large gatherings in enclosed spaces, for example), and isolating anyone who is infected (which is where Cummings comes in).
The only reason for chasing the mythical individuals is to identify why they were there and ensuring the rest of the world keeps similar places closed.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
The crockery wyvern twitter account, in between posting the latest deaths figures is pushing hard for churches to reopen.
The RCP averages above (though missing Ohio, North Carolina, even Georgia where Biden is also ahead in some recent polls) probably re-establish Florida as likely the most important swing state at this point. Biden needs all of Clinton's 2016 states plus Florida plus 1 other to win, I'm not sure that instead winning all of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is any easier. Anyway all of these look like they are going to be close.
The relatively good news for Biden is that out of the states Clinton won the only ones that might be close are New Hampshire and Nevada, so far as I can see. And Nevada looks like quite a long-shot for Trump, while New Hampshire only has 4 electoral college votes so Biden can often afford to lose it.
Biden also wins with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska 02 as well as the Hillary states and the last Nebraska 02 poll had him 10% ahead.
If he wins Nebraska 02 he does not need Florida or Wisconsin therefore
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Quite frankly we're now well and truly into "Mind your own f***ing business" territory. People trying to nitpick who drives and who family members are etc is not news.
You're currently posting at an average of one post every 2 minutes. Tbh that's not really giving the impression that any of this 'is not news'.
Because I'm currently online on a site that's a hobby of mine to visit with plenty of people saying things I disagree with.
What do you propose I do? If none of us posted here there'd be no site worth visiting. I'm pretty sure the posts I disagree with outnumber my posts by order of magnitude.
Sure, I would just dispense with the 'not news' and this is done and dusted balls. It looks a bit silly if you have to convince people that's the case through the medium of 100s of posts.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
Matthew Syed in the Sunday Times was making exactly this point. The R number for most people is and always has been zero.
Quite frankly we're now well and truly into "Mind your own f***ing business" territory. People trying to nitpick who drives and who family members are etc is not news.
LOL
The whole of the government's regulatory regime has been predicated on defining rules for just who you can and can't drive or be with.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
I'm with @Richard_Tyndall on this. In the same situation, I'd do whatever was best for my family. However, if I held a senior government position and doing the best for my family meant breaking government policy (let alone the law) then I'd either resign or expect to get fired.
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
He didn't even need to resign, he just needed to offer to resign and wait for Boris to refuse due to exceptional circumstances
Labour being sensible as I think it would have been a tactical error to join
Starmer letting Boris continue digging.
I am more worried about the Coronavirus picture than Cummings quite frankly. Spike in North Somerset attributed to VE Day celebrations and partying on Weston beach. If the latter is true I anticipate second waves in seaside towns around England very shortly.
The RCP averages above (though missing Ohio, North Carolina, even Georgia where Biden is also ahead in some recent polls) probably re-establish Florida as likely the most important swing state at this point. Biden needs all of Clinton's 2016 states plus Florida plus 1 other to win, I'm not sure that instead winning all of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is any easier. Anyway all of these look like they are going to be close.
The relatively good news for Biden is that out of the states Clinton won the only ones that might be close are New Hampshire and Nevada, so far as I can see. And Nevada looks like quite a long-shot for Trump, while New Hampshire only has 4 electoral college votes so Biden can often afford to lose it.
Nevada has polled Weirdly badly over the presidential cycle. In the mid terms it looked like it was going Republican.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
That would work great if we knew who the super-spreaders were, but we don't, so does anybody have a better option than everyone acting like they might be contagious?
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
Again, you are not following the science. No scientist is claiming that it's all about 'super spreader' individuals. Rather they are speculating that it's a combination of someone actively shedding large mounts of virus (for whatever reason*), and the location or circumstances in which they do so.
*That might be related to the activity they are engaged in - singing; shouting; vigorous exercise etc - or the current state of their infection, or (less likely) that they are an individual who produces an unusual amount of virus.
Chasing mythical individuals is of far less importance than limiting situations (large gatherings in enclosed spaces, for example), and isolating anyone who is infected (which is where Cummings comes in).
The only reason for chasing the mythical individuals is to identify why they were there and ensuring the rest of the world keeps similar places closed.
Except you don't start with preconceptions.
It's about tracing outbreaks, testing extensively, gathering the data, and then drawing conclusions. Like the South African example I posted earlier (which demonstrates the importance of basic hygiene controls): https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1264922133722886144
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
Are you telling me that their family in London wouldn't have looked after their kid if they'd both been hospitalised or become otherwise incapacitated? (Which didn't actually happen, anyway). Some family. Most families with young children also have a close circle of friends from NCT, nursery, local mother-toddler groups etc, you would be surprised how close these relationships can be. It beggars belief they had no emergency options available close to home (even I can't believe they are such awful people that they have no close friends).
Surprised this is still being debated on here. Whether he will go or not is an interesting topic but not the strength of the case against him. It's watertight.
Stay At Home. Protect The NHS. Save Lives.
Cummings crafted this message and Johnson delivered it as an instruction to the nation. Cummings promptly did the opposite. "Do as I say, not as I do" is the definition of hypocrisy. He said stay home. He did not stay home. He traveled extensively.
There has never been a clearer instance of rank hypocrisy in public life.
Quite frankly we're now well and truly into "Mind your own f***ing business" territory. People trying to nitpick who drives and who family members are etc is not news.
You're currently posting at an average of one post every 2 minutes. Tbh that's not really giving the impression that any of this 'is not news'.
Because I'm currently online on a site that's a hobby of mine to visit with plenty of people saying things I disagree with.
What do you propose I do? If none of us posted here there'd be no site worth visiting. I'm pretty sure the posts I disagree with outnumber my posts by order of magnitude.
Sure, I would just dispense with the 'not news' and this is done and dusted balls. It looks a bit silly if you have to convince people that's the case through the medium of 100s of posts.
I'm not trying convince anyone. This is a site full of political partisan obsessives, why on earth would I try and convince anyone here?
That'd be as futile as trying to convince people on Twitter.
Prof Tim Spector tells BBC (R4) that the COVID app identifies two spikes related to Cheltenham and the Merseyside match - interview at 07.50.
Pretty amazing seeing as the app wasnt launched until over 2 weeks later.
Surely the data was backdated? Don't really see your point therefore.
Its a daily tracker. There is no data in there about attendance at said events.
How can they tell whether Liverpool had more cases because there was a super spreader at a nightclub, a school, a church or a football match?
They cant.
Clusters, data, statistics, spikes ... it's not difficult.
As someone who does these types of analysis, it is actually quite difficult (and outside of a few specific quasi-experimental designs - for this you could do interrupted time series if there are good local data) you can't really infer causality. I haven't heard the interview, but would be surprised if what was said was stronger than 'associated with'. But it is like that XKCD cartoon* - correlation does not imply causation, but (where you continue to see correlations) correlation may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while gesturing furtively and mouthing 'look over there'. A peak after Cheltenham could well be coincidence, a peak after Cheltenham and the football match, could also be coincidental, throw in a few other things and try very hard to find alternative explanations and fail and you start to believe in it.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
I'm with @Richard_Tyndall on this. In the same situation, I'd do whatever was best for my family. However, if I held a senior government position and doing the best for my family meant breaking government policy (let alone the law) then I'd either resign or expect to get fired.
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
He didn't even need to resign, he just needed to offer to resign and wait for Boris to refuse due to exceptional circumstances
What? Like Boris being incapable of doing the job without Dom.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly a lot of things make a lot more sense round here...
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
I'm with @Richard_Tyndall on this. In the same situation, I'd do whatever was best for my family. However, if I held a senior government position and doing the best for my family meant breaking government policy (let alone the law) then I'd either resign or expect to get fired.
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
He didn't even need to resign, he just needed to offer to resign and wait for Boris to refuse due to exceptional circumstances
I'd agree.
As I said earlier, I don't really care what happens to Cummings. I am just horrified by the message sent out by this episode.
The party need to take this on even if Boris will not
Big G. There is a pandemic going on! This Cummings nonsense is all froth. Cummings is going nowhere, let us chalk it down to experience and crack on with mitigating Coronavirus deaths and rebuilding the economy.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
He did not ask anyone in London for help, because he wanted an excuse to go to Durham.
It's nice that this lady at least gets that it is a higher bar than we expect from most to lose your job over a perceived lockdown transgression. This 'one rule for them and another for us' chant is moronic.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
Yes, but in the absence of 'controlling the super spreaders' the blanket approach (adjusted by looking at what it does to Rt) is all we have.
The tracking apps, if they work, will tell us a lot more about the how and (possibly, if there is a who in terms of demographics of those more likely to spread) the who.
Do we have any analysis yet of the relative impact of 'super spreaders' (however defined) compared to everyone else? I haven't seen anything but would be very interested.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
I've always been impressed by the way PB has been willing to look respectfully and open-mindedly at Marx and Marxism.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
As a general principle I agree with everything you say. I just make a massive exception for Ayn Rand. I'm with Officer Barbrady.
Prof Tim Spector tells BBC (R4) that the COVID app identifies two spikes related to Cheltenham and the Merseyside match - interview at 07.50.
Pretty amazing seeing as the app wasnt launched until over 2 weeks later.
Surely the data was backdated? Don't really see your point therefore.
Its a daily tracker. There is no data in there about attendance at said events.
How can they tell whether Liverpool had more cases because there was a super spreader at a nightclub, a school, a church or a football match?
They cant.
Clusters, data, statistics, spikes ... it's not difficult.
As someone who does these types of analysis, it is actually quite difficult (and outside of a few specific quasi-experimental designs - for this you could do interrupted time series if there are good local data) you can't really infer causality. I haven't heard the interview, but would be surprised if what was said was stronger than 'associated with'. But it is like that XKCD cartoon* - correlation does not imply causation, but (where you continue to see correlations) correlation may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while gesturing furtively and mouthing 'look over there'. A peak after Cheltenham could well be coincidence, a peak after Cheltenham and the football match, could also be coincidental, throw in a few other things and try very hard to find alternative explanations and fail and you start to believe in it.
Is there a paper ? Presumably there will be at some point, otherwise he wouldn't be making such claims. Would be interesting to see the reasoning.
Two most recent papers are on the tracking app, but don't seem to mention the events.
Thanks. Will be interesting to watch.
I believe they have recently started testing a number of people using the app, so will have data on infections to correlate with symptom reports. I wonder if they will have the ability/capacity to sequence the virus for any found infected ? Such data would be helpful in tracking chains of infection.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
It's nice that this lady at least gets that it is a higher bar than we expect from most to lose your job over a perceived lockdown transgression. This 'one rule for them and another for us' chant is moronic.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
I've always been impressed by the way PB has been willing to look respectfully and open-mindedly at Marx and Marxism.
It's nice that this lady at least gets that it is a higher bar than we expect from most to lose your job over a perceived lockdown transgression. This 'one rule for them and another for us' chant is moronic.
This isn't a question of a higher bar. Cummings failed to meet the absolutely lowest standards let alone higher ones.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
I'm with @Richard_Tyndall on this. In the same situation, I'd do whatever was best for my family. However, if I held a senior government position and doing the best for my family meant breaking government policy (let alone the law) then I'd either resign or expect to get fired.
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
He didn't even need to resign, he just needed to offer to resign and wait for Boris to refuse due to exceptional circumstances
That might have worked. As it is, it's the Johnson apologia that's the biggest problem.
"He instinctively did what he felt to be in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
That - as @Pulpstar has posted a few times - is gaslighting, with the British public as target and victim. It is not acceptable for the PM of this country to do such a thing.
Not sure the idea about him not travelling again has been disproven, yet. He said originally he hadn't travelled a second time and then he did.
Unless he provides proof via GPS or whatever else, that allegation remains.
He confirmed in his statement he had GPS proof he did not go back a second time
However, this weekend we have witnessed Boris lose his USP and allow Cummings to damage his government
In my opinion it is over for both of them but I am not sure just when
Boris should take paternity leave at best and if I was betting I would put 2021 as his resignation/retirement
This won't be the last time Cummings will drop Johnson right in the shit. The PM has had his warning.
Off topic.
Rifling through my favourite automotive archive footage during lockdown, I was reminded of a Rover Group video from the 1980s. The late Tony Pond covers the TT course in a Rover 827 Vitesse (yes a Rover 827!) averaging a shade under a 100mph for the entire run. Pond even gets the power steering fluid to boiling point! It is on YouTube, I just searched Tony Pond, Rover, TT and all 15 minutes plus of the run are shown. It is remarkable drive which one would be hard to beat with something newer and more sophisticated.
I think some nutter has had a Sexy Wrexy around the TT course at 125mph+ now.
We had a Rover 825D as the ship's car on Ark Royal. Sub Lt [CLASSIFIED] and I roasted the clutch out of it while hooning it and then later denied everything. As Dom might say, that was how I interpreted the rules, it was an extreme situation and I acted with integrity.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
Also - as I understand it, "super spreader" is not a uniquely genetic thing where someone in particular is mysteriously more effective at spreading the disease than everyone else. It's down to circumstance and environment, as well as number of contacts available. It's more super-spreader events rather than super-spreader individuals.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
Its literally what Dom said yesterday. There's more than one illness in the world.
So why the rush up to Durham?
Because she was ill and he'd been heavily exposed to the virus and everyone he was working with was falling ill. So if he fell ill too then his nieces were available for childcare. Isn't that what he said?
So, one rule for him and another for everyone else.
What an original insight. She was clearly fairly ill, and it could well have been Covid-19 - I'm fairly sure I had it but the respiratory symptoms were barely there. Cummings explained clearly enough why he acted according to the rules and common sense yesterday. It would be a disgrace if he'd been forced to resign because the media and some salty Remainers demanded his head.
A lot of people were very ill. many of them had children. They did not break the lockdown rules to drive through the night to a second home. Therein lies the problem.
He drove to his parents' home to ensure availability of childcare - a valid reason. As there was a separate cottage on the property it was possible to do so and to isolate. Of course not everybody is lucky enough to be able to do that, but it doesn't mean he was wrong to.
You're seriously telling me, nobody from the Government, no friends, nobody in London could help.
If this happened to me, I'd be round to my neighbours next door, his ideas just seem farcical.
How old are your children if you don't mind me asking?
If you're prepared to leave young children on your neighbours when there's family available then good for you. Not everyone is the same.
They. Had. Family. In. London.
Family who'd offered childcare? How do you know that? Who had offered childcare and when?
He did not ask anyone in London for help, because he wanted an excuse to go to Durham.
DC and his wife panicked and they did what they thought was safe. DC understood the detail of the rules he helped prepare and thought that what he was doing was technically allowed - he doesn't think he's more powerful than us, just cleverer. We are entitled to disagree. I hope I would not have done what he did in the circumstances but cannot be sure. The only way to sort this would be to test it in court - which may happen if Durham Constabulary decide there is now sufficient evidence and the CPS decide to take it forward.
I also think that a lot of the outrage is from people who hate Brexit/Boris/Tories which weakens the case to sack him.
I wouldn't have driven to Barnard Castle though. Stupid idea. I'd have asked the niece to pop round to play with spawn in the garden and then just gone out with the wife for a 10 minute local drive.
There was a saddening mini thread on here last night which I was too tired to reply to (the ever brilliant @Cyclefree got there first).
Essentially two or three culinary-challenged middle-aged blokes were entirely sanguine about the closure (and possible destruction) of the hospitality and catering industry, because Covid-19 had forced them to learn to cook.
Sad. In three ways.
1. They should learned to cook years ago. FFS.
2. Going out to pubs and restaurants is not really about eating. It’s about atmosphere and interaction and meeting people.
3. Pubs are the backbone of Britain. Its ultimate infrastructure. Its selling point. They are what makes it unique, and lovely.
The threadette upset me so much I had to get this off my chest.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
I've always been impressed by the way PB has been willing to look respectfully and open-mindedly at Marx and Marxism.
Do you think PB looks respectfully upon fascism?
Not invariably, but then I'm not making pious statements about PB largely respecting people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
There was a saddening mini thread on here last night which I was too tired to reply to (the ever brilliant @Cyclefree got there first).
Essentially two or three culinary-challenged middle-aged blokes were entirely sanguine about the closure (and possible destruction) of the hospitality and catering industry, because Covid-19 had forced them to learn to cook.
Sad. In three ways.
1. They should learned to cook years ago. FFS.
2. Going out to pubs and restaurants is not really about eating. It’s about atmosphere and interaction and meeting people.
3. Pubs are the backbone of Britain. Its ultimate infrastructure. Its selling point. They are what makes it unique, and lovely.
The threadette upset me so much I had to get this off my chest.
It's nice that this lady at least gets that it is a higher bar than we expect from most to lose your job over a perceived lockdown transgression. This 'one rule for them and another for us' chant is moronic.
It is moronic now and it was moronic then. I don't believe Catherine Calderwood could have stayed (with her on the telly every day etc.) but it was a pity, as I don't disagree with what she did.
Not sure the idea about him not travelling again has been disproven, yet. He said originally he hadn't travelled a second time and then he did.
Unless he provides proof via GPS or whatever else, that allegation remains.
He confirmed in his statement he had GPS proof he did not go back a second time
However, this weekend we have witnessed Boris lose his USP and allow Cummings to damage his government
In my opinion it is over for both of them but I am not sure just when
Boris should take paternity leave at best and if I was betting I would put 2021 as his resignation/retirement
This won't be the last time Cummings will drop Johnson right in the shit. The PM has had his warning.
Off topic.
Rifling through my favourite automotive archive footage during lockdown, I was reminded of a Rover Group video from the 1980s. The late Tony Pond covers the TT course in a Rover 827 Vitesse (yes a Rover 827!) averaging a shade under a 100mph for the entire run. Pond even gets the power steering fluid to boiling point! It is on YouTube, I just searched Tony Pond, Rover, TT and all 15 minutes plus of the run are shown. It is remarkable drive which one would be hard to beat with something newer and more sophisticated.
I think some nutter has had a Sexy Wrexy around the TT course at 125mph+ now.
We had a Rover 825D as the ship's car on Ark Royal. Sub Lt [CLASSIFIED] and I roasted the clutch out of it while hooning it and then later denied everything. As Dom might say, that was how I interpreted the rules, it was an extreme situation and I acted with integrity.
Very off topic again.
I would have thought most WRX jockeys would have found their way into a wall or upside down in a hedge trying
Labour being sensible as I think it would have been a tactical error to join
Starmer letting Boris continue digging.
I am more worried about the Coronavirus picture than Cummings quite frankly. Spike in North Somerset attributed to VE Day celebrations and partying on Weston beach. If the latter is true I anticipate second waves in seaside towns around England very shortly.
Yes, very worrying. I live in Brighton, which has been heaving over the weekend. As it happens, up to the change from "stay home" to "stay alert" the city (and beach) was like a ghost town, and nearly everybody was following the instructions. Despite some misleading pictures in the Mail, social distancing was de rigueur.
The most damaging thing here, and what folk are most angry about, was that the change to "stay alert" included the decision that folk could drive as far as they wanted for their exercise etc. So we suddenly became Croydon-on-Sea as well. The police and the council, despite their best efforts, had no way of stopping people come to the coast. This did, of course, get worse following the Cummings debacle over the weekend.
Now of course Brighton is hardly a Tory town. But most other coastal resorts are, unless I'm mistaken.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
I've always been impressed by the way PB has been willing to look respectfully and open-mindedly at Marx and Marxism.
Do you think PB looks respectfully upon fascism?
Not invariably, but then I'm not making pious statements about PB largely respecting people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
And Marxism is not the same as Fascism.
I didn't say it was, but it's effects on people around the world have been similar.
Last week you lot were saying polls don't matter because an election is 5 years away. Can't have it both ways. Boris knows keeping Dom is more important than any poll right now.
A famed moralist one said "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.". He also said something about Samaritans that I always thought was a bit passive aggressive towards Samaritans.
Nevertheless, another chap, further east, a few centuries before said "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Someone else, down in Arabia, expressed similar sentiments a few centuries later when he said "Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself"
Others of a more athiestic bent have echoed such sentiments. Nothing, not even family, comes before your duty not to harm, or risk harm, to your fellow man. Otherwise you start having concentric circles of concern up to and invluding the volk. The only individual I can think of who disagrees is Ayn Rand who, I am sure we can all agree, taks complete cobblers.
As a result of considering the available evidence offered me by a number of moral philosophers down the centuries, I have come to the tentative conclusion the mere convenience of your childcare arrangements does not trump a duty to protect lives from either (i) infection from a deadly virus or (ii) driving while visually impaired.
Why would I think Ayn Rand talks cobblers? She's one of the greatest modern moral philosophers and speaks a lot of sense. Ayn Rand is brilliant, everyone should read Atlas Shrugged.
Suddenly everything becomes clear.
Even if you disagree with every word Ayn Rand has to say, she has a brilliant intellect and has contributed genuinely new philosophical ideas. Which is more than anyone on this board has ever done.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
I've always been impressed by the way PB has been willing to look respectfully and open-mindedly at Marx and Marxism.
I've been incited to have another look at Ayn Rand.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
Also - as I understand it, "super spreader" is not a uniquely genetic thing where someone in particular is mysteriously more effective at spreading the disease than everyone else. It's down to circumstance and environment, as well as number of contacts available. It's more super-spreader events rather than super-spreader individuals.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
I think we can safely determine the following superspreader locations - Nightclubs and churches. Two places where people sing & shout vigorously.
Quite frankly we're now well and truly into "Mind your own f***ing business" territory. People trying to nitpick who drives and who family members are etc is not news.
The graph showing Durham covid cases exploding after they arrived is a lot less funny knowing they brought Covid into Durham hospital.
Since none of them have been tested how can you know that?
Last week you lot were saying polls don't matter because an election is 5 years away. Can't have it both ways. Boris knows keeping Dom is more important than any poll right now.
I never said polls don't matter, please do not put words in my mouth
I just wonder whether they decided to have a family holiday together back in the part of the world where they come from.
It’s even easier than that. They just wanted a nice house with a garden to lock down in. Who wouldn’t?
The catch is (1) by no definition is that a ‘reasonable excuse,’ especially not when the household was in quarantine (2) many thousands of others in much less fortunate positions than the Cummings family have just had to stay where they are in small unventilated flats and suck it up, so the unfairness grates and (3) he’s plainly lying about why he did it.
And yet he doesn’t realise this doesn’t cut it.
Second-home lockdown might not cut it with the public but I'd want to know the precise whereabouts of all MPs before predicting how sympathetic they might be. Most people do not have second homes but most MPs do. (As an aside, it would be interesting to check MPs' primary homes for lockdown are the same as the ones declared for expenses.)
Large numbers of MPs do seem to be in their constituencies.
However, I don’t think most of them went there while shedding virus.
"shedding virus"? You'd have a point - if he made the journey in an open-topped convertible.
So you believe the combo of:
No break needed in 5 hour 350 mile trip to Durham
Break needed in 30 minute drive to test his eyesight (by a beauty spot on wifes bday)
Come on, we know you dont believe it. And if you do, is driving that far without a break with an ill family and the possibility of yourself being ill not clearly reckless driving?
Come on, I'm enjoying the remaining Boris/Cummings fan boys humiliating themselves in trying to justify this crap. People like HUFYD have had the sense to largely stay silent.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
Indeed.
And that's the story really, isn't it?
The media are only now waking up to the fact the tories under Johnson have a towering majority in government.
Finally, in keeping Cummings, they have started to actually govern. If this sorry affair leads to the government ignoring the Morgans and the Rigbys more in future. will have achieved something.
Labour being sensible as I think it would have been a tactical error to join
Starmer letting Boris continue digging.
I am more worried about the Coronavirus picture than Cummings quite frankly. Spike in North Somerset attributed to VE Day celebrations and partying on Weston beach. If the latter is true I anticipate second waves in seaside towns around England very shortly.
Yes, very worrying. I live in Brighton, which has been heaving over the weekend. As it happens, up to the change from "stay home" to "stay alert" the city (and beach) was like a ghost town, and nearly everybody was following the instructions. Despite some misleading pictures in the Mail, social distancing was de rigueur.
The most damaging thing here, and what folk are most angry about, was that the change to "stay alert" included the decision that folk could drive as far as they wanted for their exercise etc. So we suddenly became Croydon-on-Sea as well. The police and the council, despite their best efforts, had no way of stopping people come to the coast. This did, of course, get worse following the Cummings debacle over the weekend.
Now of course Brighton is hardly a Tory town. But most other coastal resorts are, unless I'm mistaken.
In darker moments I do wonder whether the change in emphasis was a cynical attempt to mitigate the Cummings story which was bubbling under and would inevitably out before too long. I hope not.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
Also - as I understand it, "super spreader" is not a uniquely genetic thing where someone in particular is mysteriously more effective at spreading the disease than everyone else. It's down to circumstance and environment, as well as number of contacts available. It's more super-spreader events rather than super-spreader individuals.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
I think we can safely determine the following superspreader locations - Nightclubs and churches. Two places where people sing & shout vigorously.
Speaking personally, I've taken more than one exercise walk on most days - I live in an area with a lot of open space, so doing so has not carried, in my opinion, any additional risk. I really don't care what anyone here thinks about that.
The point coming out I think is people having a different attitude to the rules. There are those who think the rules are there to prevent harm, so as long as harm is prevented, they can be interpreted more liberally. They are the sort who would drive at 80 on the motorway if they judged it was safe to do so. And there are those who follow the rules to the letter, and are angry with those who don't. And of course there are people who are complete hypocrites who apply the rules liberally to themselves but literally to others. A rather large number.
There was a saddening mini thread on here last night which I was too tired to reply to (the ever brilliant @Cyclefree got there first).
Essentially two or three culinary-challenged middle-aged blokes were entirely sanguine about the closure (and possible destruction) of the hospitality and catering industry, because Covid-19 had forced them to learn to cook.
Sad. In three ways.
1. They should learned to cook years ago. FFS.
2. Going out to pubs and restaurants is not really about eating. It’s about atmosphere and interaction and meeting people.
3. Pubs are the backbone of Britain. Its ultimate infrastructure. Its selling point. They are what makes it unique, and lovely.
The threadette upset me so much I had to get this off my chest.
Wake up!
To be honest, I worry about the hospitality industry. Personally, I think there's a case for continuing the furlough scheme for those specifically when it's wound up for others. Preserve the industry as it was until we can restore it.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
Also - as I understand it, "super spreader" is not a uniquely genetic thing where someone in particular is mysteriously more effective at spreading the disease than everyone else. It's down to circumstance and environment, as well as number of contacts available. It's more super-spreader events rather than super-spreader individuals.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
I think we can safely determine the following superspreader locations - Nightclubs and churches. Two places where people sing & shout vigorously.
Worrying for pubs.
I had to pop into a Wetherspoons shortly before lockdown whilst in town (I don't have the bladders Cummings' family do) there was definitely plenty of potential virus spreading activity going on there.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
Indeed.
And that's the story really, isn't it?
The media are only now waking up to the fact the tories under Johnson have a towering majority in government.
Finally, in keeping Cummings, they have started to actually govern. If this sorry affair leads to the government ignoring the Morgans and the Rigbys more in future. will have achieved something.
From your post we have reached the same conclusion using vastly different routes.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
Indeed.
And that's the story really, isn't it?
The media are only now waking up to the fact the tories under Johnson have a towering majority in government.
Finally, in keeping Cummings, they have started to actually govern. If this sorry affair leads to the government ignoring the Morgans and the Rigbys more in future. will have achieved something.
The issue is actually the way they kept Cummings and the impact that will have later this year.
Just you wait and see how bad the impact of Boris's speech on May 24th is when things need to lock down again.
I tried to ignore the commentary on here, and watched Dom’s testimony last night.
A strong performance, and the story he offered up was at least consistent. It’s enough to stop the fire.
According to the women watching with me he was struggling to hold back his anger at times, but I didn’t see that especially.
However, I didn’t believe him. Largely because the Barnard Castle story is so farcical.
SIXTY MILES (there and back) on his WIFE’S BIRTHDAY to test his eyesight? No unbiased observer can believe that.
Once you realise he has lied on this point, it brings into question his whole account.
Even more alarming to me is Boris’s new announcements, seemingly timed in order to bounce Dom off the front page.
Why didn’t he announce these on Sunday?
Is it because lockdown policy is now following a timetable designed to save Boris’s skin?
Please don’t tell me we are “following the science”.
Let’s see a poll. I hope that a larger percentage of the British public now sees Boris as the waffling charlatan that he always was.
I thought he managed his speech very well, but there were times during questions where he was struggling not to snap.
And agree about the announcements; almost seems a change of policy.
To be fair to the PM, the change of policy was always going to be this week, with start of June the target date for the implementation.
The announcements were possibly brought forward by a couple of days but that would probably actually be better as it gives businesses more time to adapt.
I don't see any evidence in the data that the 'unlocking' already made around the world has led to any statistical uptick in case numbers in those countries that are well clear of their peaks. If this continues, pressure to move more quickly will only grow.
Yet another example of a "super spreader". The R number will, in my view, prove to be a completely meaningless average. It is an average between the majority who are barely infectious at all outwith the extended proximity of their own family and a few, for reasons we don't yet understand, who can infect hundreds with minimal contact. The latter are the key to controlling the spread of the virus. We need to be able to trace and isolate them fast.
That's true - to control spread you need to identify those [people|actions] that spread the most. But R isn't supposed to do that, it's a measure of the overall situation and the lumpiness is irrelevant for that. If R > 1 then trouble ahead (how quickly depending how much > 1). If R < 1 then things are going to get better.
R is a useful measure of what it measures. It might be that R doesn't do what you'd like it to do. It's a bit like saying GDP growth figures are useless to assess the economy because even in a recession there are some people making fortunes.
But getting the R number down is all about controlling the super spreaders and really pretty irrelevant to what the rest of us do. It is not a justification for the current regulations.
You have half of a point about current regulations, but...
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
Also - as I understand it, "super spreader" is not a uniquely genetic thing where someone in particular is mysteriously more effective at spreading the disease than everyone else. It's down to circumstance and environment, as well as number of contacts available. It's more super-spreader events rather than super-spreader individuals.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
I think we can safely determine the following superspreader locations - Nightclubs and churches. Two places where people sing & shout vigorously.
And doing so in close proximity.
Noisy workplaces such as factories and food processing plants too, apparently.
Yet they legged it to Durham the same evening in a blind panic.
It's a shame that Dom was allowed to get serious, top, top medical advice for himself, but a month later his wife was still under the impression she had coronavirus and was still writing about it.
Just as well Gove has the ability to diagnose from a distance
Funny how many of those who say that Boris is too concerned with public opinion and won't stand up to it are now asking why Boris is standing by his advisor rather than bending to public opinion here? Maybe Boris is doing what he thinks is the right thing.
Now we know both the Guardian and Daily Mirror have printed lies on this subject I won't be holding my breath for prominent apologies/retractions from them.
Do we? I know Cummings has claimed that his phone records exonerate him. However, he also clearly made a number of lies, rather ridiculous ones at that, in the same statement. So I’m suspending judgement for the moment. Unless he has released his phone records, which would be different, but so far I can’t find he has. If I’m wrong, please feel free to share the link.
My immediate thought was that if you knew you were doing something wrong wouldn't someone as devious as Cummings just leave his phone behind and tell his wife to make a few calls on it London while he was away? I confess I don't know much about the technology so I'd be happy if someone explained to me why that's not possible
Last week you lot were saying polls don't matter because an election is 5 years away. Can't have it both ways. Boris knows keeping Dom is more important than any poll right now.
I never said polls don't matter, please do not put words in my mouth
Just as well they don't given how you were spinning them prior to the 80 seat majority election.
There was a saddening mini thread on here last night which I was too tired to reply to (the ever brilliant @Cyclefree got there first).
Essentially two or three culinary-challenged middle-aged blokes were entirely sanguine about the closure (and possible destruction) of the hospitality and catering industry, because Covid-19 had forced them to learn to cook.
Sad. In three ways.
1. They should learned to cook years ago. FFS.
2. Going out to pubs and restaurants is not really about eating. It’s about atmosphere and interaction and meeting people.
3. Pubs are the backbone of Britain. Its ultimate infrastructure. Its selling point. They are what makes it unique, and lovely.
The threadette upset me so much I had to get this off my chest.
Wake up!
On cooking, I could always cook the basics but never had a reason to learn to cook well. Food is easily available and I can feed myself basics or other people can do it. I don't know how to knit my own clothes or kiln my own crockery either. I see no shame in that.
Since lockdown began I've definitely learnt to cook better and I've lost a lot of weight so win/win.
But besides that I agree completely. Yes pubs and restaurants are entirely about atmosphere. Drinking a pint in a pub versus drinking a can or bottle of the same drink at home are not the same thing.
Sunak has taken a dive too - from 35% 4 days ago to 20%.
Starmer is up slightly (to 12% but basically flat.
Of concern: Level of worry, with 35% of people saying they’re very worried or the most worried they’ve ever been, is at the lowest since we started tracking.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
Like it or lump it... Is that better than Stay Alert?
Comments
I really struggle with the government's handling of this, they're just asking for trouble. Why not take the New Labour approach, get Cummings to resign then quietly give him his job back in a couple of months. I don't think anyone would care about that.
It seems like a bad idea.
If he wins Nebraska 02 he does not need Florida or Wisconsin therefore
https://twitter.com/royalacademy/status/1265203160240533504
The party need to take this on even if Boris will not
I am more worried about the Coronavirus picture than Cummings quite frankly. Spike in North Somerset attributed to VE Day celebrations and partying on Weston beach. If the latter is true I anticipate second waves in seaside towns around England very shortly.
But then it came out solidly blue in the end.
It's about tracing outbreaks, testing extensively, gathering the data, and then drawing conclusions. Like the South African example I posted earlier (which demonstrates the importance of basic hygiene controls):
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1264922133722886144
Stay At Home. Protect The NHS. Save Lives.
Cummings crafted this message and Johnson delivered it as an instruction to the nation. Cummings promptly did the opposite. "Do as I say, not as I do" is the definition of hypocrisy. He said stay home. He did not stay home. He traveled extensively.
There has never been a clearer instance of rank hypocrisy in public life.
That'd be as futile as trying to convince people on Twitter.
"Conservative MP Sir Desmond Swayne backs Dominic Cummings over claims of lockdown breach: "Whatever your opinion... he is staying. Like it or lump it."
It is absolutely a justification for no relaxation on the rules over self-isolation if showing symptoms of respiratory infection. That will not change until the pandemic risk is entirely over.
And it's not irrelevant to what the rest of us do - going back into crowded pubs, for example.
One of the things I like about PB is that we largely respect people's viewpoints and life philosophies without descending into Twitter style shouting matches.
Political philosophy is rarely "cobblers" even when you disagree with it. I wouldn't write Marxism off as a load of old cobblers even though I think it's harmful and dangerous. Even those you disagree with often have something interesting to say.
As I said earlier, I don't really care what happens to Cummings. I am just horrified by the message sent out by this episode.
Can it also confirm his Barnard Castle story? Is he making it available?
'This all comes down to pressure in the conservative party'
Time for 1922 to take control
The tracking apps, if they work, will tell us a lot more about the how and (possibly, if there is a who in terms of demographics of those more likely to spread) the who.
Do we have any analysis yet of the relative impact of 'super spreaders' (however defined) compared to everyone else? I haven't seen anything but would be very interested.
Will be interesting to watch.
I believe they have recently started testing a number of people using the app, so will have data on infections to correlate with symptom reports.
I wonder if they will have the ability/capacity to sequence the virus for any found infected ? Such data would be helpful in tracking chains of infection.
https://twitter.com/Jackson_Carlaw/status/1246762299865604096?s=20
"He instinctively did what he felt to be in the best interests of his family and I will not mark him down for that."
That - as @Pulpstar has posted a few times - is gaslighting, with the British public as target and victim. It is not acceptable for the PM of this country to do such a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
We had a Rover 825D as the ship's car on Ark Royal. Sub Lt [CLASSIFIED] and I roasted the clutch out of it while hooning it and then later denied everything. As Dom might say, that was how I interpreted the rules, it was an extreme situation and I acted with integrity.
You know, like breaking quarantine and ending up at Durham hospital while infectious, just before a big spike in infections around Durham hospital.
To prevent super-spreader events - which are ones we can only recognise in retrospect - we've got to follow the current rules.
I also think that a lot of the outrage is from people who hate Brexit/Boris/Tories which weakens the case to sack him.
I wouldn't have driven to Barnard Castle though. Stupid idea. I'd have asked the niece to pop round to play with spawn in the garden and then just gone out with the wife for a 10 minute local drive.
PP/Betfair 13/8 go, 4/9 stay
Ladbrokes & Starsports prices unchanged
Essentially two or three culinary-challenged middle-aged blokes were entirely sanguine about the closure (and possible destruction) of the hospitality and catering industry, because Covid-19 had forced them to learn to cook.
Sad. In three ways.
1. They should learned to cook years ago. FFS.
2. Going out to pubs and restaurants is not really about eating. It’s about atmosphere and interaction and meeting people.
3. Pubs are the backbone of Britain. Its ultimate infrastructure. Its selling point. They are what makes it unique, and lovely.
The threadette upset me so much I had to get this off my chest.
Wake up!
And Marxism is not the same as Fascism.
Just a bubble story
Cummings is just this week's Joe Exotic - a distraction from the monotony.
I would have thought most WRX jockeys would have found their way into a wall or upside down in a hedge trying
I just love the Pond footage.
As it happens, up to the change from "stay home" to "stay alert" the city (and beach) was like a ghost town, and nearly everybody was following the instructions. Despite some misleading pictures in the Mail, social distancing was de rigueur.
The most damaging thing here, and what folk are most angry about, was that the change to "stay alert" included the decision that folk could drive as far as they wanted for their exercise etc. So we suddenly became Croydon-on-Sea as well. The police and the council, despite their best efforts, had no way of stopping people come to the coast. This did, of course, get worse following the Cummings debacle over the weekend.
Now of course Brighton is hardly a Tory town. But most other coastal resorts are, unless I'm mistaken.
He’s just a pound shop Jeremy Thorpe.
Some sensible people in the Tory Party, moreso than some here it seems
Normal service has resumed.
The media are only now waking up to the fact the tories under Johnson have a towering majority in government.
Finally, in keeping Cummings, they have started to actually govern. If this sorry affair leads to the government ignoring the Morgans and the Rigbys more in future. will have achieved something.
The point coming out I think is people having a different attitude to the rules. There are those who think the rules are there to prevent harm, so as long as harm is prevented, they can be interpreted more liberally. They are the sort who would drive at 80 on the motorway if they judged it was safe to do so. And there are those who follow the rules to the letter, and are angry with those who don't. And of course there are people who are complete hypocrites who apply the rules liberally to themselves but literally to others. A rather large number.
Just you wait and see how bad the impact of Boris's speech on May 24th is when things need to lock down again.
Noisy workplaces such as factories and food processing plants too, apparently.
Just as well Gove has the ability to diagnose from a distance
My immediate thought was that if you knew you were doing something wrong wouldn't someone as devious as Cummings just leave his phone behind and tell his wife to make a few calls on it London while he was away? I confess I don't know much about the technology so I'd be happy if someone explained to me why that's not possible
Since lockdown began I've definitely learnt to cook better and I've lost a lot of weight so win/win.
But besides that I agree completely. Yes pubs and restaurants are entirely about atmosphere. Drinking a pint in a pub versus drinking a can or bottle of the same drink at home are not the same thing.
Sunak has taken a dive too - from 35% 4 days ago to 20%.
Starmer is up slightly (to 12% but basically flat.
Of concern: Level of worry, with 35% of people saying they’re very worried or the most worried they’ve ever been, is at the lowest since we started tracking.
https://savanta.com/coronavirus-data-tracker/
Is that better than Stay Alert?