I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
My mother today has for the first time since lockdown gone into a shop. She has been steeling herself for this moment for at least two weeks. She had the moral support at a social distance of my sister. I know she feels extremely proud of herself now.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
I was at Morrisons today and can report that there is still a level of anxiety in there. One woman lost her temper with somebody who came too close. Some quite bad language.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Lockdown is now breaking down in a chaotic manner. It is obvious that the government is not in control of events any more.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.
From a purely selfish point of view, I'm not too bothered by a scenario in which there's a drive to achieve herd immunity through the most stupid 60% of the population getting infected. But it does seem a bit hard on NHS staff and other essential workers who don't have any choice about coming into contact with the herd.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
I am afraid none of this is important anymore. Only Dominic Cummings matters
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
LOL!
You genuinely think that it is sensible to take a half hour drive to see if you're up to taking a three hour drive?
That must be one of the most (unintentionally I presume) funny things I've read on PB. And of course heard from a senior government advisor.
I hold no brief for Mr T, but there have been occasions in the past, and no doubt will be again, when I have taken a short trip...... 'round the block' ........ to see how I feel before driving a long distance. Usually with someone with me, although not with a small child in the car.
What were you checking for out of interest?
The last occasion was when I'd had an operation on my back. Could I put my left foot hard down on the clutch. Yes I could, The previous was after I'd had labyrinthitis, which affects the balance. On that occasion I went with a driving instructor who said I was fine.
Thanks. Presumably the clutch conundrum was solved before you started the engine? Quite high stakes exercise, I would have thought although no idea how to address it otherwise.
Actually I drive a Skoda, where one has to depress the clutch before one can start the engine. Which helped. Tried slamming my foot down in a non-driving situation, and was OK. And tried walking a mile or so, and my legs worked perfectly. So, very cautiously, and at a quiet time, off I went in the car. But these things do have to be thought about. The strangest experience I had when I had a cataract operation. I'd been told all sorts of things but when I asked the surgeon prior to the operation he told me I'd be able to drive home if I wanted to! And I could have, although my wife had other ideas!
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
My mother today has for the first time since lockdown gone into a shop. She has been steeling herself for this moment for at least two weeks. She had the moral support at a social distance of my sister. I know she feels extremely proud of herself now.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
I was at Morrisons today and can report that there is still a level of anxiety in there. One woman lost her temper with somebody who came too close. Some quite bad language.
I fear there may be fisticuffs as we enter a phase of uncertainty around social distancing and other measures. We saw this before lockdown.
I'm not sure what genocide denier you're referring to but yes Theresa May quit so I'm happy. The rest as they say is history.
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
Claire Fox. You can read up about Living Marxism, and perhaps reconsider your vote.
Or you can bluster on, and we will all know your true moral character.
I dislike Claire Fox. I don't support her, never have. She holds no elected position in this country and that's in no small part due to my vote and the millions of others who voted like me.
So I'm content with that. I would never vote for Claire Fox to Westminster but thankfully she isn't elected at all today.
Is anyone who holds no elected position in this country and never has, dictating the country's policies at the moment? If so, how do you feel about that?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
Your points are entirely adjacent to the point of the guidance DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HOME
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
It ought to be fairly obvious that if you aren’t allowed to travel to your own second home and you aren’t allowed to go out and rent another home temporarily from someone else, then you aren’t allowed to temporarily borrow a second home from family or friends. The point is that you were supposed to stay in your (first) home.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
So it was his parents second home, rather than his own? how does that excuse the trip?
Guidelines are guidelines. Laws are laws. Unless and until the Government passes specific laws with specific penalties for transgressing those laws then all Government guidance is open to interpretation.
Cummings was wrong to do what he did because as someone in a position of authority he should have been leading by example and because in not doing so he has made it seem as if the guidance actually doesn't matter. Of course it does. But the idea that there was no interpretation involved until Cummings performed his idiocy is just humbug.
If there are points at which the Government thinks it really is vital that its guidance is followed - such as the 14 day quarantine for new arrivals - then they should pass it into law. If they chose not to do that then people will indeed interpret it - or just ignore it - because that is the nature of our system of governance and law. If something is not explicitly forbidden then it is allowed.
Richard, there are Laws, and it appears that Cummings may have broken them, notably in connection with the Castle excursion.
The rest of your drift is absolutely right though. Someone one in his position should have been leading by example, Law or no Law.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
It was his parents' third home, to be even more pedantic. He never stayed in the same house as his parents. Please keep up, and refer to CCHQ talking points v8.1 for further guidance.
Johnson is desperately unimpressive. He genuinely has no idea about the policy of the government he is supposed to lead.
It gives me no pleasure to say "told you so" to all those Tory Members that voted for him. The odd thing is, he is even worse than I thought he'd be. He just cannot step up to the plate. I wonder if even HYUFD is having doubts?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
It's strange, isn't it that opticians tend to sit people down in a chair and ask them to read letters, rather than putting them in a car and doing it that way.
Perhaps Cummings plans to set up his own chain of opticians based around that concept. Perhaps he could call it JobSavers?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
To be abundantly clear I don't accept eyesight as a reason.
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
I think the situation now is that they had quantum Covid. At all points that mattered for the integrity of their story they didn't have Covid symptoms but they were so worried about their Covid symptoms that had to travel 350 miles across the country to an area with a tiny number of Covid cases as any father would have done.
Meanwhile, it looks like Trump is going to try and switch off the Internet
Is this because Twitter flagged up one of his tweets as potentially untrue and inaccurate.
Just one?
I lot of Trumps tweets are inaccurate and untrue but until today twitter was ignoring the fact.
If twitter carry on doing that up to November, it's going to be sight to behold, the orange one will go ballistic. Thing is, as far as I can see, there is not much he can do about it.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
I am afraid none of this is important anymore. Only Dominic Cummings matters
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Lockdown is now breaking down in a chaotic manner. It is obvious that the government is not in control of events any more.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.
From a purely selfish point of view, I'm not too bothered by a scenario in which there's a drive to achieve herd immunity through the most stupid 60% of the population getting infected. But it does seem a bit hard on NHS staff and other essential workers who don't have any choice about coming into contact with the herd.
Judging by Weston hospital, it is the NHS staff doing most of the infecting at the moment...
Lockdown has always been a bit chaotic here. The government expected it to be chaotic from the beginning and were surprised when it wasn't.
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Lockdown is now breaking down in a chaotic manner. It is obvious that the government is not in control of events any more.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.
From a purely selfish point of view, I'm not too bothered by a scenario in which there's a drive to achieve herd immunity through the most stupid 60% of the population getting infected. But it does seem a bit hard on NHS staff and other essential workers who don't have any choice about coming into contact with the herd.
We are fairly well equipped with PPE now, but it would be a shame to have to shut down the non-covid services again.
I would steer clear of public places such as pubs, shops and eateries though, even more than I am now.
I'm not sure what genocide denier you're referring to but yes Theresa May quit so I'm happy. The rest as they say is history.
Comparisons with Germany are insane, this was not a meaningful election to choose a government. It was a protest election to a parliament we are no longer a part of and should have already left before the vote was held. I treated that election with all the dignity it deserved.
Claire Fox. You can read up about Living Marxism, and perhaps reconsider your vote.
Or you can bluster on, and we will all know your true moral character.
I dislike Claire Fox. I don't support her, never have. She holds no elected position in this country and that's in no small part due to my vote and the millions of others who voted like me.
So I'm content with that. I would never vote for Claire Fox to Westminster but thankfully she isn't elected at all today.
Is anyone who holds no elected position in this country and never has, dictating the country's policies at the moment? If so, how do you feel about that?
Sir Humphreys have always existed. They must answer to the elected politicians.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
I am afraid none of this is important anymore. Only Dominic Cummings matters
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Traffic would have been very light though, on account of so many people dutily complying with lockdown.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
To be abundantly clear I don't accept eyesight as a reason.
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
So you believe that he would have been telling the truth if he had said something different, and are backing him on that basis. Right...
The BBC has the integrity to admit when it got it wrong. Boris Johnson's government on the other hand.....
So Maitliss fired or forced to resign then?
Maitliss isn't governing us, so I don't really care. She could be disciplined perhaps. You are comparing apples and pears old chap. Try clutching at another straw when defending the indefensible Mr Cummings perhaps?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
It was his parents' third home, to be even more pedantic. He never stayed in the same house as his parents. Please keep up, and refer to CCHQ talking points v8.1 for further guidance.
It's interesting to note that Phantom Cottages are a well recognised phenomenon in the paranormal literature. One they're there; another day it's impossible to find any trace of them.
Johnson is desperately unimpressive. He genuinely has no idea about the policy of the government he is supposed to lead.
That's what he was like as Mayor. Boris was regularly taken to task for not knowing the subjects he was attending committee meetings in order to discuss. Boris is a lazy lying bluffer, something I may have mentioned a few times before.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
My mother today has for the first time since lockdown gone into a shop. She has been steeling herself for this moment for at least two weeks. She had the moral support at a social distance of my sister. I know she feels extremely proud of herself now.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
I was at Morrisons today and can report that there is still a level of anxiety in there. One woman lost her temper with somebody who came too close. Some quite bad language.
Think this is a key point that people claiming the lockdown is over are missing. The vast majority of people will be doing the social distancing (2m?) a lot more than happened before the lockdown. There is huge fear among some. Ultimately other countries have started to come out and not seen large spikes, so the hope must be that we do too. Of course a few weeks of more traditional British summer weather would help! The imposition of lockdown was delayed partially as there was concern about how long people would stick it - seems a good call now to me...
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
Maybe, just maybe, the government looked at the deficit for April and thought, holy shit, we have to stop this before the entire country goes bust. I'd really like to think so. I agree with Alastair that there seems an element of panic about the removal of restrictions now but so there bloody well should be. For me, the issues the government face are the reopening of the economy, the wind down of the excellent furlough scheme, the financial help for particular industries such as the French did yesterday with their car industry, the absolute crisis in our hospitality and tourism industries, the disaster for Universities who have grown fat on far eastern fees, the chronic failure to develop either an App or a method of tracing in the last 2.5 months, the speed with which tests are being turned around, even now the capacity to test, I could go on all day, it is terrifying. Cummings is not even a deckchair on the Titanic which we are arguing about throwing overboard as the iceberg rips an ever bigger hole in the ship of state and the pathetic, irrational, disproportionate and frankly mad obsession with Cummings shows so much of what is wrong with this country today. People should grow up. There is plenty to be angry about, plenty to be genuinely worried about.1 job in Whitehall is not even close to making the list.
Probably right. There is really no alternative but to end the lockdown.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
To be abundantly clear I don't accept eyesight as a reason.
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
If the roads were straight, level and deserted yes.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
It's logical to go for a drive to confirm you are in a fit state to drive.
Going for a drive doesn't mean you have to get out and go for a walk half way through the end of the drive (when you were supposed to remain local). Every time I've taken the car out for a run (you have to, to ensure the battery doesn't drain fully and brakes don't seize up) it's been from home, drive around a bit and then straight back home.
But I know that nothing anyone says will change your viewpoint that your personal desires trumps protecting the rest of the population.
It isn't even logical when the test specifies precisely the minimum distance of 20 metres - easily assessed on foot by reference to a parked car, impossible when driving.
And the claim that we should interpret Cummings's words by reference to His intentions as explained by one of the faithful, rather than by the actual words He uses, is shark-jumping batshittery.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
It's strange, isn't it that opticians tend to sit people down in a chair and ask them to read letters, rather than putting them in a car and doing it that way.
Perhaps Cummings plans to set up his own chain of opticians based around that concept. Perhaps he could call it JobSavers?
The numberplate eyesight test is still the standard, and is changed only in minor ways for nearly a century.
The reason is so that anyone can measure out the distance and test themselves.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Durham to Barnard Castle is about 30 miles, depending on where you start from and which route you take. If he did it in half an hour he was driving at 60 mph. As a test drive? On those roads? When he was unsure of his eyesight?
The whole story is nonsense. And anyone believing it really needs help getting dressed.
Why he said it is much more interesting. But no-one is following up on that.
Anyway, it scarcely matters now. The affair has shown us what the two men at the top of government are like and what they think of us.
What happens next is what interests me - and I expect them to mess that up too.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Traffic would have been very light though, on account of so many people dutily complying with lockdown.
Getting to "the outskirts of Barnard Castle by the river" would have also involved driving through the town unless they went a very round about route.
Mentioning outskirts was to implant the idea that they weren't really "in" or visited the town.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
I am afraid none of this is important anymore. Only Dominic Cummings matters
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
To be abundantly clear I don't accept eyesight as a reason.
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
So you believe that he would have been telling the truth if he had said something different, and are backing him on that basis. Right...
I watched what he said live. What he said was much more than just the word eyesight. It made sense to me in context but people have jumped on the word eyesight and ignored the rest of what was said.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Traffic would have been very light though, on account of so many people dutily complying with lockdown.
It's south of Durham (just about). Half an hour is probably pushing it slightly but it would be doable in 40 minutes. Getting round Bishop Auckland and its billions of roundabouts adds a few minutes.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
To answer that:
We must protect our NHS - Yes.
We must see sustained falls in the death rate - Yes.
We must see sustained and considerable falls in the rate of infection - Yes.
We must sort out our challenges in getting enough PPE to the people who need it, and yes, it is a global problem but we must fix it. - Yes, according to the latest announcements.
And last, we must make sure that any measures we take do not force the reproduction rate of the disease – the R – back up over one, so that we have the kind of exponential growth we were facing a few weeks ago. - To be seen as things develop, but the talk over the past couple of days about the possibility of reimposing lockdowns locally shows that the government is on the case.
So I don't really see what the criticism in big-picture terms is here. The government is doing what it said it would do. Other countries are doing similar things, which will no doubt provide useful pre-warning of any issues.
We can scrutinise the specific decisions and priorities as the regulations are relaxed, but overall the direction and pace seem to be appropriate.
The government has said none of that. You're hypothesising.
As of today, what Covid alert level are we at?
We were on 3.5 and will shortly be on 3 so Im going for 3.14159
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
It was his parents' third home, to be even more pedantic. He never stayed in the same house as his parents. Please keep up, and refer to CCHQ talking points v8.1 for further guidance.
It's interesting to note that Phantom Cottages are a well recognised phenomenon in the paranormal literature. One they're there; another day it's impossible to find any trace of them.
Should be easy to check on Google earth if anyone had the address, I am guessing journalists have already verified that properties matching the description do at least exist.
Mail Online is saying Saturday 4 July for pub reopening.
Where is it getting this date from?
Independence day!
I'm surprised pubs are opening on a Saturday. I would have expected a Monday would be better to ensure everything is working. However I'm sure the breweries and councils will send people round to check the correct measures are in place.
If it’s guidance with no legal status what business is it of councils?
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
I tried to do the same the other day too. Only @DavidL has bitten.
We’ll just have to keep plugging away!
Lockdown is now breaking down in a chaotic manner. It is obvious that the government is not in control of events any more.
Might as well be a free for all now. the devil take the hindmost.
From a purely selfish point of view, I'm not too bothered by a scenario in which there's a drive to achieve herd immunity through the most stupid 60% of the population getting infected. But it does seem a bit hard on NHS staff and other essential workers who don't have any choice about coming into contact with the herd.
Judging by Weston hospital, it is the NHS staff doing most of the infecting at the moment...
Lockdown has always been a bit chaotic here. The government expected it to be chaotic from the beginning and were surprised when it wasn't.
I think you'll find that what they expected at the beginning was that there would be no lockdown and up to 80% of the population would be infected, mostly in a two-month period.
That certainly puts minor stupidities into perspective.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Traffic would have been very light though, on account of so many people dutily complying with lockdown.
It's south of Durham (just about). Half an hour is probably pushing it slightly but it would be doable in 40 minutes. Getting round Bishop Auckland and its billions of roundabouts adds a few minutes.
40 minutes is ‘quite a lot more’ - a third more - than half an hour though.
Boris absolutely hopeless at this. Dear God. All over the shop on rules/laws/guidelines on contact tracing.
Embarrassing.
He is being Boris but that is when he had his USP
I expect post a likely no deal at the end of the year he may well stand down
BigG he is dangerously unimpressive. The fact that he is clearly comfortable, as he admitted, not reading the science documentation is startling. I would understand if he read the science and needed further explanations from scientists, but the fact that he doesn't read it is awful.
Johnson is desperately unimpressive. He genuinely has no idea about the policy of the government he is supposed to lead.
That's what he was like as Mayor. Boris was regularly taken to task for not knowing the subjects he was attending committee meetings in order to discuss. Boris is a lazy lying bluffer, something I may have mentioned a few times before.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Traffic would have been very light though, on account of so many people dutily complying with lockdown.
Getting to "the outskirts of Barnard Castle by the river" would have also involved driving through the town unless they went a very round about route.
Mentioning outskirts was to implant the idea that they weren't really "in" or visited the town.
I rather think “outskirts” was very deliberately used to cover the possibility of someone seeing them in some of the places to be found in the outskirts of the town.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Durham to Barnard Castle is about 30 miles, depending on where you start from and which route you take. If he did it in half an hour he was driving at 60 mph. As a test drive? On those roads? When he was unsure of his eyesight?
The whole story is nonsense. And anyone believing it really needs help getting dressed.
Why he said it is much more interesting. But no-one is following up on that.
Anyway, it scarcely matters now. The affair has shown us what the two men at the top of government are like and what they think of us.
What happens next is what interests me - and I expect them to mess that up too.
Boris nearly died and has gone straight back to work, probably 14-16 hours per day. His government is funding millions of people on Furlough to protect their jobs. Yes he has not sacked someone but to say that he is treating the public like shit is nonsense.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough?
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
To be abundantly clear I don't accept eyesight as a reason.
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
So you believe that he would have been telling the truth if he had said something different, and are backing him on that basis. Right...
I watched what he said live. What he said was much more than just the word eyesight. It made sense to me in context but people have jumped on the word eyesight and ignored the rest of what was said.
I watched it too, it was obviously horseshit from beginning to end, I'm surprised you're buying it TBH.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
It was his parents' third home, to be even more pedantic. He never stayed in the same house as his parents. Please keep up, and refer to CCHQ talking points v8.1 for further guidance.
It's interesting to note that Phantom Cottages are a well recognised phenomenon in the paranormal literature. One they're there; another day it's impossible to find any trace of them.
Should be easy to check on Google earth if anyone had the address, I am guessing journalists have already verified that properties matching the description do at least exist.
The address is trivial to find. There's some kind of building to the west of the house, but it's difficult to tell what it is on Google Maps. The whole property is described online simply as a four-bedroomed detached house. I don't see any reason to treat that claim by Cummings with any less scepticism than any of the rest.
Boris absolutely hopeless at this. Dear God. All over the shop on rules/laws/guidelines on contact tracing.
Embarrassing.
He is being Boris but that is when he had his USP
I expect post a likely no deal at the end of the year he may well stand down
BigG he is dangerously unimpressive. The fact that he is clearly comfortable, as he admitted, not reading the science documentation is startling. I would understand if he read the science and needed further explanations from scientists, but the fact that he doesn't read it is awful.
Hunt clearly reads it.
Hunt was a very able minister. Bozo is pretty shit at everything except writing amusing polemics and winning elections against weak opposition/ Marxists/ Terrorist Sympathisers/AntiSemites
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
Government message at the time of Dom's Durham Dalliance was:
Boris is just not well and his bumbling along is not impressive
He is polite to his interrogators but I cannot see him leading into GE 2024, indeed I do not see him in place this time next year
I agree , the Conservative party has always been ruthless in changing its leader to win. I honestly think they might have to again before the next GE to beat SKS.
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
Government message at the time of Dom's Durham Dalliance was:
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
The regulations specifically allow you to leave home in order to prevent injury. Very specific aren't they?
Indeed and having a young infant with no childcare is harmful. QED it is reasonable to leave the home to get childcare.
In all your comments, you seem to pretend there was only one beach of regulations, not three or more.
Forget the trips (plural) between London and Durham, and tell me how the Castle Bernard sojourn was in the rules.
I think it's logical before you go for a long cross country drive if you've just recovered from illness to take a half hour drive to see that you're up to the pressures of driving.
I believe that's what Cummings meant but not what he said. The way it was phrased was awful but the logic I understood.
If I wanted to take a drive to test my eyesight* I would probably prefer not to stray too far from home, in case I decided it wasn't up to a long drive. It's a bit risky going 25 miles away, IMHO, because what do you do in this CV-19 world if you get to Castle Bernard and decide your eyesight is not good enough.
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
Barnard Castle incidentally is a lot more than half an hour from Durham. However, I don’t know which side of Durham he was starting from. If it was the south near Chester-Le-Street, than half an hour sounds about right. If it was from the northern side, it would be much more like an hour.
Boris is just not well and his bumbling along is not impressive
He is polite to his interrogators but I cannot see him leading into GE 2024, indeed I do not see him in place this time next year
I agree , the Conservative party has always been ruthless in changing its leader to win. I honestly think they might have to again before the next GE to beat SKS.
Yet they let a very ill/senile Mr Churchill linger on. I don't know enough about the period to judge the significance of that, though.
Oh Scott, twitter isn't going to get you what you want I'm afraid.
I for one want him to stay right where he is.
He has single-handedly brought Labour right back into the game in the space of 5 short days. What a hero.
You do know the next GE is fours years from now?
Yes.
Four years of Dominic Cummings doing this level of damage and it won’t be a new Thatcher the Tories need but a new Clement Davies.
I seem to remember multiple times last year that both Cummings and Johnson were written off. Using much the same language as now. Remember the Prorogation that was going to end the dastardly careers of both of them?
I also remember a winning 80 seat majority in a "close" (at least as Twitter was concerned) election.
Political fortunes twist and turn. Four years from now sweaty Starmer could be looking at reducing his pitiful MP count even further,. Who knows?
I'm wondering how many people speaking about the instruction to stay at home would have done so if their fire alarm was going off and the building was being engulfed in flames.
Using your own personal judgement is what any sentient intelligent person should do. People banging on as if there's one rule for every situation don't just insult our intelligence they're insulting their own.
False equivalency klaxon. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".
They were infected with a deadly virus - something your false equivalency doesn't take into account. Leaving the house meant that others could catch it. Unlike in a fire, there were alternatives to leaving the house up to and including calling social services. While I accept that calling social services not ideal, particularly not to the policital elite, it is temporary and not deadly, WHICH IS WHAT INFECTING COUNTY DURHAM WITH COVID-19 IS FFS. How hard can this be to understand? They may have killed someone to avoid sending their child to a place of safety outside their family - something plenty of very good parents do and have done since time began.
Given that they didn't actually come into contact with anyone either on the way there or back (including Cummings' parents), they could not have infected County Durham with COVID-19. Even if what they did was a technical breach of the rules, surely the key question is did they risk speeding up transmission of the virus? And it doesn't look like they did.
You mean, apart from the trip into the hospital.
The lad was assessed over the phone and 999 decided to send an ambulance out. He could have been sent on his own but that seems a cruel thing to do to a four year-old. I would however be interested to know if the paramedics were made aware of Mary Wakefield's illness (assuming she was still symptomatic at that point).
And here's the Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee point of not travelling about the country when you suspect you might have Covid-19.
So would it be alright with you if the boy had been taken ill in London and Mary Wakefield had gone to hospital with him there?
Yes, obviously declaring the suspect Covid nature of the illness to protect the paramedics and admissions staff.
If she declared that to the paramedics in Durham (and we don't know whether or not she did), surely the decision to take her was on them, and presumably the precautions were taken.
Paramedics are going to act the same way in London and Durham. Do you not understand the huge difference though. If noone with the virus within London travels to Durham, there is no possible way the virus reaches Durham. NHS staff by and large don't have a choice about whether or not they come into contact with the virus, hence all the PPE. With the best will in the world a paramedic in London or Durham could get infected through the Cummings' family action but the virus was already rampant through London at that point so adding 1 infection to the pool simply doesn't matter as much as introducing to a low infected place. THIS really, really, really was precisely why travel around the country to second homes etc was explicitly banned in the guidance (I am not sure of the law) I can't believe I'm having to explain this, @Foxy is a medic and might be able to help you out more on this if you need the fact that travelling around with the virus is a horrendously poor idea.
To be pedantic, it wasn't a second home per se, it was his parents' home. More to the point, he wasn't swanning off there for a jolly and a knees-up with his folks.
Government message at the time of Dom's Durham Dalliance was:
STAY WITH YOUR PARENTS PROTECT MR CUMMINGS SAVE THE PRIME MINISTERS SKIN
Oh Scott, twitter isn't going to get you what you want I'm afraid.
I for one want him to stay right where he is.
He has single-handedly brought Labour right back into the game in the space of 5 short days. What a hero.
You do know the next GE is fours years from now?
Yes.
Four years of Dominic Cummings doing this level of damage and it won’t be a new Thatcher the Tories need but a new Clement Davies.
You must be feeling well smug as the poster who more than anyone has been telling anybody who would listen - which was precious few - that the sum of Dominic Cummings was considerably less than his parts.
This is a lose-lose for Bozo now. If he fires him he will look weak. if he keeps him he looks weak. POBWAS
Cummings is clever but arrogant, he needs to stay, Boris comes over as a fool, he needs to take a rest until the end of the pandemic.
"Boris" as you affectionately refer to him does not just come over as a fool, he is a fool. Not necessarily educationally (though an Eton education always helps), but from every aspect of leadership that one would expect from a PM he is an idiot. Cummings is clever, in that he is riding a donkey for as long as said donkey thinks it needs him and not the other way around.
I appreciate that it's more fun talking about Dominic Cummings but I'm disappointed I haven't been able to move debate on, just as the government wishes. What metrics is the government using for lifting lockdown? It hasn't articulated them at all yet and it does seem rather important.
Of the five original tests, the first 3 are done. The fourth is in progress and seems on track. The fifth could never be guaranteed so has been loosened/changed/dropped.
We are learning more from other countries unlockdowns than we can learn from looking at our own R during lockdown.
The government needs to say that if it's true.
The problem group are not those itching to go to the pub, the beach or to Nando's. It's the pensioners who have all the money and who don't feel safe out of the house.
I haven't seen any official mention of when the specially shielded individuals can come out of hiding. I think TSE said the latest advice is end of June, but the government really haven't talked about this.
It's not just specially shielded individuals. There's a cohort of over 70s who took the initial statements that they needed to take extra care very seriously indeed.
I and many of my friends did. And organisations such as the U3a confirmed us in our view.
My mother today has for the first time since lockdown gone into a shop. She has been steeling herself for this moment for at least two weeks. She had the moral support at a social distance of my sister. I know she feels extremely proud of herself now.
She lives on a close of bungalows with a lot of other oldies (she'd be affronted if she saw I used that word about her - I got into trouble last night for pointing out that Joe Biden was the same age as her). They're quite sociable between themselves but each only has a handful of links outside the close. They're all really spooked still.
I don't think some younger people have really grasped just how much fear there still is out there.
I was at Morrisons today and can report that there is still a level of anxiety in there. One woman lost her temper with somebody who came too close. Some quite bad language.
Quite right too.
Shopping indoors is by far the most risky permitted activity out there. If I go to a supermarket indoors there will probably be someone coming within 2 metres every minute or less. They're the ones who are most likely to be infected because they don't give a damn. It's potentially worse in some retailers who quite clearly are content to go through the motions to cover themselves while still letting far too many into their stores. Based on experience to date I go to a near deserted supermarket about 8.45pm. And use your trolley to block the idiots from getting close.
By contrast If I play golf for three hours in the outdoors there will generally be only one person within 100 yards of me the whole time. It's ridiculous that we still have to tee off at intervals of 10 minutes no less.
Comments
* Which, I would assume, the DVLA does not recommend
But these things do have to be thought about.
The strangest experience I had when I had a cataract operation. I'd been told all sorts of things but when I asked the surgeon prior to the operation he told me I'd be able to drive home if I wanted to!
And I could have, although my wife had other ideas!
I'm not sure you understand this democracy business at all...
The rest of your drift is absolutely right though. Someone one in his position should have been leading by example, Law or no Law.
Perhaps Cummings plans to set up his own chain of opticians based around that concept. Perhaps he could call it JobSavers?
I do think a half hour (which would be 30 miles at national speed limit) drive is a good way to test your own ability and durability before a cross country drive. But not for eyesight.
I accept the logic of why he did it but think his phrasing was atrocious.
Lockdown has always been a bit chaotic here. The government expected it to be chaotic from the beginning and were surprised when it wasn't.
I would steer clear of public places such as pubs, shops and eateries though, even more than I am now.
The imposition of lockdown was delayed partially as there was concern about how long people would stick it - seems a good call now to me...
My protest was acknowledged and there are no MEPs. Job done.
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1265673068988547073
The third is possible.
The first two, however...
And the claim that we should interpret Cummings's words by reference to His intentions as explained by one of the faithful, rather than by the actual words He uses, is shark-jumping batshittery.
The reason is so that anyone can measure out the distance and test themselves.
The whole story is nonsense. And anyone believing it really needs help getting dressed.
Why he said it is much more interesting. But no-one is following up on that.
Anyway, it scarcely matters now. The affair has shown us what the two men at the top of government are like and what they think of us.
What happens next is what interests me - and I expect them to mess that up too.
He has single-handedly brought Labour right back into the game in the space of 5 short days. What a hero.
Mentioning outskirts was to implant the idea that they weren't really "in" or visited the town.
https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255845358645254?s=20
BoZo puts Cummings above public health.
They will hammer that now
I said this would lead us in circles...
That certainly puts minor stupidities into perspective.
Hunt clearly reads it.
He is polite to his interrogators but I cannot see him leading into GE 2024, indeed I do not see him in place this time next year
Four years of Dominic Cummings doing this level of damage and it won’t be a new Thatcher the Tories need but a new Clement Davies.
STAY HOME
PROTECT THE NHS
SAVE LIVES
I honestly think they might have to again before the next GE to beat SKS.
I also remember a winning 80 seat majority in a "close" (at least as Twitter was concerned) election.
Political fortunes twist and turn. Four years from now sweaty Starmer could be looking at reducing his pitiful MP count even further,. Who knows?
It's been that way for 20 years at least......
Shopping indoors is by far the most risky permitted activity out there. If I go to a supermarket indoors there will probably be someone coming within 2 metres every minute or less. They're the ones who are most likely to be infected because they don't give a damn. It's potentially worse in some retailers who quite clearly are content to go through the motions to cover themselves while still letting far too many into their stores. Based on experience to date I go to a near deserted supermarket about 8.45pm. And use your trolley to block the idiots from getting close.
By contrast If I play golf for three hours in the outdoors there will generally be only one person within 100 yards of me the whole time. It's ridiculous that we still have to tee off at intervals of 10 minutes no less.