So now vulnerable people being told to get out and about.

This is mad isn't it? Have the government just decided fuck it and double down on ending lockdown and see how it goes?

Hundreds of places worse to take Coronavirus than a hospital.

Worse places that you could go to, if you have Coronavirus and you aren’t acting maliciously? OK, what are they?

Hospitals are geared up (especially at present) to deal with infected people. Almost any other place you can mention isn’t  really.

Not that it matters. You are trying too hard to come up with a headline when you don’t need one.

I have no interest in coming up with a headline. Hospitals are concentrations of vulnerable people. The conversation came about specifically because Cf made the very good point, that the possibility of ending up in hospital, in a place with very low rates infection, is about the best reason not to travel during a lockdown that there is.

I think saying something is bad frames an opinion very well.
Trying to come up with a ranking system is pointless.

I know I being a bit of a dick, but I’m wholly fed up with all of the oxygen being used up on this, & the lack of attention or more important stuff.

There are not too many things that are more important than trust in the people that are advising you in times of crisis.

I understand the reasons it now has importance.
I just think it is a shame (or shameful) that it has taken up so much time & attention.

Look no further than the PM and his refusal to deal with the situation.

Hundreds of places worse to take Coronavirus than a hospital.

It's the other part of the country that's the main issue.

Lewis Goodall on NN cut through all the bullshit.

If his wife had COVID symptoms they should not have travelled.

If she did not have COVID symptoms there were no exceptional circumstances.

I think it easy to get very tribal about stuff like this especially as this is Cummings.

I can see the logical of protecting the welfare of a 4 year old child. Given the guidance does give everyone the leeway to deal with that situation, I think the isolation in Durham is actually reasonable. Everyone does have the option to do what Cummings did - it just happens we dont tend to have an empty property on our parents estate to use (but that’s just his good fortune).

It’s the trip to Barnard Castle which is the bit that looks irresponsible. That’s the killer for him along with the negative PR for his Government and the damage to the lockdown.

The combination of those last points is why he should resign for me.  

Who is getting tribal? Polling shows the view that what he did was wrong is held by the majority of the population, inc Tory and leave voters. Even right wing newspapers are running headlines criticising and ridiculing the whole thing.

Instead of giving leeway the guidance explicitly stated to not isolate in second homes. I don't know how that could be clearer. Having a child is not an exceptional circumstance. Millions of families have children. Were they all exempt from the rules too? Will they be going forward? Of course not. Hence the government have avoided saying so whilst still contorting to try and somehow say what he did was ok.

As for it being logic and within the spirit of the rules this is clearly not the case. He took his infected family from an area with a high infection rate to an area with a low infection rate. They then ended up in a hospital there and helped (or at the very least risked) spread the virus to an area with a low infection rate. One of the entire points, if not the main point, of the lockdown is to prevent this. If the millions of families with children did the same as may as well have not had a lockdown at all.

It wasn’t his second home.

We all have/had the same option to protect the interests of a young child. So on the isolation point, there were no special rules for Cummings.

I mean therein lies one of the problems we now have. People thinking having a child means feel free to travel around the country. Not only was it against the rules then but it still is. For the reasons mentioned in my last paragraph which you didn't respond to.

(I read but not entirely sure if it's accurate that he part owns the farm where he stays. Either way referring to it as a 2nd home or not I think is splitting hairs a bit)

Lewis Goodall on NN cut through all the bullshit.

If his wife had COVID symptoms they should not have travelled.

If she did not have COVID symptoms there were no exceptional circumstances.

I think it easy to get very tribal about stuff like this especially as this is Cummings.

I can see the logical of protecting the welfare of a 4 year old child. Given the guidance does give everyone the leeway to deal with that situation, I think the isolation in Durham is actually reasonable. Everyone does have the option to do what Cummings did - it just happens we dont tend to have an empty property on our parents estate to use (but that’s just his good fortune).

It’s the trip to Barnard Castle which is the bit that looks irresponsible. That’s the killer for him along with the negative PR for his Government and the damage to the lockdown.

The combination of those last points is why he should resign for me.  

Who is getting tribal? Polling shows the view that what he did was wrong is held by the majority of the population, inc Tory and leave voters. Even right wing newspapers are running headlines criticising and ridiculing the whole thing.

Instead of giving leeway the guidance explicitly stated to not isolate in second homes. I don't know how that could be clearer. Having a child is not an exceptional circumstance. Millions of families have children. Were they all exempt from the rules too? Will they be going forward? Of course not. Hence the government have avoided saying so whilst still contorting to try and somehow say what he did was ok.

As for it being logic and within the spirit of the rules this is clearly not the case. He took his infected family from an area with a high infection rate to an area with a low infection rate. They then ended up in a hospital there and helped (or at the very least risked) spread the virus to an area with a low infection rate. One of the entire points, if not the main point, of the lockdown is to prevent this. If the millions of families with children did the same as may as well have not had a lockdown at all.

Dr Luke Evans MP
To:rich.prew@xxxx
Tue 26 May at 18:04

Hello,

Many thanks for your email over the bank holiday weekend about Dominic Cummings.
 
I have had an unprecedented number of emails on this topic. Some of the emails are standardised campaign emails but many are personal ones which constituents have taken a great deal of time and consideration to express their concern, anger and disappointment. Sadly I don’t have the time to write individually to everyone who has contacted me about Mr Cummings. This email is a standard reply but please be assured I have personally read all emails and in many cases shared the views that you have expressed.
 
I get it.
 
I understand why there is sadness, anger, frustration and concern.
 
As an MP and as a Doctor I understand that together the vast majority of us have observed the lockdown rules. We have stuck to the guidance and even in doing so some of us have suffered the heartbreak of losing loved ones or friends.
 
I don’t have all the facts and so have therefore not commented publicly and don’t feel comfortable in doing so, but as you have written to me for my opinion, I am happy to write this to you.
 
The lock down rules are there for everyone, with no exemptions. 
 
The punishment for breaking such rules are also there for everyone, no exemptions.
 
A trial by media helps no one. Social distancing applies to everyone, no exemptions.
 
So, given the concerns and strength of feeling that you and many others have expressed to me I will be writing to the Prime Minister in the next 24 hours to raise your concerns and seek reassurances that they will be acted upon.
 
Many thanks again for your email,

Dr Luke Evans MP | Member of Parliament for Bosworth

“A trial by media helps no one.”

Trial by media? What trial by media. The media have every right to ask questions of one of the most powerful men in the country. Especially when what is being said is demonstrably false. Or what? We just keep our mouths shut and let them do what they like?

First minister resignation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52806086

... We objectively have one of the worst responses to it in the world. ...

There are nearly 200 countries in the world - how many of that 200 do you know what their response has been?

Ok. I don't know the response of all 200 countries. Fair enough. Of all the developed countries though we are near the bottom of the list on most metrics are we not? I don't see many reports citing our response as a success story.

I don't like over generalisations.

Technically what you said wasn't an over generalisation - objectively the worst could 'technically' mean one of the worst 100 (for example), but I sensed that wasn't exactly what you meant.

I think any kind of analysis can show how countries could have responded better, but in general I think countries can only really be judged on whether their response was reasonable at the time.

More than one response is probably reasonable at the time. So if comparable countries did different things, they might both have been behaving reasonably but with very different outcomes. The UK might well come out as one of the worst, but only as a matter of days - whether we could have done some things a week earlier for example.

But putting in place measures to stop the virus can work both ways. There are some countries which have implemented very strict national lockdowns when some of their regions have zero cases and travel bans to stop cases arriving in those regions - is it objectively good that they are forcing people to self isolate and destroying their livelihoods in those areas? There are some countries with legally, strict lockdowns but national politicians openly telling people it's an over reaction and to ignore it - which they are doing.

Excess mortality is always going to be the best way to measure the result, but as mentioned before, some countries were never going to be hit badly by this virus no matter what they did. Some countries having 100 deaths instead of 10 deaths will be a poor result.

Coming back to your original statement, the gist of it may well be correct, it just seemed a bit reductive and over simplified for a very complicated situation.

That's fair, and I accept it to a point. But sometimes we need to be able to use the condensed version. Saying "it's complicated" can't be a reason to not bring up the simplified version - we can't fully cover every single topic every time.

... We objectively have one of the worst responses to it in the world. ...

There are nearly 200 countries in the world - how many of that 200 do you know what their response has been?

Ok. I don't know the response of all 200 countries. Fair enough. Of all the developed countries though we are near the bottom of the list on most metrics are we not? I don't see many reports citing our response as a success story.

Looks like him saying "I've been warning about coronavirus for a while" could have been a fabrication too.

https://t.co/g8ZMPo4GUJ

This goes beyond party politics. We are in the middle of a pandemic. We objectively have one of the worst responses to it in the world. And the people at the very top are lying to us live on television. How is this acceptable?

"I went for a drive to see if I was safe to drive"

Why take your wife and kids if you're unsure if you're safe to drive?

Was there a choice?

He couldn't possibly go alone to check could he? What if he found out it wasn't safe? At that point he needs to pull over and let someone else take over doesn't he? Presumably that person is the only other adult he's currently not required to socially distance from, that being his wife.

If he has to take his wife with him to potentially take over driving then what do they do with their child? I assume they can't leave him/her home alone? That means it's either leave with the grand parents or take along for the ride. Taking along for the ride seems more sensible than leaving with the grand parents at this stage?

If his wife can take over why not have her drive in the first place? Or just drive around his own estate for a bit? Or drive to London and turn around?

The whole story is ludicrous and quite clearly bollocks. They've accepted he was somewhere he shouldn't have been (which they didn't the days before) and this was the best they could come up with to justify it.

One of the shortest press conferences yet. PM decided he just didn't want to answer the questions.

Including the one Cummings said we should ask of him.

Is it me or has the R number gone up? Pretty sure when Johnson spoke a couple of weeks ago it was 0.5-0.9. Now it's 0.7-1.0.

Yes, it has but it’s a bit guessy anyway.

Yes but they're talking about easing lockdown. By their own estimate it could currently be 1. So easing lockdown surely risks second outbreak with that as a starting point?

Is it me or has the R number gone up? Pretty sure when Johnson spoke a couple of weeks ago it was 0.5-0.9. Now it's 0.7-1.0.

"Did you have to fill up with petrol ?"

Incred, don't know if anyone can survive penetrating questions like that

To be fair he didn't seem able to answer it.