Coronavirus

[Mikey10]

I agree. My point was that it very rarely happens this early into a government. It is a sign of fraying discipline in a party, and a weakened leader - not something usually associated with the early months of a government with an 80 seat majority.

 

[SpurMeUp]

What do you his true reasons are for travelling to Durham, if you don’t believe his account?

To relax and recuperate in his second home.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Mikey10]

What do you his true reasons are for travelling to Durham, if you don’t believe his account?

It doesn’t matter what his reasons were. He was doing something that was against the rules espoused time and time again to the public; rules which he helped to design. The fact that history is being re-written to fit his narrative doesn’t change the facts, I’m afraid.

 

[Grays_1890]

One of the particular reasons we were told not to travel at the time was to avoid putting unnecessary pressure on the NHS in different (particularly more rural) parts of the country - which is exactly what happened in this case, when the Cummings’ son had to attend A&E.

And, given that the Cummings had travelled from a Coronavirus hot-spot into an area which had very low Covid numbers at the time, surely the visit of two people who believed themselves to be positive with the virus to a hospital (hotbeds of infection throughout this crisis) in such an area was exactly the sort of thing the rules were bought in to avoid?

It’s like almost every aspect of the story. It doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny; and only makes sense to those who desperately want it to.

But the virus doesn’t decide to change its route of transmission because someone has travelled 250 miles.

The facts are unless you come into contact of someone or contaminate a shared surface there is no chance of spreading the virus.

Your point would refer to mass movement of people who would use public areas frequently and spread the virus.

 

[Robspur12]

Cummings specifically said he didn’t go near his parents, and that his nieces were going to provide emergency childcare if necessary. Why do you think he’s lying about that, and why do you think he’d be motivated and willing to risk infecting his parents?

As I said I don't know the full details as I have not followed the entire story. I understood the purpose of his visit was to be near his parents to give the child over if necessary. If it was to be close to his nieces though, it would have been better to bring one of them down to London than take 1 potentially two infected individuals up north. With his power and influence he would have been able to arrange that. Plus it's the sort of thing ordinary families would have been arranging.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

What do you his true reasons are for travelling to Durham, if you don’t believe his account?

Always always always a good question to ask.

People get so lost in the attack (and the lap up) that a step back and looking at alternative viewpoint or reasoning to question your own beliefs can sometimes lead to more logical conclusions.

 

[Grays_1890]

With Brexit and a pandemic to deal with....who'd a thought it.

Thought a group hug and a cuddle might have been more in order.

All since December as well when the outbreak came in Jan.

If Sir Kier was elected tomorrow I would want him to be allowed more than half of month of clear government to put in place what’s needed to govern the country (excluding Christmas) etc

I hope that if or once Labour gain power they are afforded some leeway

 

[Mikey10]

But the virus doesn’t decide to change its route of transmission because someone has travelled 250 miles.

The facts are unless you come into contact of someone or contaminate a shared surface there is no chance of spreading the virus.

Your point would refer to mass movement of people who would use public areas frequently and spread the virus.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the way in which a pandemic occurs if you think it relies on mass movements of people.

 

[Grays_1890]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the way in which a pandemic occurs if you think it relies on mass movements of people.

I don’t think I have, it would rely on contamination which we know how it occurs, if you can avoid that locally you can avoid that 10 miles, 100 miles or 250 miles away if you strictly follow the guidelines.

The mass movement part refers to the fact that more numbers means more people and the likelihood that by Human nature everyone following guidelines comes down and risk of contamination increases.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

It doesn’t matter what his reasons were. He was doing something that was against the rules espoused time and time again to the public; rules which he helped to design. The fact that history is being re-written to fit his narrative doesn’t change the facts, I’m afraid.

So the the prosecution has its moment in court but the defence is told to stay in his chair. Splendid.

 

[Mikey10]

With Brexit and a pandemic to deal with....who'd a thought it.

Thought a group hug and a cuddle might have been more in order.

Plenty of countries dealing with this have done so in a unified (and much more successful) manner - see New Zealand. The difference being that they have been shown leadership.

 

[Mikey10]

So the the prosecution has its moment in court but the defence is told to stay in his chair. Splendid.

It comes down to what everyone else was expected to do. The message wasn’t ‘Stay at home - unless your instincts tell you otherwise.’ That narrative has been re-written to fit his actions.

 

[Robspur12]

I have a second home for example on the Plymouth coast, if I travel to Plymouth I’m not going to spread the virus unless I leave my car, meet someone or invite someone into my home.

If I went to see my parents and stayed in their outhouse and didn’t come into contact with them or any surfaces they come into contact with then it’s just as dangerous living next to my elderly neighbours here in Croydon.

I think distance Is relative to the disease, I could spread it easier in Tesco round the corner than travelling 250 miles as it’s not transmitted in the air in the conventional virus spread

It's not the point. Otherwise everyone will travel and do their best not to spread the virus. The scientists would have considered this. They concluded that encouraging people to make long journeys increases the risk of spread. Especially people who are afflicted by the disease. I don't understand the arguments the other way. It's a standard tool for fighting infectious disease to limit travel and contact.

 

[Mikey10]

I don’t think I have, it would rely on contamination which we know how it occurs, if you can avoid that locally you can avoid that 10 miles, 100 miles or 250 miles away if you strictly follow the guidelines.

The mass movement part refers to the fact that more numbers means more people and the likelihood that by Human nature everyone following guidelines comes down and risk of contamination increases.

When the R rate is above one two infected people in a hospital (touching surfaces and breathing) could potentially lead to tens of onward infections.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the way in which a pandemic occurs if you think it relies on mass movements of people.

Plenty of contamination potential in A&E. wasn’t the reason the government didn’t want people travelling was to stop folks using petrol stations, crashing, using ambulances and a&e? Of course in one isolated instance it is no big deal. But if everyone did what Cummings did then it would have helped spread covid - that is why they asked people not to travel. As Cummings was part of these discussions it is hard to make a case for him being allowed when others were not.

Unless you take it that he is as powerful as the PM. That he needed to recuperate so he could come back fresh to help govern the nation. Of course he couldn’t say that and had to play the game.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Grays_1890]

When the R rate is above one, two infected people in a hospital (touching surfaces and breathing) could potentially lead to hundreds of onward infections.

Ok I get what you are saying fair enough.

 

[Robspur12]

Always always always a good question to ask.

People get so lost in the attack (and the lap up) that a step back and looking at alternative viewpoint or reasoning to question your own beliefs can sometimes lead to more logical conclusions.

I am not getting lost in the attack. I am arguing that from a public health point of view it was a very stupid move and against first principles of public health. Actions like this shine a light on the government response. All of the top team contracting coronavirus at the same time, care homes not considered despite the warnings and lock down restrictions being eased before track and trace is embedded. I am not making any political points here this is about running a pandemic from a public health pov.

It's been a shambles and me and others who are key workers have deserved better on every level.

 

[Mikey10]

Anyway, some earlier in the thread seemed keen to move the discussion away from Mr Cummings.

So, latest ONS figures out today - now 47,000 dead in the UK from Covid.

More Conservative MPs asking for DC’s resignation this morning and rumours of further resignations. It’s going to be another interesting day.

 

[Grays_1890]

Ita also a beautiful day out there,plotting out another 6 mile walk for lunchtime, 4th day in a row, feeling good for it.

 

[Grays_1890]

In other news I like the plan to use exclusively temporary hospitals for Covid-19 and free up hospitals for regular action moving forward. That is a huge part of moving forward as far as I can see.

Getting cancer patients etc the treatment they need to get the world moving forward is huge as far as I am concerned.