International News Covid-19 .....

[Essexyellows]

Yes, the figures are going in the correct direction, what are you expecting the deaths to be turned off like a tap and we wake up one morning and they have stopped?

People will continue to die every second of every day. How that is certified makes little difference. They are still dead.
Some people find that reality very difficult to comprehend.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

People will continue to die every second of every day. How that is certified makes little difference. They are still dead.
Some people find that reality very difficult to comprehend.

I find that a bit odd. Yes, people are still dead - but isn't it important for public health for those in charge to know HOW they died?

 

[MC Yellow]

I find that a bit odd. Yes, people are still dead - but isn't it important for public health for those in charge to know HOW they died?

That was sort of my thinking.

 

[Paul Cannell]

I find that a bit odd. Yes, people are still dead - but isn't it important for public health for those in charge to know HOW they died?

I think that only applies if you're considering doing something about it. I dunno, helping them have second thoughts, whatever.

 

[Paul Cannell]

It's literally 1984 happening in front of our eyes, and still people - 'normal' people at that - blindly defend every little thing he does or says.

All you can really do is laugh about it.

Do you mean 'literally' literally there, m?

 

[m]

Do you mean 'literally' literally there, m?

'Sort of literally' would maybe be more accurate.

 

[Essexyellows]

I find that a bit odd. Yes, people are still dead - but isn't it important for public health for those in charge to know HOW they died?

Of course, however it will not change the terminal fact.
You can increase longevity but then you are into quality of life and other debates.

The biggest concern I have are the deaths that will occur because of the situation caused by the virus but not caused by the virus.
I will put my head on the block and suggest there will be a significant increase of those taking their own lives for associated reasons.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Good show.

Edit - this response was to m. Literally true, that.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Of course, however it will not change the terminal fact.
You can increase longevity but then you are into quality of life and other debates.

Nope, you've still lost me. Death *is* a fact of life, to coin a phrase. However, *when* we die is pretty important - for everyone including older people, who may well have a great quality of life and have a lot to want stay alive for. If this disease is the cause of death that's important to know and if it has shortened a life that was being enjoyed by even a few weeks that is a tragedy.
So yes, how the death happens and how is certified does make a difference. It makes a difference to public health planning, it makes a difference to the family who might not have been allowed to see their loved one, it makes a difference to the hospital who have treated you.
If your point was that it makes no difference to the person who is dead, then that isn't right either. Would I rather fade away peacefully with my loved ones there or die in a hospital bed surrounded by people I don't know dressed in full PPE? I know which I'd vote for.

 

[mooro]

Bit late but...(and in no particular order)...

1) The 'exceptional circumstances' bit did exist in the original advice, as I remember reading it at the time, so he is correct in that he did not actually break the rules. That he did "break the spirit" of the rules (as Laura K put it), is another matter.
2) To me, his reasoning does make sense, up to a certain point in the story - wife ill, high chance he will get/has got it, get to somewhere where they can self-isolate/lockdown properly and where there will be suitable childcare for son should both parents be incapacitated for any period of time, while they can, using the 'exceptional circumstances' angle if required.
3) Obviously the 'eyetest drive' is very difficult to swallow, although I would imagine if true, was a lot less dangerous in practice than it sounds (more a sort of test whether the strain of driving brings on any eyesight issues of the type experienced earlier, rather than I can't really see love, but I'll try out pointing the car in the right direction amidst the fog).
4) Chances are that this trip out was a double header - eyetest mixed with a little trip out on her birthday and last day before heading back south as a relief after both being ill - though I think he might have been better acknowledging this rather than hoping the 'eye' thing would suffice, which it clearly was never goign to be.
5) Can Mrs C drive, and if so, could she not have driven some if not all of the journey south?
6) What was stopping DC from working from home from his lockdown home in Durham for at least a couple of days/weeks....?
7) If Boris was ill/incapacitated on the day DC chose to depart from London, what was stopping him contacting Dominic Raab (as Boris' nominated stand-in) to have the discussion, or is this just recognition that DC ranks above everyone else in the party, so can make his own decisions.
8) Following on from (2), I wonder what would have happened had he done the same, but that it had been acknowledged as such by either himself or the party shortly after. What, I wonder, would have been the impact of referencing the 'exceptional circumstances' clause at that time? Could the govt have issued some clarification of what those circumstances could be and how they should be dealt with by the public in those situations?
9) I also wonder what the value of him using the words 'sorry', apologise, or regret' at some point in the conference would have been. Would he have got an easier ride subsequently and the world move on to the more pertinent things being announced, or would it have just fueled the 'guilty, so must be fired lobby'?

 

[QR]

Bit late but...(and in no particular order)...

1) The 'exceptional circumstances' bit did exist in the original advice, as I remember reading it at the time, so he is correct in that he did not actually break the rules. That he did "break the spirit" of the rules (as Laura K put it), is another matter.
2) To me, his reasoning does make sense, up to a certain point in the story - wife ill, high chance he will get/has got it, get to somewhere where they can self-isolate/lockdown properly and where there will be suitable childcare for son should both parents be incapacitated for any period of time, while they can, using the 'exceptional circumstances' angle if required.
3) Obviously the 'eyetest drive' is very difficult to swallow, although I would imagine if true, was a lot less dangerous in practice than it sounds (more a sort of test whether the strain of driving brings on any eyesight issues of the type experienced earlier, rather than I can't really see love, but I'll try out pointing the car in the right direction amidst the fog).
4) Chances are that this trip out was a double header - eyetest mixed with a little trip out on her birthday and last day before heading back south as a relief after both being ill - though I think he might have been better acknowledging this rather than hoping the 'eye' thing would suffice, which it clearly was never goign to be.
5) Can Mrs C drive, and if so, could she not have driven some if not all of the journey south?
6) What was stopping DC from working from home from his lockdown home in Durham for at least a couple of days/weeks....?
7) If Boris was ill/incapacitated on the day DC chose to depart from London, what was stopping him contacting Dominic Raab (as Boris' nominated stand-in) to have the discussion, or is this just recognition that DC ranks above everyone else in the party, so can make his own decisions.
8) Following on from (2), I wonder what would have happened had he done the same, but that it had been acknowledged as such by either himself or the party shortly after. What, I wonder, would have been the impact of referencing the 'exceptional circumstances' clause at that time? Could the govt have issued some clarification of what those circumstances could be and how they should be dealt with by the public in those situations?
9) I also wonder what the value of him using the words 'sorry', apologise, or regret' at some point in the conference would have been. Would he have got an easier ride subsequently and the world move on to the more pertinent things being announced, or would it have just fueled the 'guilty, so must be fired lobby'?

There's a reason it 'doesn't make sense'. ?

 

[YellowTaxi]

A useful list
Comments in red

Bit late but...(and in no particular order)...

1) The 'exceptional circumstances' bit did exist in the original advice, as I remember reading it at the time, so he is correct in that he did not actually break the rules. That he did "break the spirit" of the rules (as Laura K put it), is another matter.
2) To me, his reasoning does make sense, up to a certain point in the story - wife ill, high chance he will get/has got it, get to somewhere where they can self-isolate/lockdown properly and where there will be suitable childcare for son should both parents be incapacitated for any period of time, while they can, using the 'exceptional circumstances' angle if required.

An infected person going from London- a city with a lot of infected people and a lot of hospiitals to Durham then a town with few infected people and few hospitals- is literally the most dangerous thing you could do. Cummings was attending the science briefings. he must have known this.

There was nothing to stop him self isolating at home. Many families have done it in much smaller houses than the Cummings family. He made no attempt to source childcare locally, and his wife wrote a blog implying she was well enough to look after their child.

I think waht happened was they decided to go to Mum-in Law's Castle because they were bored.


3) Obviously the 'eyetest drive' is very difficult to swallow, although I would imagine if true, was a lot less dangerous in practice than it sounds (more a sort of test whether the strain of driving brings on any eyesight issues of the type experienced earlier, rather than I can't really see love, but I'll try out pointing the car in the right direction amidst the fog).

It's a lie. Why not drive two minutes if you are really worried.
4) Chances are that this trip out was a double header - eyetest mixed with a little trip out on her birthday and last day before heading back south as a relief after both being ill - though I think he might have been better acknowledging this rather than hoping the 'eye' thing would suffice, which it clearly was never goign to be.
Agreed- except there was no eyetest aspect
5) Can Mrs C drive, and if so, could she not have driven some if not all of the journey south?
Yes she can
6) What was stopping DC from working from home from his lockdown home in Durham for at least a couple of days/weeks....?
Another good question
7) If Boris was ill/incapacitated on the day DC chose to depart from London, what was stopping him contacting Dominic Raab (as Boris' nominated stand-in) to have the discussion, or is this just recognition that DC ranks above everyone else in the party, so can make his own decisions.
He's allowed to do as he likes despite being unelected- see also his press conference in the Downing Street Garden for whihc he was 30 minutes late
8) Following on from (2), I wonder what would have happened had he done the same, but that it had been acknowledged as such by either himself or the party shortly after. What, I wonder, would have been the impact of referencing the 'exceptional circumstances' clause at that time? Could the govt have issued some clarification of what those circumstances could be and how they should be dealt with by the public in those situations?
They could. They don't want to because they have only contempt for the likes of us.
9) I also wonder what the value of him using the words 'sorry', apologise, or regret' at some point in the conference would have been. Would he have got an easier ride subsequently and the world move on to the more pertinent things being announced, or would it have just fueled the 'guilty, so must be fired lobby'?
See above.

 

[Scotchegg]

Bit late but...(and in no particular order)...

1) The 'exceptional circumstances' bit did exist in the original advice, as I remember reading it at the time, so he is correct in that he did not actually break the rules. That he did "break the spirit" of the rules (as Laura K put it), is another matter.
2) To me, his reasoning does make sense, up to a certain point in the story - wife ill, high chance he will get/has got it, get to somewhere where they can self-isolate/lockdown properly and where there will be suitable childcare for son should both parents be incapacitated for any period of time, while they can, using the 'exceptional circumstances' angle if required.
3) Obviously the 'eyetest drive' is very difficult to swallow, although I would imagine if true, was a lot less dangerous in practice than it sounds (more a sort of test whether the strain of driving brings on any eyesight issues of the type experienced earlier, rather than I can't really see love, but I'll try out pointing the car in the right direction amidst the fog).
4) Chances are that this trip out was a double header - eyetest mixed with a little trip out on her birthday and last day before heading back south as a relief after both being ill - though I think he might have been better acknowledging this rather than hoping the 'eye' thing would suffice, which it clearly was never goign to be.
5) Can Mrs C drive, and if so, could she not have driven some if not all of the journey south?
6) What was stopping DC from working from home from his lockdown home in Durham for at least a couple of days/weeks....?
7) If Boris was ill/incapacitated on the day DC chose to depart from London, what was stopping him contacting Dominic Raab (as Boris' nominated stand-in) to have the discussion, or is this just recognition that DC ranks above everyone else in the party, so can make his own decisions.
8) Following on from (2), I wonder what would have happened had he done the same, but that it had been acknowledged as such by either himself or the party shortly after. What, I wonder, would have been the impact of referencing the 'exceptional circumstances' clause at that time? Could the govt have issued some clarification of what those circumstances could be and how they should be dealt with by the public in those situations?
9) I also wonder what the value of him using the words 'sorry', apologise, or regret' at some point in the conference would have been. Would he have got an easier ride subsequently and the world move on to the more pertinent things being announced, or would it have just fueled the 'guilty, so must be fired lobby'?

Wow, a reasoned and sensible post that does not draw on any political bias.

That won't go down well on here!!!

 

[Steve McAvoy]

Retrospectively looking at fines imposed for those seeking to resolve ‘childcare’ issues by travelling out? Really, Mr Hancock. This is abject chaos. Johnson’s failure to putting a lid on this at the weekend is leading to a complete shambles just to hold on to Cummings. Just a mess.

 

[Wallop]

Just been out for a bike ride, the number of people testing their eyesight on the road has definitely risen since last week.

 

[Eaststanding]

Retrospectively looking at fines imposed for those seeking to resolve ‘childcare’ issues by travelling out? Really, Mr Hancock. This is abject chaos. Johnson’s failure to putting a lid on this at the weekend is leading to a complete shambles just to hold on to Cummings. Just a mess.

He said he’d talk to the Treasury. No commitment to do anything for anyone who has a fine. Standard non committal answer when put on the spot surely?

 

[SteMerritt]

Just been out for a bike ride, the number of people testing their eyesight on the road has definitely risen since last week.

Maybe to do with it being half term?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

So, because Cummings little jaunt is now considered OK, they are going to have to at least revisit other similar trips by other people who have already been fined for them? Hmm - obvious that the police didn't understand the 'guidance' either then, or they wouldn't have been fined at all! Or could it be that the rules are being changed retrospectively to justify the unjustifiable?
I am looking forward to the new eyesight part of the driving test being introduced by the Ministry of Truth in the near future.

 

[Wallop]

Of course, however it will not change the terminal fact.
You can increase longevity but then you are into quality of life and other debates.

The biggest concern I have are the deaths that will occur because of the situation caused by the virus but not caused by the virus.
I will put my head on the block and suggest there will be a significant increase of those taking their own lives for associated reasons.

Could have chosen a better phrase there EY.

 

[mooro]

A useful list
Comments in red

A2 - his decision was made prior to knowing how ill his wife was going to become, and in the knowledge that he could well (and subsequently did) become ill very soon. A pre-emptive move in these circumstances does stand up. // If he can successfully travel from london to isolation in Durham without encountering anyone in person, then he may well have considered that as less dangerous in terms of spread than staying in London with one or more people coming in and out for childminding purposes if both he and his wife were unwell at the same time //
A3,4 - As I said - the eyetest was more likely to be whether any sustained driving might bring on sight issues, (which he said he had experienced during his illness) rather than having a sight issue and doing so to establish whether he could point the car in the right direction. Hence, a two minute drive would not provide an answer. // Whether they chose to combine this with a trip out is another matter, and yes, it is unlikely that the sole purpose of the journey was the eyetest and they accidentally happened upon BArnard Castle by chance....