The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
cambsno said:
Really?

So hold on, because you were close to someone who is positive, you may be and so have to isolate at home, but (if it was me), my wife could come and go as she pleases???

I am not a trained scientist but struggling to understand how this is any good??
Click to expand...

It is simply a decision based on the balance of probability. E.g. probably the identified contact will not have the virus and, therefore, the other occupants of the house will be OK. Therefore, it makes sense to let them carry on as normal unless the isolated contact displays signs of illness. In some cases that may happen. Mostly it will not.

People seem to struggle with the concept of risk management.
It is not about eliminating risk (usually an impossible task), but reducing it to a level where it is as low as is reasonably practicable.

By steadily working away at tracking and tracing and isolating, the numbers of infected people will eventually be reduced to a level that allows the country to revert to working normally.
 
Last edited:
Fuji Dave said:
Mum is in hospital as they think she might have the virus and because i was at hers a few days ago i have now been told i must stay in, you could say my head is screwed up at this moment.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear that, hope you and your mum's gonna be ok
 
Last edited:
Suvv said:
Where Cummings wife works! and where he worked and where Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was editor.
Click to expand...
It’s actually her articles that are complained of as misleading, to say the least :(.
 
Fuji Dave said:
I spoke to a doctor last night and he told me not to go out and stay in even though i feel fine mum has a high fever and hot to touch plus a very bad cough.
Click to expand...
Really sorry, hope you are both OK.
 
Durham Police have found that the trip to Barnard Castle was a breach in the rules, and would have warranted police intervention had it been reported at the time.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Durham Police have found that the trip to Barnard Castle was a breach in the rules, and would have warranted police intervention had it been reported at the time.
Click to expand...

Don’t you ever listen? Boris said it was all fine so it must have been ok!! [emoji846]
 
Of course it was a minor infraction, and there'll be no furrther police action. Nor should there be, as there wouldn't have been for any member of the public.

I imagine the Boris/Cummings supporters will immediately jump on this fact. But the fact that he broke the law has never really been the issue. It's the flat out denials that the law was in any way broken.
 
Dominic's story has more holes than a Swiss Cheese, so of course his wife tales of their coronavirus lockdown is a fantasy, it had to fit in with his tale of deceit.

Nobody in the current cabinet has any scruples if they had they would not have been appointed in the first place, they are just nodding dogs there to do the bidding of their boss.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Durham Police have found that the trip to Barnard Castle was a breach in the rules, and would have warranted police intervention had it been reported at the time.
Click to expand...

Full statement...just to correct you, they said 'might have been a minor breach' not there 'was a breach'.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation.


Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.'
 
Interesting piece on Radio4 news at 1pm.

There was a bloke on who is one of the recently recruited 'test and trace' staff. He said he had a webinar yesterday about the job where there was no mention of it going live today. The only thing he knew about it was a text he received late last night saying it was starting today.

A further suggestion that Boris, ruffled by questions for Jeremy Hunt, decided to try to deflect criticism by announcing policy on the hoof.

I'd like Boris to be asked when was the decision made to start the test and trace on May 28th.

Dave
 
NeilA1975 said:
Full statement...just to correct you, they said 'might have been a minor breach' not there 'was a breach'.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation.


Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.'
Click to expand...
So now Emily Maitlis can repeat that he broke the rules and the beeb won’t suspend her :)
 
arclight said:
It is simply a decision based on the balance of probability. E.g. probably the identified contact will not have the virus and, therefore, the other occupants of the house will be OK. Therefore, it makes sense to let them carry on as normal unless the isolated contact displays signs of illness. In some cases that may happen. Mostly it will not.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is presymptomatic transmission, which may account for about half of all transmissions. If we had rapid testing, sufficient testing capacity, and a manageable total number of infections (none of which are currently true in the UK), we could test the contacts of confirmed cases whether symptomatic or not, and (if they were positive) test their contacts, and so on.
 
NeilA1975 said:
Did she say there might have been a breach or there was a breach?
Click to expand...
She s now saying she asked for he night off after beeb censured her. I dont know exactly what she said :(
 
NeilA1975 said:
Did she say there might have been a breach or there was a breach?
Click to expand...
sphexx said:
She s now saying she asked for he night off after beeb censured her. I dont know exactly what she said :(
Click to expand...
She said and I quote

“Good evening. Dominic Cummings broke the rules. The country can see that and it’s shocked the government cannot.”

Durham police also believe he was breaking the rules because if they had stopped him they would have asked him to return to Durham
 
jakeblu said:
She said and I quote

“Good evening. Dominic Cummings broke the rules. The country can see that and it’s shocked the government cannot.”

Durham police also believe he was breaking the rules because if they had stopped him they would have asked him to return to Durham
Click to expand...

'Might' & 'Did' are not the same.

From the BBC on Maitlis

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52824508

'The BBC has said an introduction about Dominic Cummings on Tuesday's Newsnight did not meet the required standards of due impartiality.

The programme began with presenter Emily Maitlis saying "the country can see" he had "broken the rules".

It should have made clear the remarks were "a summary of the questions we would examine" about the prime minister's aide, the corporation said.

The BBC said the news programme's staff had been reminded about its guidelines.

At the beginning of the BBC Two programme, Maitlis said the country was "shocked" that the government could not see that Boris Johnson's aide had broken the rules by travelling from London to County Durham during the coronavirus lockdown.'

So the assertion is that Cummings broke the rules by travelling from London to Durham - Police said it did not.
 
This is what lawyer David Allen Green thinks the wording of the police statement means legally (see thread):

View: https://BANNED/davidallengreen/status/1265987139327725573
View: https://BANNED/davidallengreen/status/1265989373616631808
 
Last edited:
NeilA1975 said:
Full statement...just to correct you, they said 'might have been a minor breach' not there 'was a breach'.

Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)

On 12 April 2020, Mr Cummings drove approximately 26 miles from his father’s property to Barnard Castle with his wife and son. He stated on 25 May 2020 that the purpose of this drive was to test his resilience to drive to London the following day, including whether his eyesight was sufficiently recovered, his period of self-isolation having ended.

Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.

In line with Durham Constabulary’s general approach throughout the pandemic, there is no intention to take retrospective action in respect of the Barnard Castle incident since this would amount to treating Mr Cummings differently from other members of the public. Durham Constabulary has not taken retrospective action against any other person.

By way of further context, Durham Constabulary has followed Government guidance on management of alleged breaches of the regulations with the emphasis on the NPCC and College of Policing 4Es: Engage, Explain and Encourage before Enforcement.

Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation.


Therefore Durham Constabulary will take no further action in this matter and has informed Mr Cummings of this decision.'
Click to expand...

Indeed, which is what the police say when there has been a breach. Because they would only say "had" if it'd been found to have done in court. The fact that they also said that they'd have told him to go home, shows that they did believe it to be a breach.

View: https://BANNED/BarristerSecret/status/1265986473955819520
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Retune said:
The problem with this is presymptomatic transmission, which may account for about half of all transmissions. If we had rapid testing, sufficient testing capacity, and a manageable total number of infections (none of which are currently true in the UK), we could test the contacts of confirmed cases whether symptomatic or not, and (if they were positive) test their contacts, and so on.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can imagine the difficulty that poses. There is no comprehensive answer as yet. Unless some means is found to have a dramatic impact on Covid19 we will have to make do with control measures that make improvements, but do no more than that. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
 
NeilA1975 said:
'

So the assertion is that Cummings broke the rules by travelling from London to Durham - Police said it did not.
Click to expand...

They didn't say that at all, they said they were examining whether he broke the *regulations* and not the stay at home advice, the stay at home advice was also a rule we were expected to follow.

This all of course, ignores the fact that he could have infected more members of Downing Street, as he went back to work after initially going home to care for his suspected Covid infected wife. Which of course, is another break in the rules.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
Indeed, which is what the police say when there has been a breach. Because they would only say "had" if it'd been found to have done in court. The fact that they also said that they'd have told him to go home, shows that they did believe it to be a breach.
Click to expand...

The extract from their statement below indicates that they cannot be 100% sure he broke the regs, hence the use the word might.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham
 
NeilA1975 said:
The extract from their statement below indicates that they cannot be 100% sure he broke the regs, hence the use the word might.

Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham
Click to expand...

I think I'll believe what actual barristers are saying thanks. Unless you have more relevant qualifications than them that is?
 
NeilA1975 said:
So the assertion is that Cummings broke the rules by travelling from London to Durham - Police said it did not.
Click to expand...
You're right, the police didn't claim he had broken the rules by traveling from London to Durham, but rather think he might have by travelling from Durham to Barnard Castle.
 
cambsno said:
Boris said there was no breach - so he should learn to tell the truth as well and admit the MAY have been a breach
Click to expand...
I think that many have fallen into the trap that the Conservative party has laid.

The question of whether the Prime Minister's aid broke the law is irrelevant and can only be resolved to the party's benefit. The real issue is the old proverb that "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion".

Cummings did something that the Prime Minister told us, the citizens, not to do. He has therefor demonstrated that he considers himself to have privileges not available to other citizens. The Prime Minister has successfully avoided answering the key question: "Have you given Dominic Cummings privileges that you are denying to every other citizen?"

This is the question that needs to be asked again and again until we receive a definite "yes" or a definite "no".
 
NeilA1975 said:
Durham Constabulary have examined the circumstances surrounding the journey to Barnard Castle (including ANPR, witness evidence and a review of Mr Cummings’ press conference on 25 May 2020) and have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the Regulations that would have warranted police intervention. Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing.
Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis. Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.
Click to expand...

So he did breach this regulations.


NeilA1975 said:
Durham Constabulary does not consider that by locating himself at his father’s premises, Mr Cummings committed an offence contrary to regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. (We are concerned here with breaches of the Regulations, not the general Government guidance to “stay at home”.)
Click to expand...

He may not have broken any of the regulations but he sure as hell drove a bus through the spirit of the guidance the government issued, and eroded the trust people had in the government.
And I have read regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 nowhere can I see the exception he used.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made
 
The look on Chris Whitty's face when Boris suggested you could have a BBQ :ROFLMAO:
 
sphexx said:
Really sorry, hope you are both OK.
Click to expand...
doctor phoned me saying mum has a chest infection and will phone me tomorrow with the results of the swab. then i have to pray to god that both of us dont have it as neither of us stand a cat in hells chance of surving it. if she has caught it then it was from one of her carers who never wear ppe.
 
At least Boris clarified that we definitely can't drive across the country and stay on our parents property overnight.
 
Fuji Dave said:
doctor phoned me saying mum has a chest infection and will phone me tomorrow with the results of the swab. then i have to pray to god that both of us dont have it as neither of us stand a cat in hells chance of surving it. if she has caught it then it was from one of her carers who never wear ppe.
Click to expand...

Hope it is just a chest infection and you're both virus free. At least the testing turnaround is pretty quick.
 
Fuji Dave said:
doctor phoned me saying mum has a chest infection and will phone me tomorrow with the results of the swab. then i have to pray to god that both of us dont have it as neither of us stand a cat in hells chance of surving it. if she has caught it then it was from one of her carers who never wear ppe.
Click to expand...

Everything crossed for you both Dave
 
Tringa said:
like Boris to be asked when was the decision made to start the test and trace on May 28th.
Click to expand...
No idea about England but we've known since late Monday that "national" (Scotland) testing & tracing was going to start for sure on May 28th (I believe the date was chosen as the earliest all health boards could be ready to go)
 
KitsuneAndy said:
The look on Chris Whitty's face when Boris suggested you could have a BBQ :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

But its ok as long as you wash your hands.... err.... if I cant go inside someones house, how will I do that???

Don't get me wrong - it is right to allow the lifting of such measures but the detail and communication is just dumb!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top