Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Agelastus]

Cummings is not popular with the neighbours right now (video):

https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1264641858585714689?s=20

My mum is furious and she's normally a useful barometer. I'm also seeing a lot of Tories online who are absolutely spitting tacks about it, not MPs either. I'm seeing just Tory supporters and councillors as well as MPs getting very angry.

My Aunt, a fellow Tory voter, ex-Ward sister (who started her career in an infectious disease ward in London) and mother of two and grandmother of two, considers his actions to be reasonable; in that his wife had a disease that might be deadly and that he was liable to have contracted it as well so he moved the kids to family where they could be cared for in case they both had to be hospitalised or died.

She also considers his actions to be acceptable in the current situation.

I disagreed - while I concurred the actions were reasonable assuming you accepted that this was his reasoning, I disagreed that they were acceptable in the current situation. After all, others who broke the quarantine in similar fashion have already been forced to resign/been sacked.

She was also disgusted with today's Andrew Marr show and with this afternoon's briefing where she said the only questions asked were about Dominic Cummings. (Didn't see either of them myself so cannot comment.)

As you said Sheilbh, the longer he stays the longer it will be before Boris can bring him back. It will be interesting to see what this does to the Tory "program" (such as it is) once the Coronavirus crisis has abated.

[Sheilbh]

I would also add there is now the second trip when him and his family went to Barnard's Castle. It might be sort of okay as their daily exercise, I suppose. But I have less sympathy with someone who is basically doing the Tamas nightmare scenario - someone with the illness then going out of London halfway across the country and then going to a local beauty spot.

As I say I have more sympathy for him on the trip to Durham than anyone else - I started saying to my mum that I thought it was sort of defensible, she immediately cut in "I don't"

But as you say it's difficult given what's happened with other positions and I think it does go against the guidance, especially if you're infected which is household isolation. And it's very important to keep strong levels of voluntary compliance, I think that's weakened if people think it's one rule for people in Westminster and another for the rest of us. People have missed their last minutes with loved ones and funerals because of this guidance, I think patience will be very low with the line Number 10 are taking. I think he could have survived - bury the story with detail, give lots of information, apologise or maybe resign and come back once this has all setled down - but this approach seems designed to enrage lots of people.

[Agelastus]

As I say I have more sympathy for him on the trip to Durham than anyone else - I started saying to my mum that I thought it was sort of defensible, she immediately cut in "I don't"

"Defensible"...not "acceptable"! That's the word my Aunt used and that I could not recall for the life of me when making my post.

[I need to go to bed...]

It's interesting that the generational reaction was essentially reversed in our families, Sheilbh.

[Tamas]

I would also add there is now the second trip when him and his family went to Barnard's Castle. It might be sort of okay as their daily exercise, I suppose. But I have less sympathy with someone who is basically doing the Tamas nightmare scenario - someone with the illness then going out of London halfway across the country and then going to a local beauty spot.

As I say I have more sympathy for him on the trip to Durham than anyone else - I started saying to my mum that I thought it was sort of defensible, she immediately cut in "I don't"

But as you say it's difficult given what's happened with other positions and I think it does go against the guidance, especially if you're infected which is household isolation. And it's very important to keep strong levels of voluntary compliance, I think that's weakened if people think it's one rule for people in Westminster and another for the rest of us. People have missed their last minutes with loved ones and funerals because of this guidance, I think patience will be very low with the line Number 10 are taking. I think he could have survived - bury the story with detail, give lots of information, apologise or maybe resign and come back once this has all setled down - but this approach seems designed to enrage lots of people.

The thing is that -apart from the risk to the grandparents- crossing the country to drop the kids off before your potentially lethal sickness goes serious make sense from a 100 selfish point of view. The problem is if everyone was acting like that during the most severe period, it would have been a catastrophe. That was one of the reasons behind the lockdown rules here and everywhere.

It is the same as with quarantines - yeah so some people inside the quarantine might be ok to get out and certainly it would be their favoured option - but to do so would endanger far more people than save.

So no, his original action is not defensible. It is understandable from a "fuck society, I am saving my own" point of view (even that only works if he was too stupid or indifferent about the danger to his parents), but that does not make it defensible.

[Tamas]

But as you say it's difficult given what's happened with other positions and I think it does go against the guidance, especially if you're infected which is household isolation. And it's very important to keep strong levels of voluntary compliance, I think that's weakened if people think it's one rule for people in Westminster and another for the rest of us. People have missed their last minutes with loved ones and funerals because of this guidance, I think patience will be very low with the line Number 10 are taking. I think he could have survived - bury the story with detail, give lots of information, apologise or maybe resign and come back once this has all setled down - but this approach seems designed to enrage lots of people.

I agree with this part though. I think there's a real chance this was the final nail in the coffin of any semblance of a lockdown. The undefined "common sense" rules did most of it but I can see people's wavering self-restraint receiving the final excuse by this scandal.

[Agelastus]

So no, his original action is not defensible. It is understandable from a "fuck society, I am saving my own" point of view (even that only works if he was too stupid or indifferent about the danger to his parents), but that does not make it defensible.

Even when he went it was already considered that children posed a low risk of spreading infection and he was. apparently, in the Cobra meetings where this was discussed; in fact, I don't actually know if he went before or after the decision was taken to close schools (IIRC we were not going to close all schools initially precisely because of the lower risk.)

As for the "fuck society" part that would have been true had he mingled and not maintained distancing during his journey - is there evidence this was the case? If there isn't then making sure his kids didn't have to be a burden on local social services should the worst happen is actually a help to "society" as you put it, rather than a "fuck you".

His actions are not defensible as he needed to set an example. Not because they were "100% selfish" as you so hyperbolically put it.

[Sheilbh]

The thing is that -apart from the risk to the grandparents- crossing the country to drop the kids off before your potentially lethal sickness goes serious make sense from a 100 selfish point of view. The problem is if everyone was acting like that during the most severe period, it would have been a catastrophe. That was one of the reasons behind the lockdown rules here and everywhere.

It is the same as with quarantines - yeah so some people inside the quarantine might be ok to get out and certainly it would be their favoured option - but to do so would endanger far more people than save.

So no, his original action is not defensible. It is understandable from a "fuck society, I am saving my own" point of view (even that only works if he was too stupid or indifferent about the danger to his parents), but that does not make it defensible.

Yeah, my thought is I don't think there's any guidance on what to do if both parents are ill and display symptoms and I have sympathy with more or less any family in that situation. Even if it's mild there's been loads of stories about this virus really knocking people out for weeks, so childcare is a big issue. Now I very much doubt this was his only option.

And in fairness I think the story on the parents has shifted. He was on their property but staying in a separate house (welcome to the British ruling class ) and his sister was also there on the property, dropping off food and could, presumably, take the kids if things got bad. As I say I very much doubt this was the only option.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I wonder if he was in Barnard Castle to buy Easter eggs  ?

[Richard Hakluyt]

The problem with his actions is that lockdown relies on the overwhelming majority obeying the rules, even if they have some doubts about some of the rules. He had his reasons to break them, but so would any one of the 66 million of us. I have always thought that the only one period of exercise was too stringent for example, at least in certain parts of the country, but have stuck to it anyway. Some people have made immense sacrifices to maintain the lockdown; many decent tories (and there are many decent tories) are thinking of those sacrifices and will be fuming at Cummings' insouciance.

[mongers]

The problem with his actions is that lockdown relies on the overwhelming majority obeying the rules, even if they have some doubts about some of the rules. He had his reasons to break them, but so would any one of the 66 million of us. I have always thought that the only one period of exercise was too stringent for example, at least in certain parts of the country, but have stuck to it anyway. Some people have made immense sacrifices to maintain the lockdown; many decent tories (and there are many decent tories) are thinking of those sacrifices and will be fuming at Cummings' insouciance.

[garbon]

The problem with his actions is that lockdown relies on the overwhelming majority obeying the rules, even if they have some doubts about some of the rules. He had his reasons to break them, but so would any one of the 66 million of us. I have always thought that the only one period of exercise was too stringent for example, at least in certain parts of the country, but have stuck to it anyway. Some people have made immense sacrifices to maintain the lockdown; many decent tories (and there are many decent tories) are thinking of those sacrifices and will be fuming at Cummings' insouciance.

Indeed.  And if anything those helping to run the country should be held to a higher standard.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, indeed.

YouGov has been polling opinion on whether Cummings should resign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/05/23/56b74/2

I will add that traditionally the UK has been very tolerant of temporary dictatorships when circumstances have demanded strong action. This covid-19 event has been no different. But a crucial factor in that tolerance is that "we are all in this together"; that is something of a pretence of course, wealth has its privileges and the lockdown has been far harder on the poor; nevertheless, Cummings has drove a coach and horses through this concept. People have had their sense of fair play offended.............this is really quite a disaster for the government.

[Eddie Teach]

From this vantage point it's hard to tell what the big deal is. Is violating quarantine punished with more than a fine?

[The Larch]

Without being very familiar with the British Covid 19 lockdown regulations and how strict they are, I don't see a reason for Cummings to stay, as he seems to have brazenly skippered all lockdown conditions not just once but several times, but even more worrying is not that he's not immediately resigning, but that the whole government, including the attorney general, seems to be falling over backwards to protect him and cover for his actions, basically saying that it's ok to ignore government regulations if it's better for you. It just screams of double standards, there's one set of rules for the common people and another one for the ruling class.

[The Larch]

From this vantage point it's hard to tell what the big deal is. Is violating quarantine punished with more than a fine?

Other public figures have had to resign their positions for much minor transgressions of the lockdown regulations, AFAIK.