7 ms·

I'm not particularly outraged about what Cummings did under lockdown. Having a medical emergency in the family ourselves a few weeks back we were actually encou

I'm not particularly outraged about what Cummings did under lockdown. Having a medical emergency in the family ourselves a few weeks back we were actually encouraged by healthcare workers to do something similar, though in fact we decided against. I am outraged that he didn't at the time realise that others may need to do similar, and issue clarification on the rules to publicise that this sort of thing was permissible.

kybernetikos 6y ago
I agree with this take. I think almost everyone can understand why he would have done what he did, but that's because lots of people were caught in similar situations and had to make the difficult decision whether or not to follow the official guidance that he was involved in making. Lots of people did follow the guidance despite it being really difficult for them to do so, and it's yet another story where it seems to be a case of 'rules for thee, but not for me'. The right way to handle this would have been to confess and apologise and say it was a lapse of judgement - I think lots of people, understanding the difficult situation he was in would have accepted that. To brazen it out and claim it was good judgement and responsible behaviour is to admit that the government guidance and response as a whole was flawed.
- sideshowb 6y ago
  I think it's more a case of social attitudes being about 50% split* between "follow all rules whatever" and "use them as guidance but apply your own judgement". Of course when making the rules you should bloody well get them right in order to be fair to people with the first kind of attitude. *if I remember correctly from my previous work on the british social attitudes survey
  - cm2187 6y ago
    Absolutely. It’s like the imperial college guy. I think he deserves an outrage for his fantasist models, but him not respecting the lockdown after he recovered from covid, and could neither infect or be infected, is common sense. The lockdown was aimed at reducing the pace of infections, not to enforce some petty rules when they don’t make sense. The outrage is really only about loving the rule over what it is trying to achieve.
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      Sadly, when you have rules in society you will get people who will try to enforce those rules just because they are the rules. In some sense it is logical - this will get bad rules changed quicker, but in another sense it just causes harm to people.
    - aembleton 6y ago
      > could neither infect or be infected, Have you got a source for that? Sarah Gilbert, last month thought it was possible to be infected more than once: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-52344676/coronavirus-possible-to-be-infected-with-covid-19-more-than-once https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-52344676/coronavirus-poss...
      - cm2187 6y ago
        I am sure it is possible, but we haven’t seen any significant number of reinfection. There were stories in South Korea but apparently they concluded it was on account of unreliable tests. And the questions about how long the immunity lasts are about how many months not how many days.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jefro118 6y ago
        Evidence from coronaviruses that cause common colds show the ability to be reinfected but even in that case immunity still lasts for months rather than days. In the case of a more severe disease like SARS, antibody responses have been found after 17 years. We don't know enough about Covid to make a good guess about immunity but it seems unlikely that someone could be reinfected days after recovering.
    - leakyPipes 6y ago
      How did he know he actually had covid? At the time, tests were strictly rationed to hospital patients and healthworkers.
      - 6y ago
cm2187 6y ago
But didn’t he quote the rule saying that in cases like the care of the young child, the rules may not be practical and should be applied as well as practically possible? If the rules indeed had this clause, doesn’t that address exactly your second point?
- sideshowb 6y ago
  Tbh I haven't checked the details, but if that was the case, then the government was criminally poor at communicating the rules given the sacrifices others have made in attempts to follow them.
- makomk 6y ago
  Yes, which made all the bullshit media emotional appeals about how other people who followed the rules were forced to wait as their loved ones died alone in hospital, how they couldn't comfort them and go to their funerals, etc rather dubious. (Especially since coronavirus spreads really well through funerals and hospitals and really badly through brick walls and visits to outdoor locations after the end of the likely infectious period.) What made that tactic especially fragrant was the fact that Cummings also had a dying family member in hospital who he and his other family members couldn't visit, comfort, etc during the same time period and rather than consider that maybe this might be a reason to step away from that argument, everyone seems to have doubled down and used his family's grief as proof that they were right.
adwww 6y ago
I think the outrage is more at the cabinet, and the attorney general no less, all defending what he did. Saying "he was just being a good father" is insulting to all the other dads who didn't break lockdown. Also, the rewriting of history, implying all along that you were just meant to use good judgement.
PuffinBlue 6y ago
It's not so much the travel to Durham, it's the travel to Barnard Castle ( a 60 mile round trip) to 'test' his eys, including a nice little walk along the river bank - on a day that just so happened to be his wife's birthday. There's is no fathomable justification for that and exposed his contempt for the rules.
- marcoperaza 6y ago
  I'd be contemptuous of such stupid rules too. How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? I can't help but think that the Brits have taken the scolding aspect of this lockdown way too far.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    Because this government decided it was a problem, then chose to look the other way when Cummings ignored these rules. Countless people have been forced to let their loved ones be buried or cremated without traditional ritual closure, or have not been there through the last days of others, all because the government convinced them that it was the right thing to do for public health. Maybe it was, but it should strike a nerve when someone professing these guidelines ignores them for a much sillier purpose and is lauded for his "integrity" and qualities as a "father." Were those ordinary Britons bad sons, daughters, siblings, and parents for not evading the same rules for their loved ones? Did they act without integrity?
    - marcoperaza 6y ago
      A funeral, attended by many people, is rather different than a drive and walk through nature with the people you live with. Anyhow, the hypocrisy angle makes sense. Two strikes for everyone involved: one for coming up with the stupid rules and two for then breaking them themselves/covering it up.
  - sideshowb 6y ago
    At one point we were not allowed to drive for anything non-essential. (was this the case for Cummings at the time? it's still the case where I live in Wales) Stated reasons were (1) reducing load on health services from road accidents (which has worked - my friend in A&E says he's "never sat around on his arse so much at work before"); (2) reduce transmission of virus at fuel stations, risk to breakdown services, etc
DanBC 6y ago
I think the other thing that's incredibly annoying is the queue of MPs that support him. When the AG comes out to say that breaking the law is okay or Secretary fo State for the Department for Health and Social Care says it's okay to break the guidelines we know there's a serious problem.
UK-Al05 6y ago
There is a rule. He even quoted the rule. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people don't like him and they're putting the boot in to get him to resign.
- DanBC 6y ago
  His point was incoherent though. He claimed he put his child and covid-19 positive wife in a car and drove 250 miles to get child care. But he had childcare available to him locally, and he didn't make use of the childcare when he got to Durham. He then claimed that he didn't know if it was safe for him to drive or not (his wife can drive, why didn't she?) so he put them all in the car and drove to Barnard Castle. He's trying to make use of the safeguarding exemption in the law to say he fled London because his family was at risk. But that would only cover the travel from London to Durham. It doesn't cover the travel from Durham back to this risky dangerous home in London.
- leonk 6y ago
  The rules were somewhat ambiguous, which allowed him to break them (on the "childcare exception"). But his account of his actions is so untruthful. It is obvious to most that being on a remote farm would be a nicer environment to isolate than a house in central London. This simply _must_ have been a factor in his decision. He did not even contemplate seeking childcare support at home, he stated this himself in his press conference, it hadn't even crossed his mind. His trip was not safe, and should have been used as a last resort. Is that the impression you got? That he had exhausted all other options? If you had, then I would say you are even more political motivated than those you are saying are looking to give him the "boot".

kybernetikos 6y ago

I agree with this take. I think almost everyone can understand why he would have done what he did, but that's because lots of people were caught in similar situations and had to make the difficult decision whether or not to follow the official guidance that he was involved in making. Lots of people did follow the guidance despite it being really difficult for them to do so, and it's yet another story where it seems to be a case of 'rules for thee, but not for me'. The right way to handle this would have been to confess and apologise and say it was a lapse of judgement - I think lots of people, understanding the difficult situation he was in would have accepted that. To brazen it out and claim it was good judgement and responsible behaviour is to admit that the government guidance and response as a whole was flawed.

sideshowb 6y ago
I think it's more a case of social attitudes being about 50% split* between "follow all rules whatever" and "use them as guidance but apply your own judgement". Of course when making the rules you should bloody well get them right in order to be fair to people with the first kind of attitude. *if I remember correctly from my previous work on the british social attitudes survey
- cm2187 6y ago
  Absolutely. It’s like the imperial college guy. I think he deserves an outrage for his fantasist models, but him not respecting the lockdown after he recovered from covid, and could neither infect or be infected, is common sense. The lockdown was aimed at reducing the pace of infections, not to enforce some petty rules when they don’t make sense. The outrage is really only about loving the rule over what it is trying to achieve.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    Sadly, when you have rules in society you will get people who will try to enforce those rules just because they are the rules. In some sense it is logical - this will get bad rules changed quicker, but in another sense it just causes harm to people.
  - aembleton 6y ago
    > could neither infect or be infected, Have you got a source for that? Sarah Gilbert, last month thought it was possible to be infected more than once: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-52344676/coronavirus-possible-to-be-infected-with-covid-19-more-than-once https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-52344676/coronavirus-poss...
    - cm2187 6y ago
      I am sure it is possible, but we haven’t seen any significant number of reinfection. There were stories in South Korea but apparently they concluded it was on account of unreliable tests. And the questions about how long the immunity lasts are about how many months not how many days.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jefro118 6y ago
      Evidence from coronaviruses that cause common colds show the ability to be reinfected but even in that case immunity still lasts for months rather than days. In the case of a more severe disease like SARS, antibody responses have been found after 17 years. We don't know enough about Covid to make a good guess about immunity but it seems unlikely that someone could be reinfected days after recovering.
  - leakyPipes 6y ago
    How did he know he actually had covid? At the time, tests were strictly rationed to hospital patients and healthworkers.
    - 6y ago

cm2187 6y ago

But didn’t he quote the rule saying that in cases like the care of the young child, the rules may not be practical and should be applied as well as practically possible? If the rules indeed had this clause, doesn’t that address exactly your second point?

sideshowb 6y ago
Tbh I haven't checked the details, but if that was the case, then the government was criminally poor at communicating the rules given the sacrifices others have made in attempts to follow them.
makomk 6y ago
Yes, which made all the bullshit media emotional appeals about how other people who followed the rules were forced to wait as their loved ones died alone in hospital, how they couldn't comfort them and go to their funerals, etc rather dubious. (Especially since coronavirus spreads really well through funerals and hospitals and really badly through brick walls and visits to outdoor locations after the end of the likely infectious period.) What made that tactic especially fragrant was the fact that Cummings also had a dying family member in hospital who he and his other family members couldn't visit, comfort, etc during the same time period and rather than consider that maybe this might be a reason to step away from that argument, everyone seems to have doubled down and used his family's grief as proof that they were right.

adwww 6y ago

I think the outrage is more at the cabinet, and the attorney general no less, all defending what he did. Saying "he was just being a good father" is insulting to all the other dads who didn't break lockdown. Also, the rewriting of history, implying all along that you were just meant to use good judgement.

PuffinBlue 6y ago

It's not so much the travel to Durham, it's the travel to Barnard Castle ( a 60 mile round trip) to 'test' his eys, including a nice little walk along the river bank - on a day that just so happened to be his wife's birthday. There's is no fathomable justification for that and exposed his contempt for the rules.

marcoperaza 6y ago
I'd be contemptuous of such stupid rules too. How is going for a walk outdoors a problem? Why is it relevant how far he drove to get there? I can't help but think that the Brits have taken the scolding aspect of this lockdown way too far.
- vinay427 6y ago
  Because this government decided it was a problem, then chose to look the other way when Cummings ignored these rules. Countless people have been forced to let their loved ones be buried or cremated without traditional ritual closure, or have not been there through the last days of others, all because the government convinced them that it was the right thing to do for public health. Maybe it was, but it should strike a nerve when someone professing these guidelines ignores them for a much sillier purpose and is lauded for his "integrity" and qualities as a "father." Were those ordinary Britons bad sons, daughters, siblings, and parents for not evading the same rules for their loved ones? Did they act without integrity?
  - marcoperaza 6y ago
    A funeral, attended by many people, is rather different than a drive and walk through nature with the people you live with. Anyhow, the hypocrisy angle makes sense. Two strikes for everyone involved: one for coming up with the stupid rules and two for then breaking them themselves/covering it up.
- sideshowb 6y ago
  At one point we were not allowed to drive for anything non-essential. (was this the case for Cummings at the time? it's still the case where I live in Wales) Stated reasons were (1) reducing load on health services from road accidents (which has worked - my friend in A&E says he's "never sat around on his arse so much at work before"); (2) reduce transmission of virus at fuel stations, risk to breakdown services, etc

DanBC 6y ago

I think the other thing that's incredibly annoying is the queue of MPs that support him. When the AG comes out to say that breaking the law is okay or Secretary fo State for the Department for Health and Social Care says it's okay to break the guidelines we know there's a serious problem.

UK-Al05 6y ago

There is a rule. He even quoted the rule. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people don't like him and they're putting the boot in to get him to resign.

DanBC 6y ago
His point was incoherent though. He claimed he put his child and covid-19 positive wife in a car and drove 250 miles to get child care. But he had childcare available to him locally, and he didn't make use of the childcare when he got to Durham. He then claimed that he didn't know if it was safe for him to drive or not (his wife can drive, why didn't she?) so he put them all in the car and drove to Barnard Castle. He's trying to make use of the safeguarding exemption in the law to say he fled London because his family was at risk. But that would only cover the travel from London to Durham. It doesn't cover the travel from Durham back to this risky dangerous home in London.
leonk 6y ago
The rules were somewhat ambiguous, which allowed him to break them (on the "childcare exception"). But his account of his actions is so untruthful. It is obvious to most that being on a remote farm would be a nicer environment to isolate than a house in central London. This simply _must_ have been a factor in his decision. He did not even contemplate seeking childcare support at home, he stated this himself in his press conference, it hadn't even crossed his mind. His trip was not safe, and should have been used as a last resort. Is that the impression you got? That he had exhausted all other options? If you had, then I would say you are even more political motivated than those you are saying are looking to give him the "boot".