Corona Virus

[brucey]

2 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

For me personally i’d rather not know.I can appreciate those that would like to find out though.Can imagine a few who might end up slightly disappointed by the results.

Seeing loads on social media buying the antibody tests, then saying they don't trust the result after it turns up negative. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If someone's genuinely worried about their child, it's a little different to someone getting a shag, come on Stan

What makes the Cummings' concern for their child more valid than that of every single infected parent in the country?

[st albans fox]

Just now, brucey said:

Seeing loads on social media buying the antibody tests, then saying they don't trust the result after it turns up negative. 

The number of people away from Greater London who make comments like ‘ yeah, I felt a bit unwell in jan/feb so probably had it’ is weird.

 

the current stats indicate approx 1 in 5 in London area and 1 in 19 outside.   Maybe a general realisation that the vast majority have not had this virus isn’t a bad thing as we become a bit too blasé in general ....

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

What makes the Cummings' concern for their child more valid than that of every single infected parent in the country?

If both parents have gotten coronavirus, what are you meant to do? Any normal person would be the same in finding childcare (not that they'd travel 250 miles for it).

[CosbehFox]

15 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We won't ever know if it was Cummings taking the piss or him genuinely trying to get childcare. I'm pretty certain he could have gotten someone else to take the children though, rather than going himself.I

More the defence of it is taking the piss. You admit it’s an error and a mistake. A human reaction. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

More the defence of it is taking the piss. You admit it’s an error and a mistake. A human reaction. 

Yeah I agree there. Various other things he could have done like gotten someone else to take the child/children, get someone closer to home to look after them or seek help through the Government itself.

Edited 23 May 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If both parents have gotten coronavirus, what are you meant to do? Any normal person would be the same in finding childcare (not that they'd travel 250 miles for it).

Exactly.  So you do understand that this was an abnormal decision in the circumstances.

 

To answer the question:  He was meant to do whatever he expected every household in the country with the same problem to do as per the guidelines he helped put together. I don't know what that is specifically but we can all be certain that it wasn't a 250 mile road trip when they already know they have the virus.  For all the uncertainty around the guidelines it was crystal clear that nobody with the virus should be travelling anywhere, let alone halfway across the country stopping at service stations along the way.

 

Other people have already more than sufficiently covered the ethics of it vis-a-vis all the people with similar or more harrowing matters whose lives were torn apart because they had to follow the very necessary social practices that his team advised, but beyond that it's simply terrible management.  When you have a job that requires a degree of leadership it's absolutely essential that people can trust your advice but if you can't follow it, they can't trust it, it's that simple.

[Legend_in_blue]

Why should he be looking for someone else to have the child?  The measures were very clear in that if anyone in the family shows symptoms, everybody locks down.

 

The story given so far is in breach of the lockdown measures.  You cannot travel to a 2nd home.  It doesn't matter if that is 10 minutes away or 250 miles away, you cannot do it.

 

But he does it and people back him up for what he did!  He isn't even bending the rules, or looking for a loophole with this one, it's a straightforward violation of the measures put in place.

 

 

It's a disgrace.  General public get wind of this and even more people will take the **** quite frankly. 

[pSinatra]

 

[foxile5]

16 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Why should he be looking for someone else to have the child?  The measures were very clear in that if anyone in the family shows symptoms, everybody locks down.

 

The story given so far is in breach of the lockdown measures.  You cannot travel to a 2nd home.  It doesn't matter if that is 10 minutes away or 250 miles away, you cannot do it.

 

But he does it and people back him up for what he did!  He isn't even bending the rules, or looking for a loophole with this one, it's a straightforward violation of the measures put in place.

 

 

It's a disgrace.  General public get wind of this and even more people will take the **** quite frankly. 

Typical of the conservatives. What rule breaking and skullduggery haven't they attempted to smooth over in-house over the years? 

[st albans fox]

Back to stats 

 

A breakdown of the latest weekly statistics of Covid-19 patients admitted to critical care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland shows doctors have become more skilled at keeping seriously ill patients alive during the course of the pandemic.

Recent statistics, from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, show that of the 5,330 patients who needed advanced respiratory support, more than half (54.4%) are still alive. 

This marks a significant improvement from the early days of the crisis: figures produced up to Thursday 9 April showed that only a third of patients who needed advanced respiratory support survived.

Overall, 3,302 patients admitted to critical care have died, and 4,145 patients have been discharged. The rest are still receiving critical care.

Men make up more than 70% of patients in critical care - a characteristic constant throughout the pandemic.

A third of patients are from ethnic minority backgrounds, despite only making up around one fifth of the population.The reasons remain unclear, but health issues, living conditions and occupation have all been touted as possible factors, alongside the possibility of unknown genetic differences.

Being overweight also appears to be a significant risk factor. 

Nearly three-quarters of the patients had a body mass index higher than the recommended healthy level of 18.5 to 25. Some 35.1% had a BMI of 25 to 30 - the overweight range. Some 38.8% had a BMI over more than 30 - putting them in the obese range.

The average age of the patients admitted to critical care is 58.6 years.

In terms of outcome, the older patients are, the higher the risk of death. Of the 585 patients aged 16-39, 17.6% died. In contrast of the 1,404 patients aged 70-79, 64.1% died.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Bit worrying that the Prime Minister's chief adviser doesn't trust a single person in London.

In all fairness, there aren’t many people I’d trust looking after my kids overnight.

Half dozen at best.

[nnickn]

why is that banner at the top of the page?, every other post is politics.

Whoever put it there must have had nothing to do.

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

In all fairness, there aren’t many people I’d trust looking after my kids overnight.

Half dozen at best.

Any of them 250 miles away ?

[Lionator]

No way does Johnson sack Cummings. He owes this part of his career to him. He would be out in the wilderness without Cummings. 

[BlueSi13]

Absolute crime of the century.

 

Guys drives to Durham as a contingency to protect his children in case the worst was to happen.

 

Didn't see his parents.  His sister left food at his door.  Didn't break the law.

 

 

Edited 23 May 2020 by BlueSi13

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, BlueSi13 said:

Absolute crime of the century.

 

Guys drives to Durham as a contingency to protect his children in case the worst was to happen.

 

Didn't see his parents.  His sister left food at his door.  Didn't break the law.

 

 

 

 

Conflicts with the police report when they went to visit his parents' house and his own parents confirmed he had been there

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

6 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Absolute crime of the century.

 

Guys drives to Durham as a contingency to protect his children in case the worst was to happen.

 

Didn't see his parents.  His sister left food at his door.  Didn't break the law.

 

 

Total nonsense. The regulations you quote are for people not displaying symptoms and not suspected of being in contact with anyone infected.

[Leicester_Loyal]

44 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Why should he be looking for someone else to have the child? 

If you and your partner are seriously ill with Coronavirus, are you going to let your 4 year old make his own tea and look after himself for a week?

[rachhere]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

he wasn’t particularly ill at the time they decided to make the trip ....l I think his wife was 

Yeah I saw that. I (presumably) had a mild form of the virus. Even in its mild form I would no way have wanted to travel that far - all I wanted to do was lie back on the sofa. Of course she might not have been feeling the effects as much as me..., but then there wouldn't have been any issues with childcare would there. Couples get ill with bad colds and flu all the time, they don't drive 260 miles to get back up childcare. 

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Absolute crime of the century.

 

Guys drives to Durham as a contingency to protect his children in case the worst was to happen.

 

Didn't see his parents.  His sister left food at his door.  Didn't break the law.

 

 

At the risk of appearing rabid he didn't move house.  He travelled to a 2nd house.  People were allowed to move house because not doing so would have obviously left them homeless in some cases.  Going to 2nd homes was explicitly forbidden.  Travelling was permitted in exceptional circumstances.  Travelling with the virus was explicitly forbidden.  There are lots of conservatives who are upset by this too (though apparently not the ones in office) so it's not a lefty realpolitik problem, though it is at the risk of becoming a right-wing doublethink problem.

Edited 23 May 2020 by Carl the Llama

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Conflicts with the police report when they went to visit his parents' house and his own parents confirmed he had been there

 

 

The two aren’t mutually exclusive .....he could have been there without actually seeing his parents ...... unlikely though !  But surely feasible that there was no contact, especially given their circumstances 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, st albans fox said:

The two aren’t mutually exclusive .....he could have been there without actually seeing his parents ...... unlikely though !  But surely feasible that there was no contact, especially given their circumstances 

Went to a seperate bit of the house or a seperate building I read.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

If you and your partner are seriously ill with Coronavirus, are you going to let your 4 year old make his own tea and look after himself for a week?

What did he expect other people in similar circumstances to do when he helped draft the restrictions?

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What did he expect other people in similar circumstances to do when he helped draft the restrictions?

Probably to get help from a family member, as that's the sensible thing to do. Anyone who gets ill, can't look after their child and doesn't get help must have a screw loose. If my child was genuienly in danger or trouble, no law or restriction would matter to me.