What's new

Cummings and goings

If someone suspects they may have corona while in a family
Then the whole family should be isolating in case they are not showing symptoms yet.
This is the rules that i was lead to believe, or have i misread it ?
 
It fudges it here too - no idea why they're pointing out 'lockdown' when by the looks of it they should be talking about self-isolation? Those rules were in place by then?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/22/dominic-cummings-coronavirus-and-lockdown-a-timeline
As neither had a cough or fever when they went they didn't really break isolation rules even if they suspected it was coronavirus as back then the advice was specific to cough or fever.

As far as lock down rules go - according to the guidelines which he read out there was an exception specified relating to child safety. If he had actually broken a written rule he would've been sacked already. The reason they're arguing the case is because there is room for discretion where children are involved. That's why the media move the goal posts and argue about "the spirit" of the rules. Did he go against the spirit of the rules? I don't know. Maybe. But if I was in his shoes I would put my family above any rules - actual or spiritual. I wouldn't give my 4yr old child to neighbours or strangers. I'd give him to my family even if I had to travel. I'd just make sure I didn't come in to contact with anyone on my way so as not to put anyone else at risk.

I just find it hard to judge someone for doing something I would most likely do myself. Doesn't mean I'm saying that it's strictly right or wrong.
 
As neither had a cough or fever when they went they didn't really break isolation rules even if they suspected it was coronavirus as back then the advice was specific to cough or fever.

As far as lock down rules go - according to the guidelines which he read out there was an exception specified relating to child safety. If he had actually broken a written rule he would've been sacked already. The reason they're arguing the case is because there is room for discretion where children are involved. That's why the media move the goal posts and argue about "the spirit" of the rules. Did he go against the spirit of the rules? I don't know. Maybe. But if I was in his shoes I would put my family above any rules - actual or spiritual. I wouldn't give my 4yr old child to neighbours or strangers. I'd give him to my family even if I had to travel. I'd just make sure I didn't come in to contact with anyone on my way so as not to put anyone else at risk.

I just find it hard to judge someone for doing something I would most likely do myself. Doesn't mean I'm saying that it's strictly right or wrong.
Personally, I'm not sure how I'd feel if I worked in services between London and Durham at that time?
 
@Mitz What I actually think is that Dominic Cummings is an advisor and not a politician. I thought the same about Scotland's Chief Medical Officer. They've not been voted in to represent anybody and their advice and input might weigh more than their personal habits or decisions. I'm OK with that.

I'm glad it's been looked into further - it's the fact that the original response was pretty much 'Boris says it was OK, we don't need to talk about it any more' that bugged me. :D
 
He said they didn't stop on the way up.

I’m inclined to not believe him. Funny how he said he was 95% sure he only stopped once for fuel on the way back, I reckon he chucked that in there cos he knows that’s not true and someone may have seen him
 
The government were screaming for the SNP to take action on Dr Catherine Calderwood
upload_2020-5-25_20-3-53.png


but when it comes tho their own Dominic Cummings
Pure double standards
 
Back
Top Bottom