Coronavirus Pandemic

[gilesgoat]

Dominic Cummings and his wife, both SUFFERING SYMPTOMS and later testing positive, travel from London to Durham to visit his elderly parents.

I did wonder. Because how could anyone with elderly parents support wild herd immunity?

Well, simple. They don't actually like their parents - possibly resent them for a bad childhood or missed opportunities or something (as, indeed, the poem has it: "They fuck you up, your mum and dad", though most people gain the wisdom to understand that if that's universal, which it is, then it's part of the Human Condition, not anything you can individually blame on anyone - humans are fucked up by mere existence itself) - and, as that Prof June Andrews put it, they'd actually find it "quite useful" if the virus bumped them off, to remove the family burden from them and allow them to inherit their home and assets a little earlier.

Screw calling out their hypocrisy. Charge them with attempted murder.

There is precedent. A HIV sufferer, who knew they had the virus, who purposefully tried to get others infected by sleeping around. If it can be demonstrated that the person was well-aware and conscious of the consequences of their actions - that their intent was to shorten / end the life of others - then that's a criminal offence. At least assault or bodily harm, if not attempted murder. Because, yeah, it still counts as enacting physical violence against another person. Deliberately poisoning someone with, say, cyanide, is murder / attempted murder. Using yourself to introduce a virus to others is legally in the same league, when it can be demonstrated that that person knew exactly what they were doing and wielded their illness with malicious intent.

And I think any prosecution lawyer could hardly have trouble proving that of the guy who inserted himself into every SAGE meeting, of entirely knowing what they were doing visiting elderly parents to a greater level than nearly anyone else, bar actual epidemiologists. Who, from the sounds of things, tried to influence the nation's policies towards "let the elderly die", while having elderly parents themselves, showing their willingness to sacrifice everyone's elderly parents and, indeed, setting up conditions where bumping their parents off would be overlooked as mere "statistics" in an ocean of elderly death.

Screw lockdown hypocrisy. This is, at least, physical assault, up to potentially attempted murder. This is premeditated violence against others, standing to grab an inheritance early, and very much a criminal offence.

.. but .. but .. but .. Boris is giving him FULL SUPPORT !

[PFVA]

According to our media a tourism corridoor is being negociated between the UK and Portugal to start soon. It's only to Algarve and there wouldn't be a 2 weeks quarentena either direction. Lisbon and Porto not before September.

Interesting enough the nationals seem to be avoiding Algarve and going for tourism in the rural areas of the country.

I went to downtown Lisbon this week. It was empty of tourists:

Empty of Tourists

Some locals were taken advantage of the lack of tourism. Actually i had my coffee and pastel de nata sitting down at a outdoors café further up that same street. It was the first time i was able to find an empty table to do so.

Empty of Tourists

[KlaxonCow]

.. but .. but .. but .. Boris is giving him FULL SUPPORT !

More fool Boris.

He's kept himself away from Stanley. That's the normal non-psychopathic thing to do.

Boris is not in on this. The Emperor is just too stupid to see that his "trusted adviser" is hoodwinking him with this "invisible clothes" nonsense.

Cummings went to all those Cobra meetings, where Boris couldn't be arsed and trusted his "number one" to handle that for him and let him know what needs to be done.

This is Agatha Christie levels of premeditation. Causing as much "background noise" of elderly death as possible, so that no-one will notice the "signal" of someone with symptoms - who entirely knew what it meant, as he was there for every SAGE meeting on this - deliberately breaking lockdown to go infect his own elderly parents, to be rid of a burden and gain an inheritance.

Seriously, what's his excuse? It could hardly be "I didn't know" when he was at every SAGE meeting - by the scientists' testimony, acting as more of an active participant than he should have - including the ones where they were designing how the lockdown should work in the first place. He'd have heard the rationale and seen the data for every measure.

The others who broke lockdown were just "this doesn't apply to me" idiots. But Cummings broke it while showing symptoms. That excuse is now off the table for him.

Motive, method and opportunity. It's all there. Arrest him.

(He's not a member of Parliament, so he's not under Westminister's special jurisdiction. He's an ordinary citizen and there is no immunity from prosecution here. Arrest him.)

[Deckard]

Wow whenA Times editorial (today) calls for you to go you know you’ve had it....

[Rhythm]

The Cummings story is genuinely fascinating.

So his missus (Wakefield, a writer for the Spectator) tells the tale in an article for said publication, that her and Cummings got sick *fast* and they isolated in London.

Then Durham police reveal they've been talking to the Cummings family about the fact that he'd been up in Durham. Denial from Cummings.

The cabinet (Gove, Braverman, Raab, Sunak and others) tweet support, suggesting that he didn't break a law, or that if he did, it was fine because "he was concerned about the safety of his family", implying crimes are OK as long as kids are at risk. The family currently going through court because they got caught stealing food from bins when their benefits got cut to £8 per week must be raising an eyebrow at this, but hey ho.

The daily briefing occurs, and Jenny Harries continually insists you absolutely must not travel, especially when symptomatic. Shapps, on the other hand, insists there was a magic clause in the regulations (the same regulations that became law at the end of March) suggesting you can still travel if there's extreme risk to life and, as they had a 4 year old, this was all perfectly justifiable and legal. He also insists that the claim about the police speaking to the Cummings is completely bogus

After the gov't has spent all day defending Cummings the Guardian and the Mirror release part 2 to the story: Cummings was seen during the initial claimed isolation period, then back in London on the 14th April, then back in Durham on the 19th. If the first journey was somehow justified via a clause they never told everyone else about, the second one surely must be problematic.

The gov't immediately respond with a "we won't comment on false allegations" message. This is a bit weird, as one of the "false" allegations was the one they've spent the full day defending. Some on Twitter theorise that this is because they know they've been caught out and there's more to come. Sure enough, details start to emerge that he was back in Durham on the 10th.

Durham police then step in to give full details of the fact that they are indeed investigating the family and that they absolutely spoke to the Cummings family about the matter.

So we now have a government with a fat stack of mixed messaging and problems. They're rallying to defend the indefensible. Each excuse they've given has been invalidated and now we have a problem that senior/prominent cabinet members (including the attorney general) have been caught openly lying on behalf of Cummings.

They could have got onto this, declared "yeah, he did go to see his parents, he shouldn't have done that, we've told him off but he won't be sacked". People would have been pissed but it would have been business as usual. The decision they've made to reinterpret the rules, have cabinet members tweeting support etc opens up an entirely different kettle of fish.

Boris hasn't tweeted support and, as was established during the conference yesterday, has the excuse that he was sick during all this. It's *highly* unlikely we'll see him resign. Cummings isn't a member of the gov't so is actually pretty immune to all this too (short of the police taking much heavier action against him, again, unlikely).

But we've now had Gove, Braverman, Raab, Shapps and Sunak involved in actively trying to conceal a lie and calling the police liars in the process.

Really not sure what the outcome of this is going to be but it's a *very* interesting situation through and through.

[Harlequin]

As Mike Dicks announced: Second Cummings reported in Durham.

[Dio]

There is an interesting bit of political doubleplay available here - if, say, Gove now comes out and says he was informed by Cummings that there was only one trip and now it turns out there were two, that would very probably result in man overboard, since he can say he's been intentionally misled. He'd be the most likely one to do it, since although it would be a career-affecting move, he's made enough of those in the past...

[KlaxonCow]

From Twitter:



The thing is, Boris is going to be desperate to keep hold of Cummings, no matter what, because, in reality, Cummings is really our "power behind the throne" Prime Minister, in pragmatic terms, and Boris just does the speeches on TV. So he's drafting the cabinet to defend him to the hilt, lest Boris find himself actually having to run the country, as per the actual job description.

[Whiteball]

But we've now had Gove, Braverman, Raab, Shapps and Sunak involved in actively trying to conceal a lie and calling the police liars in the process.

But doesn't that depend on what they know/have been told?
I mean, they obviously were not following him around all over the place, so potentially they could have been mis-led too?

I haven't folowed the story too closely so don't really know what i'm talking about either to be fair.

[Rhythm]

But we've now had Gove, Braverman, Raab, Shapps and Sunak involved in actively trying to conceal a lie and calling the police liars in the process.

But doesn't that depend on what they know/have been told?
I mean, they obviously were not following him around all over the place, so potentially they could have been mis-led too?

I haven't folowed the story too closely so don't really know what i'm talking about either to be fair.

They've either knowingly lied (a problem) or have repeated a lie given to them from higher up (a problem).

Given how politics over the last 4 years in particular have gone I don't think this will end in any way people find satisfactory, but I'm still fascinated watching it unfurl

[PFVA]

Entering the pastelaria in times of Covid19

Entering a Café

Note: Basically it says desinfect your hands (there is a dispenser by the door), mask is mandatory, and on the floor the yellow things for social distance.

[KlaxonCow]

Regards Cummings, Boris defended him travelling up to Durham to deliver his child into the care of his family.

But, umm, why couldn't this have been reversed? That his family travelled down to pick up the child, thereby allowing Cummings and his wife to stay in strict lockdown?

Wouldn't it make more sense for his symptom-less family to make the journey to retrieve the child, instead of Cummings and his wife - suffering symptoms - to have gotten into a car to deliver the kid to his family? Thereby risking spreading the virus on the journey and transplanting the virus to Durham and risking the health of his family too?

And, cooped up in a confined car with two symptomatic parents for 4 hours, the child would be almost certain to pick it up - if they didn't have it already anyway - so that the child you're delivering to the family is likely an asymptomatic carrier? As children tend not to suffer covid - though, as I've pointed out before "non-zero" ain't zero, and children have sadly died, so it's not a zero chance that they endangered the life of their own child in doing this - but still could pass the virus on.

After all, when Boris initially refused to closed schools, wasn't this the whole of his rationale for doing so? To avoid the situation where parents would just dump their kids with their own parents - thus, delivering asymptomatic carriers of the virus into the hands of the most vulnerable groups?

But when Cummings does this - perfectly unnecessarily, as I can't see a reason why it couldn't have been reversed and his family come down to retrieve the child instead - then it's just fine and dandy?

There are no legs to stand this on. It's clearly a resignation matter, but Boris can't let Cummings go because, truth is, he's the real "power behind the throne" Prime Minister here and he can't sack his own boss - and is shit scared to do so, because then he'd actually have to run the country.

[gilesgoat]

In short, unless someone/something "really strong" comes out in the Labour party "I totally lost any hope in UK politics" actually I don't even want to hear about it, it's hopeless.

What I find even more hopeless/depressing is that despite all this there will be people, probably still a mayority, continuing to vote Tory.

[Harlequin]

In short, unless someone/something "really strong" comes out in the Labour party "I totally lost any hope in UK politics" actually I don't even want to hear about it, it's hopeless.

Keir Starmer seems to have been projecting a very strong and intelligent image in Parliament. At least, when the chamber is nearly empty and his victims do not have a braying crowd to play to. How well he might perform as PM is, of course, another matter entirely.

[merman]

Regards Cummings, Boris defended him travelling up to Durham to deliver his child into the care of his family.

But, umm, why couldn't this have been reversed? That his family travelled down to pick up the child, thereby allowing Cummings and his wife to stay in strict lockdown?

Wouldn't it make more sense for his symptom-less family to make the journey to retrieve the child, instead of Cummings and his wife - suffering symptoms - to have gotten into a car to deliver the kid to his family? Thereby risking spreading the virus on the journey and transplanting the virus to Durham and risking the health of his family too?

And, cooped up in a confined car with two symptomatic parents for 4 hours, the child would be almost certain to pick it up - if they didn't have it already anyway - so that the child you're delivering to the family is likely an asymptomatic carrier? As children tend not to suffer covid - though, as I've pointed out before "non-zero" ain't zero, and children have sadly died, so it's not a zero chance that they endangered the life of their own child in doing this - but still could pass the virus on.

After all, when Boris initially refused to closed schools, wasn't this the whole of his rationale for doing so? To avoid the situation where parents would just dump their kids with their own parents - thus, delivering asymptomatic carriers of the virus into the hands of the most vulnerable groups?

But when Cummings does this - perfectly unnecessarily, as I can't see a reason why it couldn't have been reversed and his family come down to retrieve the child instead - then it's just fine and dandy?

There are no legs to stand this on. It's clearly a resignation matter, but Boris can't let Cummings go because, truth is, he's the real "power behind the throne" Prime Minister here and he can't sack his own boss - and is shit scared to do so, because then he'd actually have to run the country.

The key point here - NO-ONE ELSE LOOKED AFTER THE CHILD.
It's an excuse, not a reason. They are now claiming he went to,see a dying uncle.

But thousands of people have been unable to visit sick and dying relatives.

It's rank hypocrisy from a Government adviser.
It's poor judgement from a Prime Minister.
They should both go.