Brexit, for once some facts.

[Barry Shittpeas]

Twitter have had to delete a tweet from Donald Trump on the grounds that it encourages violence! He wrote, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” I think it was in response to criminal behaviour when a police station was set on fire. It’s a good line, but probably not appropriate for a president to say.

 

[Danidl]

In one case, the woman thinks she had it in January. She was in physical contact with her father, husband, grown-up children (not sure if they have offspring), people in everyday life, she just carried on - to the best of her ability while feeling awful - as usual.

I know she posted about it at the time when she just thought it was some particularly nasty flu-like issue.

Seems very likely that she passed it on and, because she seems to have quite a bit of social life, possibly to quite a few others.

Have to say, it would be very interesting had we been able to antibody test then and throughout. The rate of growth of those with antibodies might have been helpful.

One of those yes but answers. Unless these antibody tests are done within 3 months, its all moot. Evidence suggests immunity is short lived.

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

You miss the point, all he had have is make the claim that he was convinced that his wife and or child was getting ill ,whether CV or any other acute illness, he was legal. He was not in law required to supply doctors certs .
Sloppy law of course ,

It doesn’t explain his 60 mile jolly outing to Barnard Castle. You know, when he put his wife and child in the car and drove them 60 miles to test his theory that he was unfit to drive due to impaired vision. That doesn’t sound very legal to me.

 

[flecc]

@ flecc

the death rate that the Cambridge model is based on is not the best indicator of Covid 'R'. There was a lot to learn how to treat Covid, as death numbers were high at the beginning until the NHS found out that respirators are not the best treatment. Since, more people survived.
If you offset the death figures by the effectiveness of treatment, London will be similar to other large cities.

The testing statistics are better indicators, both antigens and antibodies tests are.

Coronavirus: R number 'very similar' across UK

Scientists say there are no significant regional differences in coronavirus rates across the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk

The 0.6 isn't from the Cambridge model of 0.4 which was clearly an exaggeration.

London will not be similar, it is perverse to insist that taking a near double size hit makes no difference. It does, it drastically reduces the readily available most vulnerable for infection and death short term, resulting for a while in being below the rest of the country where they didn't take that big hit.

If it makes no difference, why bother with lockdown at all?
.

 

[Danidl]

It doesn’t explain his 60 mile jolly outing to Barnard Castle. You know, when he put his wife and child in the car and drove them 60 miles to test his theory that he was unfit to drive due to impaired vision. That doesn’t sound very legal to me.

Agree with you there about that and I think the police did respond to that breach.
The Barnard castle event has historical precedence.. There is a Elizabethan folk song called Musgrave, or modified as Mattie Groves and song by a young Joan Baez , about a real character demise and the legality of getting rid of them .. substitute pageboy for Press and the parallels are close. Its the same castle.

 

[oyster]

Today's perplexity comes from this:

​

If you lived on the England-Scotland border and your garden literally straddled it with a bit each side, could you have six people in the England bit and another eight in the Scotland bit? ​

 

[oyster]

From Brexit Shambles on Twitter

1. Dominic Cummings, Mary Wakefield and Cedd Cummings had no symptoms of Covid-19.
2. During the Covid-19 restrictions, Dominic Cummings took the decision to drive them 260 miles to Durham.
3. There's no evidence any of them ever had Covid-19.
4. When did our police become mugs?

Do bear in mind that Durham police said insufficient evidence re the initial drive. Not that it was definitely fine.

And not wishing to expend resources chasing him for what might have been a small fine is entirely understandable.

(I wonder what Durham police budget will be like next year?)

 

[Danidl]

The 0.6 isn't from the Cambridge model of 0.4 which was clearly an exaggeration.

London will not be similar, it is perverse to insist that taking a near double size hit makes no difference. It does, it drastically reduces the readily available most vulnerable for infection and death short term, resulting for a while in being below the rest of the country where they didn't take that big hit.
.

Flecc, I do need to reiterate that the R is a mathematical construct, based on measuring the number of infections observed, not the deaths, ..that requires even more assumptions and abstractions. You asked previously whether I trusted the ONS and Cambridge .. my answer is not a lot. Without the quantity of testing required,which is not within their power, their calculations have limited value ..
Now I do believe that the ONS,figures on deaths , but these are very slow in being compiled

 

[Barry Shittpeas]

Do bear in mind that Durham police said insufficient evidence re the initial drive. Not that it was definitely fine.

And not wishing to expend resources chasing him for what might have been a small fine is entirely understandable.

(I wonder what Durham police budget will be like next year?)

Not as much as it would have been had they said that Cummings conduct was exemplary and an example to us all.

 

[Wicky]

It doesn’t explain his 60 mile jolly outing to Barnard Castle. You know, when he put his wife and child in the car and drove them 60 miles to test his theory that he was unfit to drive due to impaired vision. That doesn’t sound very legal to me.

And that's after he asked "expert medical advice' on his fitness to return to work

"That Saturday, I sought expert medical advice. I explained our family's symptoms (inc his eyesight?) and all the timings, and I asked if it was safe to return to work on Monday,"

Not mentioning who this 'doc' was (can they confirm who said it was okay for him to drive home / back to work?) considering how severely his eyesight was affected. Which seems was only a concern to his wife.

"My wife was very worried, particularly given my eyesight seemed to have been affected by the disease"

Why didn't Cummings contact a police station to explain the situation and get an eye test

'Cassie's law': 609 drivers lose licence after tougher police power on eye tests

Death of 16-year-old Cassie McCord in 2011 prompted new powers allowing police to strip drivers of their licences if they fail a roadside eye test

www.theguardian.com

 

[Nev]

Do bear in mind that Durham police said insufficient evidence re the initial drive. Not that it was definitely fine.

I think the insufficient statement was with reference to a second trip that some papers suggested he made to Durham on the 19th of April.

Here is the appropriate paragraph.

"Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation."

When I read this I thought it was interesting that the police did not say there was NO evidence of this second trip, instead they said there was insufficient evidence.

Here is the full statement from the police.

Durham Constabulary press statement

www.durham.police.uk

 

[wheeler]

I listened to a reasonable amount of this ,and it was pedantic . Cummings would have wanted to have been a complete eejit Not to have had legal assistance in drafting this statement. He knows it has to be watertight because he knows he is not popular.

Surely that was poor legal assistance that allowed him to admit a contravention of the Road Traffic Act with regards to ensuring that his eyesight met the requirements before driving.
I wonder if his motor insurer has been in touch with him.

 

[oyster]

I think the insufficient statement was with reference to a second trip that some papers suggested he made to Durham on the 19th of April.

Here is the appropriate paragraph.

"Finally, commentary in the media has suggested that Mr Cummings was in Durham on 19 April 2020. Mr Cummings denies this and Durham Constabulary have seen insufficient evidence to support this allegation."

When I read this I thought it was interesting that the police did not say there was NO evidence of this second trip, instead they said there was insufficient evidence.

Here is the full statement from the police.

Durham Constabulary press statement

www.durham.police.uk

I was, it appears, conflating in my memory!

 

[flecc]

Flecc, I do need to reiterate that the R is a mathematical construct, based on measuring the number of infections observed, not the deaths, ..that requires even more assumptions and abstractions. You asked previously whether I trusted the ONS and Cambridge .. my answer is not a lot. Without the quantity of testing required,which is not within their power, their calculations have limited value ..
Now I do believe that the ONS,figures on deaths , but these are very slow in being compiled

As I've added to my reply to Woosh, if taking a big, almost double size hit in the first instance (as London definitely did) makes no difference, why bother with lockdown at all?

The rest of the country might just as well not have bothered and also taken the double size hit initially for an identical result.

You can't have it both ways, effective lockdown makes a difference but an ineffective sometimes zero lockdown makes no difference.
.

 

[Danidl]

Today's perplexity comes from this:

​

If you lived on the England-Scotland border and your garden literally straddled it with a bit each side, could you have six people in the England bit and another eight in the Scotland bit? ​

..Now you understand the complexity of the NI EU border !. And its not just gardens but sheds and bedrooms.

 

[Woosh]

London will not be similar, it is perverse to insist that taking a near double size hit makes no difference. It does, it drastically reduces the readily available most vulnerable for infection and death short term, resulting for a while in being below the rest of the country where they didn't take that big hit.

If it makes no difference, why bother with lockdown at all?

it is not perverse. London has many factors that make it the prime spot for Covid: large Chinese population, people use a lot more air travel and public transport, people live and work in confined spaces.
Lockdown remove air travel, public transport and work in confined spaces.
It's difficult to estimate by how much, personally, I reckon locking down reduces R about 50%-75%.
If you remove lockdown or simply reduces the restriction, these moderation factors will disappear and we'll get the epidemic back for years to come until it becomes endemic.

 

[flecc]

If you remove lockdown or simply reduces the restriction, these moderation factors will disappear and we'll get the epidemic back for years to come until it becomes endemic.

That's what we've been doing in London, having ineffective or zero lockdown, fact as I've illustrated, yet you say it's made no difference, our "r" is the same!!!!
,

 

[Danidl]

As I've added to my reply to Woosh, if taking a big, almost double size hit in the first instance (as London definitely did) makes no difference, why bother with lockdown at all?

The rest of the country might just as well not have bothered and also taken the double size hit for an identical result.

You can't have it both ways, effective lockdown makes a difference but an ineffective sometimes zero lockdown makes no difference.
.

London had a number of intrinsic difficulties... Tall buildings, the Tube, higher population density over greater area, and probably higher pollution levels, international airports and greater tourist traffic. .. Fortunately not coinciding with the peak of the tourist season. All these would all have made the initial hit harder, and yes your most vulnerable got hit quicker than elsewhere. In my opinion any lockdown, no matter how ineffective has positive benefits, ,more restrictive lockdowns have greater benefit. The closing of pubs and football matches would have had the greatest bang for buck .
But that is all it gains . Unless you have in London achieved a very high rate of recovered, non seriously ill CV19, people,..and I suspect you haven't, then a reduction in even these ineffective lockdowns will create a resurgence. Almost as bad ,is, the admittedly poor evidence to date, that immunity is only short lived.
It seems to me that you are looking for some justice in this ..and I don't think there is any.

 

[Danidl]

That's what we've been doing in London, having ineffective or zero lockdown, fact as I've illustrated, yet you say it's made no difference, our "r" is the same!!!!
,

Flecc, you are one person , probably of very sober habits ,living in one locality Croydon ,..and managing your local Risks well, you cannot know how the ladies in Chiswick are faring. ..Or my cousin near Barnet. Again the few images I see from central London shows a very reduced footfall.

 

[flecc]

It seems to me that you are looking for some justice in this ..and I don't think there is any.

I'm not, I fully agree there is no justice in any of this. I'm just being realistic.
.