The performance in the Rose Garden, in which the government’s senior adviser Dominic Cummins attempted to explain his breaking of quarantine rules and his creative interpretation of the guidance, was absurd. Dominic Cummins attempted to frame his deciding to do his quarantine in Durham rather than in the place where he was living (London) and to visit a beauty spot on his wife’s birthday to “test his eyesight” as “legal and reasonable”. He set out, he said, to clear up the “confusions and misunderstandings”. But the backdrop to this is the article in the Spectator, written by his wife and to which he, apparently, put his name, in which they attempted to give the false impression that they spent the quarantine period in London. His wife wrote how they had “emerged into the London lockdown”. No explanation for his trip to Durham could have been credible unless it had been prefixed with a sincere apology for this attempt to mislead people. It wasn’t. (Apparently he was asked about this article by journalists in the follow-up questions to his statement and, according to John Crace of the Guardian, failed to offer an explanation ). Unless you explain why you lied about something you can’t, meaningfully, clear it up. This should be obvious. To anyone except a phantasist. I didn’t understand this at the time but having read one of Mr Cummin’s articles on his own blog site it transpires that the basic problem here is that Mr Cummins is a teenage phantasist. Continue reading “Who is Dominic Cummins?”
20,000 people have died of Covid-19 in Care Homes.  (The official figures are massaged; so this is based on ONS data analysed by academics at the LSE).
There are two important articles in today’s Guardian. The first shows how the Government explicitly rejected a radical lockdown of UK Care Homes. It is specifically this radical lockdown that would have saved the 20,000 people. We can note that even now there is no lockdown of Care Homes. Elderly people continue to die needlessly. Not even to protect the economy. Just pointlessly. For example; there was a proposal by Public Health England on 28 April (2 months too late but better than nothing) for Care Home staff to move into Care Homes – so as to isolate them (this would be the “protective ring” that the Health Minister said had been implemented but existed only as a piece of spin). The government rejected this on the grounds that not all Care Homes can accommodate staff. This is pathetic. A practical difficulty that could easily have been solved. For example; those Care Homes that could implement this should have done. In other cases there are different options; put temporary living Units for staff on site (caravans); people in many industries work like this – it is nothing unusual. Move residents from homes where this can’t be done to where it can be, and so on. As one Care Home operator reported on in the article points out if staff had been offered 24 hour pay there would have been no shortage of volunteers. And money can hardly be an issue – hundreds of billions have been spent on furloughing healthy adults whose risk from Covid-19 is comparable to flu. There is no valid reason not to have done this. It is inexplicable that this hasn’t been done. The only possible conclusion is that the government has deliberately decided to let thousands of old people die needlessly. It is as if it is some kind of primitive sacrifice to the Gods. Maybe, the magical (pre-rational) thinking goes; if we offer the Gods these 20,000 people we will be spared. I cannot see any rational explanation. Continue reading “The UK’s Covid-19 care home scandal”
This is Matt Hancock the ‘Health’ Secretary lying about the new tracing system for Covid-19. Of course, as with the quarantine system for new arrivals which was brought in weeks too late – on the downward part of the curve – there is the problem of explaining why if this is so important it wasn’t introduced earlier. This is lying government Minister Hancock:
Some people will ask ‘why now? Why not launch this programme earlier in the course of the pandemic?’
The answer is because we needed to flatten the curve. Right at the start of the epidemic, we had a contact-tracing system in place but as the virus raged towards its peak, the number of infections grew so large that we needed a national lockdown. That was the only way to get it under control.
Effectively, everyone in the country was contacted and told to stay at home.
Now, we’ve got the number of new infections each day right down and the number of contacts of those who’ve tested positive is small enough that we can be in touch with everyone who we need to. 
That sounds good and maybe some people will believe it.
But the fact is that track and trace was abandoned on March 12.  And the lockdown which this liar describes as a sort of universal isolation scheme was introduced on March 23. Which gave the virus 11 whole days in which to run free.
Matt Hancock is lying is head off.
Who does he think he is? The Tsar. Maybe he does. We’ve just witnessed the strange spectacle of a round of Ministers of State going on TV to make a mockery of their own government’s guidance and laws in order to defend an unelected adviser.
Let’s preempt this. The apparent defence for the journey to Durham – against the guidance that people should go home if they have symptoms (his wife did, he may have done) – and against the law that people should not travel outside their own home – is something to do with childcare needs. Continue reading “Cummins to speak to the nation”