Read on Twitter
Warning, long thread!! Stick with me here tho’ as this is a systematic dismantling, for those interested, of DC’s account of his trip to the north east. I caveat, I’m no Dr/scientist/lawyer/statistician but at the PMs urging I’ve used old fashioned common sense…
Assertion 1) the Cummings family left for Durham because they feared they’d both imminently become unable to care for their 4yr old & his 17yr old niece had offered to assist if they became incapacitated. Firstly, according to both his & Mary’s account, neither had recognised
CV19 symptoms at the time they left for Durham. Mary had vomited & felt weird (by her own account), DC had no symptoms (by his account). They feared her symptoms were CV19, despite the fact they weren’t symptoms recognised by PHE (except if accompanied by the official symptoms,
at that time fever & a new persistent cough). By their own accounts they didn’t seek advice on the nondescript symptoms Mary was showing. DC admits you fearing they’d both come down with the virus because so many in No. 10 were dropping like flies. He also said he felt his family
weren’t safe at home as he was being targeted (he doesn’t specify how or by whom or what action he took to remedy this, besides fleeing to Durham). Firstly, none of these reasons justify travelling under the lockdown legislation. Either they didn’t have CV19 (& they admit
they still can’t be sure, neither were tested) in which they certainly couldn’t travel, or Mary did, in which case the law was even more clear as she was symptomatic. DC claims a loophole based on childcare needs. This exception is based on extreme circumstances and guidance
Clearly says you should do all you can to abide by lockdown. According to both their accounts they left for Durham within hours of Mary’s nondescript symptoms presenting. Hardly trying all you can to abide by lockdown measures. Let’s take DCs assertion that they were both
about to be incapacitated, so ill that between them they couldn’t care for their son. Is this reasonable? No. Statistically, the chances of them both getting such a serious form of the illness is about 5% each, therefore the chances they both do are about 0.25%. Now add in
a variable incubation period and that figure could be as low as 0.02%. DC is a man who understands statistics & mathematical modelling so he would know this himself, it’s GCSE maths. He added in that he felt unsafe at home as he & his family were being targeted by individuals
unknown. As a public figure I’m sure he receives his share of threats, sadly. I in no way condone the scum that harass public figures. I’d suggest though, that any Jewish, female or BAME MP receives far more threats, both in terms of volume & severity. If he had genuine
fears he should have informed the police & I have no doubt as the 2nd most powerful man in govt he would have received all necessary protection. Consider also, this was the 1st week of lockdown, the streets were like a ghost town, no one was outside his home harassing him,
No one was outside full stop!! Let’s now move onto the trip to Castle Barnard, a round trip of approximately 55 miles. This was made to ascertain if he was safe to drive, by his account. Again, this reason was not a permitted reason for leaving home at that time. Simple logic
says, if you’re unsure you’re not safe to drive, you don’t drive. Taking a 2.1 tonne killing machine into the road is the most reckless way to determine if you’re safe. That aside, having driven almost 30 miles he felt so ill he needed to stop & exit the vehicle for a period of
time. Surely that tells you you’re not capable of driving 5 hrs to London? In fact as a professional driver I’d say it tells you you’re not safe to make the return trip, particularly as your only child is with you. The nausea he reported could be a symptom of eyesight problems,
Which is what he said he was concerned about in the first place. If his reason for travelling to CB was legitimate, why did he not draw the logical conclusion & ask his wife to drive? This feels too much like an excuse engineered to fit the facts. To abide by lockdown rules he
shouldn’t have left home for any reason but the four well publicised reasons. If he’d said he took a quick 10 min drive to the local shops for essential items, this at least would have been adhering to the rules, clearly he felt a 55 mile round trip was more necessary.
DCs account of having to use the NHS while in Durham is a clear example of why people shouldn’t move around the country under lockdown. Every patient interaction is putting those brave NHS staff at greater risk. Of course he was right to call for help when his son was ill, but
This should have been in his local vicinity, not 250 miles away.
In conclusion, there were no exceptional circumstances allowing for him to use the necessary loopholes in the legislation/guidance. The trip to Durham was totally unjustifiable. As for the trip to CB, testing your ability to drive has never been an accepted reason for leaving
your home during lockdown. He should have waited until he was certain he was fit to drive or could have his eyesight professionally tested. Just as 100’s of drivers do every week after illness.
It’s just been pointed out to me, during the ten days Mary says DC was incapable of getting out of bed due to muscle twitches & a high fever he apparently drove to the hospital & back. Either he wasn’t as ill as her account suggests, or he wasn’t safe to drive. Which is it?
Does his 17yr or 20yr old niece have her licence, couldn’t they have driven? This, once again, demonstrates a lack of regard for others safety, or an inconsistency in their accounts.
