jeanmark

I agree the news media are wrong in the way they are acting, although I feel no sympathy for Mr Cummings, Having seen him try to hit a reporter with his book (who was keeping her distance) and tell them all he didn't care what they thought, he deserves all he gets. As to the police, what would you expect them to do, if they take action, they are wrong, if they don't take action they are wrong. Remember it isn't the press barons etc. who pay their wage, they are public servants.....

I certainly didn't vote for the buffoon and maybe you should check your spelling - note: remainers didn't need to come up with any insult for those with different views......

For goodness sake, this isn't about what the media think or do regarding Brexit. This transcends Brexit, they have wronged people who were just trying to do the right thing for themselves and other people. It is about those ordinary people who have had to make great sacrifices to try and stem the spread of this virus by obeying rules, complied with the input of Mr Cummings, to be treated with contempt by the very people who should be setting an example. Rather than focusing on the media, maybe you should listen to members of the public, including less rabid Brexiteers, who have had to stay away when the person they love the most has died alone. All those families, many with young children, following the advise of the government rules and the NHS, isolating themselves when one person in the family displayed symptoms of the virus. Now to have it implied they were fools to comply. I remain astonished that anyone with an independent mind can continue to believe all the lies spoken by those people who have made a career from it.

I agree there are many people who have broken lockdown, including some Labour MP's, and there appear to be a lot of comments about a 'witch hunt' on Cummings, some even implying it's because of his involvement with brexit and are trying to bring the government down. I also agree that it is focusing energy way from the real problems facing us all. However, my objection to his actions relate more to the fact that he was instrumental in helping to design the lockdown rules. He, like all those involved with managing this crisis, should be setting an example to us all, but he chose to break the rules as if he is above them. There is now a very high risk that others will do the same because he has made it 'acceptable' do so. No matter what his excuses are, I believe he should go. Maybe then everyone can refocus on getting the country moving forward.

JE, the problem is we may not be able to get the country back on its feet if people believe they can emulate Cummings by not taking lockdown seriously! The problem when listening to his comments is how can they be disproven? Well, other than for parts of his explanation that take some believing. Would you drive 30 miles with your wife and child in the car to see if your sight was good enough for safety? I'm sorry but I found his explanation just another way of treating us all with contempt.

How many families with very young children do you think were in the same position but obeyed the rules. At the time he traveled 250 miles, the rules clearly stated that should you or any member of your immediate family show symptoms of the virus, all must remain in isolation and not leave the house. I addition, it is known that although children can get coronavirus (COVID-19), they seem to get it less often than adults and it's usually less serious. As a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), he would have known this. The concern that I have about this whole situation is the blatant lies that many appear to think are acceptable because of who he is. As one of the people instructed to shield and stay in my house for 3 month, I would prefer everyone to obey the rules so that people like me can at last go for a simple walk!

So you believe that keeping his son in a small enclosed space for a number of hours is protecting him? At Saturdays briefing, Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, stated clearly that such an environment increased the risk of catching the virus. As for those who flaunt the rules for pleasure, they are not the Chief Advisor for the Prime Minister and would have been involved with compiling the very recommendations he chose to ignore.

His child was in a safe place as he lived with them, when one if them developed possible symptoms. He denies being questioned by the police, thereby calling them liars. The piece his wife wrote in The Spectator implies they stayed in London, is he implying she has also lied? The regulations clearly state that if a member of a family displays symptoms, all in the household must isolate regardless of age. His is not the only family who has had the virus but those families followed the 'rules' and did not travel 250 miles to stay with family members, particularly parents in the vulnerable age group. At the briefing today, the medical representative stated quite clearly that travelling in a car and thus in an enclosed atmosphere, was a very good way of spreading the virus to anyone in the car. So much for taking his son to safety!

I agree that diet plays a part in certain diseases but by no means all, certainly not solely from a western diet as many people from around the world, who having different diets, are affected by the same diseases. Diet is only one factor that has to be considered, but there are many other factors that also pay a part regardless of whether you eat meat or not.

Thank you Bill, and I also get fed up, particularly as I am one of people who have been instructed to stay in the house for 12 weeks, not even being allowed to go our for a walk. I have always liked debates and believe me I have a strong opinion on most things including what is and what is not political correctness! In my line of work you had to be ready for almost anything. I'm afraid I believe this government has mismanaged this pandemic by refusing to learn from other countries management. We had the 'advantage' of being two to three weeks behind Europe and they still went their own way, which many believe has resulted in some avoidable deaths. In 2016 and in conjunction with the NHS, they carried out a 3 day simulation of a pandemic, albeit for flu, codenamed Exercise Cygnus and this identified deficiencies but it appears these were ignored. All of us can only hope they start to learn that an economy will recover, but you can't recover from death!

I think it must count if it is identified that death was hastened because of the virus, but they would not consider it a factor if death was expected within a short time. The same would apply regardless of what organism was in involved. What will be interesting is how history treats this governments handling of the outbreak and what lessons will be learnt for future pandemics.

I agree on the type of schools although a cynic would point out many MP's children attend Public schools! I am aware that some children have been attending school and there have been no problems, but their numbers are small compared to what is now being asked. Unions have a responsibility to protect their members and they are only asking to be given reassurance that all schools are given time to put systems and processes in place to protect both children and themselves. That to me is not putting children and their educational future at risk for political purposes. However, I do believe the Government know they can not get the economy started unless workers are able to return to work and this is difficult for those with childcare issues. Why else would they start with Reception and Year 1 - 4/5 and 5/6 years olds who have no understanding of social distancing? I'm not even sure the Government are achieving their own guidelines set out in their 5 point plan for easing the lockdown, so I believe the Government are putting money before people. There is no denying there is going be a worldwide recession thus a few more weeks of lockdown should not be seen as making a difference other than trying to reduce the effects caused by a second wave of the outbreak.

COVID-19 is a new strain of coronavirus and appears to be a more virulent one. I understand the test for the virus is accurate as it does belong to a known family of viruses that include that causing SARS. The test is able to identify which virus, distinguishing it from other viruses, that is how any viral infection is diagnosed. As to cause of death, it will include the probability of cause when taking other factors into consideration and include such questions as would that person have died regardless of being infected or did infection hasten death. There should be systems and processes in place for management of a pandemic regardless of cause and a 3 day simulation of a pandemic, albeit for flu, carried out in 2016 and codenamed Exercise Cygnus identified deficiencies but it appears these were ignored.

Whilst respecting the comments on your thread and understanding peoples views, one of my concerns is it is only state schools that have to start to return, public schools remain closed until September.

By the time the global SARS outbreak was contained in 2003, there had been 800 deaths with over 8,000 people been infected worldwide. As you know, COVID-19 has already surpass that out break in the number of people infected and for the number that have died. That is why this pandemic is different. A risk assessment has to evaluate all risks. Where schools are concerned, the degree of risk to teachers, other staff and other parents, who may come in close contact with a child who is infected but asymptomatic, has to be figured in to any equation. I'm not sure there is sufficient evidence to date that has identified the degree of risk posed should a child be infected. Particularly as Reception and Year 1 children are naturally tactile and too young to understand about such things as risks with contact.

Interesting thing about schools as state schools have been instructed to open but Public Schools remain closed until September, now that should tell us something!

Credit @RussInCheshire: In the last 24 hours government ministers have: 1 Accidentally made it illegal to drive to Wales 2 Stated, wrongly, that Covid-19 is in the water supply 3 Made it easier to see other people's parents than your own 4 Issued guidance about business that the London Chamber of Commerce have instructed us to ignore 5 Issued guidance about lockdown that 3 of the 4 nations in the Union have instructed us to ignore 6 Released advice top experts were not given a chance to review and approve 7 Said the announcement had to be on Sunday, so it could start Monday 8 Then said they meant Wednesday 9 Then said we must go to work 10 Then said we must not travel to work 11 Then blamed the public for not understanding them 12 Then appeared on TV to explain the rules, got them wrong, and had to be corrected by Piers Morgan 13 Then appeared in Parliament to explain the rules, got them wrong, and had to be corrected by the opposition And that’s just Monday

I would expect any government to lead the way rather than expect all people, regardless of level of knowledge or experience, to make there own interpretation of what the 'leader' of the country has stated. It is the governments responsibility to give unambiguous advice as they are the ones with experts to advise them. The electorate should not have to try and interpret the message being sent, it is the senders responsibility to ensure the message is clearly understood. This government chose to ignore their own finding from Exercise Cygnus held in 2016 to gauge preparedness for just an eventuality. I believe most people expect a degree of uncertainty in their lives and do understand there are rarely perfect answers for all of life's twists and turns. However, when something as devastating as a pandemic occurs, it is right and proper to expect the government of the day to give guidance and advise, as they have a much bigger picture than the average person.

Stay alert, many people haven't even been able to stay at home!

The only problem with this is herd immunity tends to works when enough people in a community are vaccinated against a disease, which can make it more difficult for the disease to spread to vulnerable individuals who have not yet been or cannot be vaccinated. As there isn't a vaccine yet it is difficult to rely on this as a way of controlling the disease!

Just read Walking to the end of the World - A thousand miles on the Camino De Santiago by Beth Jusino. I thoroughly enjoyed reading her experience of the Camino walking with her husband as my husband should have started it this weekend!!

Whilst agreeing with you Lionel, I also believe, whether written or spoken, we must also ensure that the message sent is the one that is received. Many years ago when I was a young staff nurse, I read the handover report (an official record) written in haste, "Jonny returned from theatre following a tonsillectomy vomited mother coming up later". Despite no punctuation, we all understood what the message was. However, many years later when I was a senior nurse, I spent time talking with a patient who was attending our outpatient clinic. She was distressed at the lack of progress with her condition despite taking the prescribed medication. She was a University lecturer so one has to assume she was intelligent. When going though her day she explained the difficulty of cutting a tablet into four equal pieces and wondered if this was the problem. I then understood what the problem was. When I later discussed the case with my staff, some of the nurses asked how stupid could she be. I asked why they believed she was stupid as she followed the instructions on the medicine bottle - " Take one tablet four times a day". A classic example of not ensuring the message being sent is the one being received, and professionals believing everyone understands their language. From then on they all gave the instruction " ...that means four tablets a day"!

It is interesting to see the various comments on this subject when the origin post stated "How important is the correct use of English grammar and punctuation to you on social networking sites"? Does it really matter if correct grammars is not used on social media sites, such as Facebook, as long as the message being sent is understood by all who will read it? I am always appalled when someone publicly corrects someones grammar or spelling when they may have no idea of the person writing the message, or how it may effect their self confidence when in joining in a discussion.

All our local supermarkets have introduced rationing, each customer is only allowed one or a specific number of each item, depending on the item, to prevent panic buying.

Whilst agreeing with your sentiments, the Corvid-19 is slightly more than common coughs and colds. This is a new virus and not fully understood, the older we get the less effective the immune system is, making us more susceptible to infection.

As many over 70's are fit and healthy and many under 70's are not, one wonders what they hope to achieve - certainly not to contain the virus or to protect the elderly. Will the House of Lords be more or less empty?

I'm sorry Lionel, I've been retired for a number of years now and I just rely on the NHS site for information. I do know it is a new virus that affects the respiratory tract and its means of transmission are still being examined. However, most respiratory viruses are spread through droplets. The usual precautions for such infections should help and hand washing, as usual, is important. Those at most risk are the elderly and other vulnerable people who have underlying conditions - it is the 'underlying conditions' that is the key to outcome at present.

I agree that hand washing is sufficient but only if these are available. When out and about a good alcohol based hand sanitiser is more convenient and effective.

I am not anti-US left but still have concerns about accepting lower food standards than we have at present. Fortunately I can source locally reared chicken, Scottish beef and Welsh reared lamb.

Actually Kennedy, there is a great deal wrong with the reason behind chlorinated chicken. Chlorine is part of a processing method that makes up for poorer welfare standards on poultry farms that have sacrificed hygiene for increased production. Chicken is washed with chlorine and other chemicals to kill off harmful microorganisms, such as salmonella, that may be present on carcasses. We have higher standards of hygiene and welfare to reduce the need for such practice preferring not to introduce such chemicals into our food chain.

Maybe but it is a recognised site and the clinical information is certified to meet NHS England's Information Standard. I am always a little concerned when it is implied shortages are always the result of pharmaceutical companies holding governments to ransom when it is usually a combination of events and rarely the result of one single thing. I accept the shortage of surgical masks is as a direct result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19).

Information from the Patient.info page: ......Currently there is little explanation for the shortages beyond manufacturing and supplier issues, although an increased uptake due to awareness of the benefits of HRT may be partially responsible. Janssen, manufacturer of Evorel HRT treatment, have seen "an unusual increase in demand for HRT over recent months across a number of countries, including the UK", leading to a reduction in the supply of Evorel products. In part, this increased demand was due to shortages of products including Theramex's FemSeven range since the end of 2018, causing women to switch to other brands. "We need to understand the reasons behind this and what measures could be taken to resolve this issue and to prevent it happening again in the future. It remains unclear why there is a shortage of the treatments in the first place or when the normal supply of the products might resume. We are seeking further information and clarification, as to when the matter will be resolved, from the industry," said Chair of the BMS and consultant gynaecologist, Haitham Hamoda.

Whilst agreeing with your comments, I have to say that pre social media such as Facebook etc., newspapers were the main source of how lives can be ruined. I worked in the field of HIV for 13 years from its early days and it never ceased to amaze me at what lengths reporters would go to to get a story, regardless of whether it was accurate and certainly with no respect for privacy or the lives of patients and relatives. They proved they had no morals if they thought they could get a 'good' story, particularly about someone associated with a celebrity and certainly had no respect for confidentiality. They never let the truth get in the way of a good story and as a result I have not bought a newspaper for over 30 years.

That's a little harsh and my response is hardly perpetual scaremongering.

I have to say LaurelC, I'm not convinced it is HRT. I have a number of friends around your age who are very active in all aspects of life but are not on HRT. I had to start taking it after a hysterectomy and removal of ovaries at the age of 27. I stopped taking it at 65 when I could think of no real benefit in continuing and have not noticed difference in my life and well being.

Well, on a ten mile radius of main road by my village there has been 5 serious collisions, including a fatality, in the last three days alone, this without the festive traffic to add to the toll.......

The point I was trying to make was if the definition of prejudices is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, then some people may use their belief as a way of justifying their thoughts and opinions because they believe them to be reasonable. However, many would have the same prejudices even if they had no faith. We can not always 'blame' religion as the cause of such things.

So MaryPoppins56, who upholds the prejudices of non-Christians?

How sad MaryPoppins56 as I know many people who 'belong' to the LGBT community who considers themselves practising Christians and are accepted by the church. I also believe the Catholic Church may have been responsible for their denial of the child abuse, but the individual was responsible for the abuse itself. There are many good Christians and many bad non-Christians, it is the individual who is responsible for the way they behaviour not the religion they follow.

And a number of non-Christains respond in exactly there same way, they just don't quote the bible to defend their views.