"there is no need for someone with blurry eyes to do the whole thing themselves."
He did not say his eyes were blurry. You have made that up. He said his eyes had felt "weird" during his illness. He didn't say his eyesight was affected. He also said he'd consulted a doctor who agreed he was safe to return to work.
"He went up for their help. But didn't use it."
He did not go up for their help. He went up so that he could access the help of his nieces, in case they both become incapacitated by illness. They did have the help of his sister shopping for him. They did not end up needing the childcare because his wife's illness got better and his got worse. When he was ill, his wife was able to care for their child.
"surely they must have stopped for either a loo stop or petrol"
DC stated that he did not stop on the journey. The journey was made at night with them arriving around midnight. He said he had a full tank of petrol.
If he was lying, the baying mob of press would jump on that straight away. Someone would be able to dispute his account. They haven't. Ergo, they can't because they know he is telling the truth.
"They used an ambulance and spent a night in hospital which would be the worst place to spread it"
He was advised to call 999. His wife and child went to hospital by ambulance and he stayed at home. Don't you think he and/or his wife would have told the ambulance staff of their illnesses? He is a very well-educated man and clearly understands a great deal about this illness. When he drove to collect them the next day, he did not leave the car when picking them up.
"If he had said he had an awful 2 weeks, all the family feeling ill and went out for a drive for a birthday treat but kept 2m distance at all times people would be annoyed, maybe angry but there wouldn't be this total lack of trust especially if he had apologized for it."
Why should he make up a story to suit that narrative though? He explained his behaviour in detail. He did not go out for a birthday treat. He didn't apologise because there is provision, which we all know, for us to divert from the guidance to provide care for a vulnerable person, in this case his child.
Why apologise for doing nothing wrong?
I stay at home for the most part but I do go into the home of a vulnerable person weekly to provide them with care. I am within 2m of them within their home and I would not apologise for this either because it is provided for within the guidelines.
I think many must be misinterpreting the guidelines to the detriment of themselves. He has not misinterpreted the guidelines.