Rule of Six

[mikem]

Highest percentage of deaths have been in North West, then North East & West Midlands, all higher than London, but East of England & Yorkshire and the Humber aren't far behind. Then East Midlands, South East, Wales, Scotland, South West & Northern Ireland being lowest.

Go to bottom table & click on region:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths

 

[Laurie]

If there's more than six in a shooting party it's easy to reduce the number.
Allowing thirty is obviously for humanitarian reasons only.

 

[pwhole]

The whole country got locked down to save London and now those living in the North are exhausted by restrictions put into place before they'd even seen significant cases.

I was working in London from the 22nd Feb until the official 'lockdown' on 23rd March, but in reality it had been locked down for two weeks before that - I had a memorable drink date on March 9th with an old friend on The Strand, and we were the only ones there. Piccadilly Circus was also empty. Three people in a tube carriage at rush hour, etc. We went back in July for another three weeks, and although the suburbs were busier, the centre was still very quiet and the City was deserted - like  Sunday every day. I think London being what it is, everyone realised the seriousness of the situation and just did it themselves, rather than being made to. They now have some of the lowest rates in Britain but a lot of that is social distancing. A lot work from home, but I would imagine most don't, so there must be something else going on.

I'm not sure if the measures nationwide have been specifically tailored to protect London though, and although I'm bored a lot by the lack of activity, I'm not exactly exhausted by the restrictions - they seem quite light for a national emergency, but I don't have a family and live on my own, so I guess I have less risk on a daily basis - I am currently working with two guys who have partners and kids though, and having to share a van. I don't really get the idea that wearing a mask is an infringement of my liberty though - I quite like it. With shades and my hat on I'm pretty much The Invisible Man.

It also depends where you are as to what people do. My street is 'cosmopolitan', let's call it, and about half of the local population are not wearing masks in shops, by my count, and are very slack generally on social distancing. If I walk half a mile to a 'posher' area, people have crossed the road to avoid walking even 4m away from me, the pavements are so wide - and I'm presentable. Yesterday in the local pharmacy two people walked in without masks, and the sweet old lady behind the counter immediately demanded they wear one, and if they didn't have one they had to buy one now - 50p please. They both bought one immediately and put them on. Now if she can do it, but some big tough guy in a supermarket is too 'afraid' to challenge his customers to wear one, even though the checkout signs state they will not be served without a mask, then I'm afraid we're in bullshit world again. They're just stupid, anti-social and greedy, basically. They won't lose any money, which is mostly what they care about.

 

[Alex]

Is London low infection rates partly due to the fact they got hit real bad in the first wave with way above national average of infections up to 20%. So with that level of immunity, it could reducing the speed of new infections.

North west for example in the first wave had one of the lowest infection rates, so it makes sense they are getting more now as there are more to infect?

P.s. I would rather take on the tough guy then the sweat (not so when angry) old lady, she has the power of shame!

 

[Ed]

London's low rate ( even the initial wasn't as bad as could of been) is because being metropolitan the residents saw what happened to family and friends overseas / international press and took preemptive action to a greater degree.
    And as much as I hate to say it London is much more free thinking / aware the the North these days. Similar with much of Scotland

They didn't wait to be told what to do then ignore it in a stupid willy waving stance like has happened in northern post industrial town.
  The number of people in Bradford - for instance- that are ignoring basic advice is ridiculous. Thats even before you factor in the significant health issues for a population of its size.

 

[JoshW]

Another contributing factor for London's low rates will be businesses having closed their offices and started people working from home prior to lockdown occurring. This will lower the number of people bringing the virus into London and spreading it.

 

[Alex]

True Ed, I still don't know why so many people find it hard to wear a mask in a supermarket, except for failing memory. (I still forget to bring shopping bags half the time).

 

[pwhole]

True Ed, I still don't know why so many people find it hard to wear a mask in a supermarket, except for failing memory. (I still forget to bring shopping bags half the time).

Because they're stupid. It's very common, sadly. But also not that many people watch the news either, as they think it's 'boring', or more often, 'depressing'. It wouldn't be so bloody depressing if people would take responsibility for their lives and fix the problems being described. But if you only get your 'news' from facebook and Twitter, then you're not going to have a very balanced view of the world.

My friends in London are mostly working from home or furloughed - two work at art colleges and I don't think they're re-opening yet. They nearly all work in some form of the art or TV/drama world so I can't really comment on what 'regular' folks are doing. But we were working rope-access on an office rental building in the City, a real old Victorian beauty, and listed, which is why we were repairing it. The smallest room to rent is ?1400 a month, up to ?3500 a month.

But each office generally comprised two, three or four people and several computers. That's it. They all scarpered by about March 12th, and by the time we got back in early July they still hadn't come back - every office was unoccupied or literally stripped-out. The ground rent on that place (just off Moorgate) must be phenomenal, so if their tenants have all found they can work at home, what happens to that? It's ideal housing, but it's posh. But no posh people will want to live there as all there is nearby are sandwich shops, key shops, stationers, coffee shops, M&S and Boots. Hardly wild.

But I agree - London was far more switched-on, and on my two days back home in Sheffield each week I was slack-jawed watching many people just carry on as though nothing was happening. And now it seems as though a similar proportion have literally forgotten it even exists.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Why do people treat this as something new?

Russian Flu 1889?1890 1 million possibly H2N2
Spanish Flu 1918?1920 50 million H1N1
Asian Flu 1957?1958 1.5 to 2 million H2N2
Hong Kong Flu 1968?1969 1 million H3N2
Swine Flu 2009?2010 over 18,209 novel H1N1

These so-called pandemics happen fairly regularly. How does anyone expect us to follow the rules when even the four parts of the UK cant agree which to apply. We collect our grandson from school. All the children then go on the skate ramps close by. What rubbish to say more than a couple cant go on the ramps with parents close by. It's not going to happen. As for masks many no longer give a toss as nobody down my way will tell you off about it. Nothing to do with us say the shopworkers. Even the track and trace is fitful. I went in a cafe last week. Nothing. Many I know now give false information. Why be under " house arrest " for two weeks if you are not carrying it? OK with a test within a couple of days but not two weeks for likely nothing. The lady in my street was told that she would have to go to Manchester for a test. That from Taunton for God's sake.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

119520219_2682019895397180_4588368839156896491_n by Nicholas Chipchase, on Flickr

 

[mikem]

Would be interesting to find out what percentage of London office workers went home (back to the provinces) & are now working from other regions?

 

[JoshW]

The key to getting back to normal safely was always going to be tracking infection and testing.

The government has failed woefully at both of these, and yet has persisted with the opening up again under pressure from various groups.

I do not envy the government's situation to have to put together a set of rules that works for as many as possible whilst staying safe, which is why there was always the element of adhering to the spirit of the rules. The moment Mr Cummings was defended for breaking the spirit of the rules (at the very least) was the moment any chance of any lockdown rules working went out the window. The government could and should have stamped this out as early as possible and sent DC packing.. unless of course it works in their favour to be able to blame certain groups within the general public for the rise in CV19 cases..

 

[pwhole]

I'm certainly blaming individuals from the general public for the rise in CV19 cases, as everyone in Britain knows exactly what to do to minimise the risk of infection now, both personal and to others - no excuses. I don't think it can usefully be tagged to 'groups' as such, even if the government want that - though I doubt they need any more chaos than they've already got. Some cultures are certainly more macho than others, which may explain some of it. The only group I could comfortably describe as more risky than others is 'males', but that's kind of obvious really. Dominic Cummings should have been thrown to the lions for his behaviour, but they need him too much - or are too scared to get rid of him. The four parts of the UK can't agree on this, I believe, because of their political stances, which are often contradictory, but that's because separatism/nationalism is a really bad idea, whoever does it, and especially now. And the population densities are rather uneven too, which doesn't help with comparisons - much of Scotland is totally unoccupied by humans in any real numbers.

Coronavirus is in some ways exposing the relative bankruptcy of much of modern politics/social economics and is also exploiting the complacency that can develop in relatively affluent societies - people find it very difficult to adapt to new circumstances en-masse, especially if they appear to threaten our 'way of life'. So 'returning to normal' is a powerful and understandable urge that we're seeing manifested right now. But we can't return to 'normal', because that means complacency and thus increase in infections again. The only way to return to normal is to get rid of the virus, or learn to live with it. That may mean changing the way we live our lives permanently to some degree, but there's nothing wrong with change. But the main thing is to work out how we start new relationships safely and get young people actively participating in life again, otherwise there won't be a useful regenerating population in ten years - the reproduction rate was already too low in GB long before this started.

 

[mikem]

As with most diseases it still disproportionately affects the poorer parts of society, rather than the affluent ( they can afford social distancing etc)

 

[pwhole]

Well I'm poor, but I'm managing it OK. But I do live alone, which helps to some extent, but doesn't in others. I get more lonely but I have a higher chance of staying healthy.

 

[mikem]

Another problem with gauging the effects of this pandemic, is that we have no idea how many people are dying in (for want of a better wording) third world countries - as majority can't afford to be treated in hospitals, so won't appear in official statistics...

 

[JoshW]

As with most diseases it still disproportionately affects the poorer parts of society, rather than the affluent ( they can afford social distancing etc)

Find myself saying this way more than I should be. This is one of the leading theories as to why people of colour are disproportionately affected by CV19, they're in general nearer the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and so are more likely to be working jobs like cleaners/shop workers etc which have continued to work face to face during the outbreak. People will still pin it on brown people having large families though 

 

[Ed]

on the upside working Saturdays and/or Sundays plus extra evenings enforcing  compliance requirements on businesses is doing wonders form my time in lieu & the bit of overtime is handy.

If I ever get around to been able to take it at the moment

 

[mikem]

A large family does mean more opportunities to introduce & spread the virus, but poverty is much more of a factor than the colour of your skin (although, as you say, they are more likely to be in that economic band - another self reinforcing loop)

 

[PeteHall]

I may be mistaken, but I think the point about large families with certain cultures isn't so much about the number of kids, but the number of generations living under the same roof.

In many cultures outside Britain, it is quite common for elderly relatives to live with the younger generations, rather than living alone until they get bundled off into a care home. Where this happens in Britain, it is much more common in non-white communities who have retained some elements of their native culture.

There's a lot to be said for this type of multi-generational living, but in current circumstances it does mean that working people and school kids will bring the virus straight home to vulnerable relatives if they catch it.

Obviously this problem would be compounded by poverty which is also more prevalent in certain ethnic groups.

More kids in a family is unlikely to make much difference as more often than not, the kids will be at the same school and therefore moving in the same social circles, so exposed to the same viruses.