FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > London not in lockdown
London not in lockdown
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Surely with the millions of people living so tightly together there must be a rise in cases in London? Definitely something fishy about London not being in local lockdown.  "
Anyone who travels there often will know how busy it can get and I struggle to see how if this virus spreads so easily why London hasn't seen a larger rise in cases. When the virus first hit our shores we all saw how quickly it spread through our capital in the reports and media. Now they have some of the lowest cases per head in the country, unless everyone got it in the first wave I've thought there is something going on. Maybe something withholding test, if people can't get tested they can't be positive and added. The last thing the government would want is to start locking down the capital. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely with the millions of people living so tightly together there must be a rise in cases in London? Definitely something fishy about London not being in local lockdown. "
Perhaps they learned from the first wave to wash hands, socially distance and wear a mask unlike some other areas ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over "
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?"
York 29th January |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely with the millions of people living so tightly together there must be a rise in cases in London? Definitely something fishy about London not being in local lockdown.
Perhaps they learned from the first wave to wash hands, socially distance and wear a mask unlike some other areas ?"
You really don't know london if you believe this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am working in central london and I can believe how quiet it is these days.
It's like a ghost town compared to pre covid.
I have noticed the lack of people wearing masks down here compared to home in Newcastle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I am working in central london and I can believe how quiet it is these days.
It's like a ghost town compared to pre covid.
I have noticed the lack of people wearing masks down here compared to home in Newcastle. "
Can't believe I meant to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am working in central london and I can believe how quiet it is these days.
It's like a ghost town compared to pre covid.
I have noticed the lack of people wearing masks down here compared to home in Newcastle. "
That’s because a lot of businesses are closed / working from home. My friends and other people I know have already been told we don’t expect to see you back in the office until March at the earliest |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?
York 29th January "
Sure dozens of fabbers had it last Christmas |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure where I read it but I'm sure it said London was on the verge of having extra restrictions. "
There are 4/5 boroughs on that verge yes and I wouldn’t be surprised if neighbouring boroughs get added as well, for practical purposes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?
York 29th January
Sure dozens of fabbers had it last Christmas"
Yes I think do too which is why I said reported |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"Does anyone think that a government based in London are going to lock down London, come on people however bad the numbers get they will say that it isn't 'bad enough'.
"
Here's two things your not considering, the population density and ethnicity of london. Both of these are significant when looking at how dangerous covid is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As someone who lives here I can only put across what I think based on my experiences and my friends who live here.
Firstly most people aren’t travelling to work; we don’t live close to family or friends so don’t have that social network to interact with; most of us (meaning the people I talk to) haven’t left their local area and go out once or twice a week to the supermarket; other than that we are in our boxes as most live in apartments
I’m surprised by the figures but the last three weeks they have risen significantly and many are on the verge of stricter measures |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Surely with the millions of people living so tightly together there must be a rise in cases in London? Definitely something fishy about London not being in local lockdown.
Perhaps they learned from the first wave to wash hands, socially distance and wear a mask unlike some other areas ?"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon "
Supposedly so, but in Liverpool we only went today with 268, after the north east which was lagging behind us so we should obviously have been before there. Weirdest of all, Burnley still isn't when it's the worst in the country at 328 so yet again it's illogical.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
There's nothing fishy about it.
The only reason for the lockdown was to take the pressure off the NHS. The hospitals here are nowhere near capacity and the rate is not increasing dramatically.
No need to panic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hasn't the Mayor been pushing for some London areas to be put in to lockdown? "
Yes a week ago he gave an interview saying he’d asked the PM to make visits to houses part of London’s restrictions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example"
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to?"
If you look at Coronavirus UK: Track the cases where you live it's strange that that have added all the case numbers up for the whole of Lancashire (except Blackpool) giving them 11063 but London is broken down into smaller boroughs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to?
If you look at Coronavirus UK: Track the cases where you live it's strange that that have added all the case numbers up for the whole of Lancashire (except Blackpool) giving them 11063 but London is broken down into smaller boroughs. "
The bbc tracker now has the areas broken down by council districts. Example Norfolk used to be entity it is now spilt into its districts.
Some London boroughs population is as large as some towns. Even if they merged all the London boroughs I think you’ll find the infection rate per 100,000 would likely still be under 50/100,000 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to?
If you look at Coronavirus UK: Track the cases where you live it's strange that that have added all the case numbers up for the whole of Lancashire (except Blackpool) giving them 11063 but London is broken down into smaller boroughs.
The bbc tracker now has the areas broken down by council districts. Example Norfolk used to be entity it is now spilt into its districts.
Some London boroughs population is as large as some towns. Even if they merged all the London boroughs I think you’ll find the infection rate per 100,000 would likely still be under 50/100,000 "
Found the BBC page eventually. That does make more sense statistically than cases per area. Just need to believe the BBC now!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to?
If you look at Coronavirus UK: Track the cases where you live it's strange that that have added all the case numbers up for the whole of Lancashire (except Blackpool) giving them 11063 but London is broken down into smaller boroughs.
The bbc tracker now has the areas broken down by council districts. Example Norfolk used to be entity it is now spilt into its districts.
Some London boroughs population is as large as some towns. Even if they merged all the London boroughs I think you’ll find the infection rate per 100,000 would likely still be under 50/100,000
Found the BBC page eventually. That does make more sense statistically than cases per area. Just need to believe the BBC now!!!"
I didn’t know if I could add a link, glad you found it.
As for the numbers, they seem to be matching what our local council site says but who knows where their figures come from.... have to believe some of them  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"What is the infection rate? That’s what lockdown is based upon
If you add you all the cases for the London boroughs it a lot more than Liverpool all County Durham for example
Is that dividing the population number of the places you refer to?
If you look at Coronavirus UK: Track the cases where you live it's strange that that have added all the case numbers up for the whole of Lancashire (except Blackpool) giving them 11063 but London is broken down into smaller boroughs.
The bbc tracker now has the areas broken down by council districts. Example Norfolk used to be entity it is now spilt into its districts.
Some London boroughs population is as large as some towns. Even if they merged all the London boroughs I think you’ll find the infection rate per 100,000 would likely still be under 50/100,000
Found the BBC page eventually. That does make more sense statistically than cases per area. Just need to believe the BBC now!!!
I didn’t know if I could add a link, glad you found it.
As for the numbers, they seem to be matching what our local council site says but who knows where their figures come from.... have to believe some of them "
Anything that's coming from the government currently, so therefore what the BBC is saying with a pinch of salt!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's comparatively low (bar a few boroughs) because most are working from home so they are not using the tube or trains every day to commute.
Not only that, but most are opting for local bars, cafes, and shops rather than travelling into central London.
Local town centres are still busy, which is why some boroughs (such as Brent) have seen higher infection numbers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The current places most being hit hard are the urban areas that weren't badly hit the first time round, London South East and Birmingham are all low after a heavy hit in the first wave which common sense would tell you they've started to receive some herd immunity levels or at least enough to stop fast and large scale spread.
It's one of the reasons Sweden were content to see large scale spread in the summer to keep virus numbers escalating in the winter when it's the worse time to get it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Lockdown isnt based on infection rates. Its decided by an unknown method that strangely favours wealthy areas. Much like the recent exams results fiasco.
See here sorry the article is behind a paywall but you can get the just.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-coronavirus-lockdown-for-top-tory-constituencies-rqtkhxm8s |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
herd immunity must be attained at some point.. a lot of people think that's why schools and unis went back. there might be something in the fact the places hit hardest the first time are not so bad this time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?
York 29th January "
one or two people Involved I believe he/they were chinese if my memory serves me right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?
York 29th January one or two people Involved I believe he/they were chinese if my memory serves me right."
2 Chinese students and York is in Yorkshire.
Not the north east. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone think that a government based in London are going to lock down London, come on people however bad the numbers get they will say that it isn't 'bad enough'.
"
Might be government based but surely they take their advice from the scientific advisors not ministers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1343507/London-lockdown-update-mixing-households-ban-tower-hamlets-covid-cases/amp
London is reacting to Covid data the same as the rest of the country. If it needs to, further restrictions in London will follow . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lockdown isnt based on infection rates. Its decided by an unknown method that strangely favours wealthy areas. Much like the recent exams results fiasco.
See here sorry the article is behind a paywall but you can get the just.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-coronavirus-lockdown-for-top-tory-constituencies-rqtkhxm8s"
Most of London isn't wealthy... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"It could be possible millions in London have already had it.didn't it actually start in London first time, around then spread, out all over
I believe the first (reported) case was in North East?
York 29th January one or two people Involved I believe he/they were chinese if my memory serves me right.
2 Chinese students and York is in Yorkshire.
Not the north east."
Of course York is in the North East it's not the North West!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"Does anyone think that a government based in London are going to lock down London, come on people however bad the numbers get they will say that it isn't 'bad enough'.
Might be government based but surely they take their advice from the scientific advisors not ministers."
Lo I think their so called "scientific advisors" don't have a clue! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *xelf787 OP Man
over a year ago
Chorlton, Manchester |
"herd immunity must be attained at some point.. a lot of people think that's why schools and unis went back. there might be something in the fact the places hit hardest the first time are not so bad this time "
Exactly and by imposing lockdowns and if they go for second national lockdown they will only delay it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
