So more lies then? Sick of it.Not in London Gareth it’s purely about economy!
So figures much worse in London than Lancs and many other areas in tier 3, yet they are placed in tier 2.
I was under the impression this was done to protect the NHS and the vulnerable? I no longer believe this.
So figures much worse in London than Lancs and many other areas in tier 3, yet they are placed in tier 2.
I was under the impression this was done to protect the NHS and the vulnerable? I no longer believe this.
Blackpool not in Lancs pal. Im in Wyre.It depends on where in London you mean. I only checked the SE London Boroughs around where I live ; most of them have rates miles below that in Blackpool. Only Greenwich comes close.
Because r numbers and growth rates dont suit your argument!I've already told you this is not true, and posting R numbers does not change that.
Full reasons for London:
"The trajectory of key indicators of Covid-19 in an area (including all age case rates, over 60s case rates and positivity) have been increasing until very recently. The situation in London is not uniform throughout the city. 13 of the 33 boroughs have case rates which are 10% or more higher than a week ago and ten boroughs where case rates for over 60s are above 150 per 100,000. Hospital admissions continue to increase in the East and North London in particular, although they are still well below the spring peak. Taken as a whole, the situation in London has stabilised at a similar case rate and positivity to other parts of the country in Tier 2".
My emphasis.
A criteria that could be applied to many Tier 3 areas, Lancashire included.I've already told you this is not true, and posting R numbers does not change that.
Full reasons for London:
"The trajectory of key indicators of Covid-19 in an area (including all age case rates, over 60s case rates and positivity) have been increasing until very recently. The situation in London is not uniform throughout the city. 13 of the 33 boroughs have case rates which are 10% or more higher than a week ago and ten boroughs where case rates for over 60s are above 150 per 100,000. Hospital admissions continue to increase in the East and North London in particular, although they are still well below the spring peak. Taken as a whole, the situation in London has stabilised at a similar case rate and positivity to other parts of the country in Tier 2".
My emphasis.
Blackpool not in Lancs pal. Im in Wyre.
Maybe in actually case numbers but not in growth rates or r numbers. A lot can be put at the door of East Lancs sadly. Lancs is coming down apart from Hyndburn.Most of Lancashire is far worse than London though, isn't it?
I'm not trying to make any particular point, other than that large swathes of London generally are below average.
No, it's not, the R number is decreasing in larger areas of Lancashire than London.Most of Lancashire is far worse than London though, isn't it?
I'm not trying to make any particular point, other than that large swathes of London generally are below average.
Maybe in actually case numbers but not in growth rates or r numbers. A lot can be put at the door of East Lancs sadly. Lancs is coming down apart from Hyndburn.
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--covid-19--cases
Case numbers/100,000:
London: 182
Lancs: 248.3
Fylde: 238.9
Only Wyre and Lancaster could make a case for T2 but they're hardly unique in being lumped in with a larger geographic area.
Region | R | Growth rate % per day |
---|---|---|
England | 1.0-1.1 | 0 to +2 |
East of England | 1.0-1.3 | +1 to +4 |
London | 1.0-1.2 | 0 to +3 |
Midlands | 1.0-1.2 | +1 to +3 |
North East and Yorkshire | 1.0-1.1 | 0 to +2 |
North West | 0.8-1.0 | -3 to 0 |
South East | 1.1-1.3 | +1 to +4 |
South West | 1.0-1.3 | +1 to +4 |
Going up in London. Growth rate and r rate higher than Niorth West.
Lockdown supposed go stop growth rate. So put a region where the growth rate is going up in the lower tier and a region where it is going down in the upper one.
And 'large swathes' of Lancashire are generally below average , some boroughs in London are higher !! And minutes away on the tube
The out of date info as you say is from the official Government data site. States 20th November.Out of date information? London actually went down in w/e 20/11, not as much as Lancs but from a lower starting point.
Both are going down, but one has 182 cases/100,000 and the other has 250.
There's also the point that because of the far higher case numbers in previous weeks there's much more pressure on the NHS and thus far lower room for maneouver.
.
Why are London boroughs classified separately, but vast swathes of the North lumped together? London-centric view of the world perhaps.Most of Lancashire is far worse than London though, isn't it?
I'm not trying to make any particular point, other than that large swathes of London generally are below average.
Why are London boroughs classified separately, but vast swathes of the North lumped together? London-centric view of the world perhaps.
Not totally true Basil. More people are using the underground compared to the first lockdown. I got caught in a mini rush hour yesterday at 5.45. The train I was on was around 2/3rds full. The difference now.. its much harder to find a passenger without a mask.And passenger numbers on Tubes and trains have fallen through the floor in London and the South East. The only significant pressures are on buses, and even they are much quieter than normal. Central London is so much of a ghost town that a large proportion of the cab fleet is parked up in fields.
I'm not saying that this allocation of tiers is perfect or that there aren't anomalies. There are. But there isn't a homogenous picture in London anymore than there is in Lancashire, and no amount of frothing about it will change the facts.
It's not 'frothing' Bazzle, it's concern that a region with a rising infection rate isn't subjected to the restrictions it should because of politics and the economy.
The out of date info as you say is from the official Government data site. States 20th November.
So London is publishing data off it's own back, and out of sync with the official Government r rate site?Published 20th, presumably based on data to the 13th, as I've said elsewhere cases actually fell in London w/e 20th.
It does mean we can go to the ballet though
According to the Mayor of London's office the infection rate for London as a whole is 187 cases per 100,000 population - this is based on data from November 13 to November 19.Which region would that be, because rates are falling in London overall.
So London is publishing data off it's own back, and out of sync with the official Government r rate site?
That's helpful.
I'd hazard a guess that the rvrate and growth rate us still higher in London than the North West mind.
That says ending on 21st November?It's all from the official site: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map
It's blatantly political. Smoke blown up Liverpool's arse following the army going in - even though the city (on the whole) stuck two fingers up to mass testing. Manchester on the naughty step for daring to push against the narrative. It's as plain as day yet some still can not or will not see.Looking closer to home:
Tier 2
Liverpool (Total cases 868: Rolling Rate 174.3)
Knowsley (Total cases 253: Rolling Rate 167.7)
Formby (Total cases 443: Rolling Rate 159.9)
Tier 3
Wyre (Total cases 163: Rolling Rate 145.4)
Lancaster (Total cases 160: Rolling Rate 109.6)
All with reducing growth rates.
According to Steve Rotheram (Liverpool's Metro Mayor): "Everyone here bought into the idea of sticking together, adjusting behaviours and recognising that sticking to the restrictions would make them a temporary thing. Today has been a total vindication of our approach."
Does beg the question "What have Wyre and Lancaster residents been doing wrong?"
Exactly, it’s only two or three weeks since were get fed the crap that the bodies were piling up in Liverpool hospitals and the city was on the fringe of disaster now low and behold a couple of weeks later it’s all fine and dandy, yet we’re gonna be stuck in this fir monthsIt's blatantly political. Smoke blown up Liverpool's arse following the army going in - even though the city (on the whole) stuck two fingers up to mass testing. Manchester on the naughty step for daring to push against the narrative. It's as plain as day yet some still can not or will not see.
Is that all?They are administrative regions. And the population in most (not the City of London) is around a third of a million.