According to the times Schools will be shut to all except vulnerable children and those of key workers from Thursday, taking Leicester back to where the rest of the country was in May. Implementation of the changes was still being finalised last night but local leaders remain unconvinced that they are needed. Government figures show 135 cases of coronavirus per 100,000 people in Leicester, triple the rate of Bradford, the town with the next highest rate. Barnsley, Rochdale and Oldham also have high rates, and while officials stress that they are not about to be locked down, concern is mounting in government about poorer towns in the north and Midlands with large minority populations.
Leicester has been shut down, despite there being an average of just 6 pillar 1 positive cases per day, so I think it’s very possible they’ll shut Barnsley down, or anywhere else. Common sense and rationality are out of the window, replaced by knee jerk overreactions and panic.
Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers Pillar 2 is for example random swab testing of the wider/asymptomatic population.
So in your "professional" opinion, how high should the numbers reach in any given location before action is taken?
More than 6. Let me ask you a question in return . Were you surprised it’s only 6 a day based on the wording of ‘spikes’ in the media?
Om almost afraid to say this but thay report states those with high density minority populations.......are they confusing us with Burnley? We usually leave that to the sports pages!!
No, because I have no idea what the number should be that triggers anything. I'm not an expert. You're the one questioning the action taken, based on something that you perceive to be nothing to worry about. No offense, mate, but that's the attitude that got us into this mess in the first place - doing too little, too late. So, back to my question. If 6 is too low, what should the number be?
It's not just that, it's I know you didn't ask me but I'll jump in with two things Firstly there can be 66million tests done and 66m positive results but if all 66m of them have no noticeable I'll effects then there is no problem. It's those who are ill and dying from it that are the issue so why isn't the first step to tell the vulnerable to isolate? Instead they've just cost a lot of jobs with businesses forced to close and no furlough available to them. Secondly the decision appears to have been made based on pillar 2 test results as pillar 1 isn't higher than other places. That to me suggests that places will be penalised simply for doing more tests. The less efficient and slower the testing is and the more reluctant people are to get tests the better it is for where they live. Cities are being closed simply because their inhabitants are taking testing procedures more seriously. Get a cough, have a test. Risk closing your town down. Get a cough, ignore the advice as you only have a cough and are 20 years old so most likely not going to get ill and your town stays open. There should be completely random testing done on a mass scale otherwise it's all completely pointless
Yes but he did ask you a general question. Were you surprised to find that 6 was the figure? I was. I thought it was about 500 a day. That's not offering an opinion on if 6 is too low to trigger a lockdown, it's just saying it's a figure that surprised me Also imo what got us into this mess was treating you a 20 year old athlete the same as an 80 year old with COPD and only advising the most vulnerable to take some responsibility for themselves and then forcing the 20 year old to stay at home. Had we forced the vulnerable to isolate and focused our energy and money into supporting them in doing so then tens of thousands of them would still be alive.
I was off for six weeks with suspected Covid-19. I had an anti-body test done turns out I didn't have Covid-19. Here lies the problem. Next time I develop a cough I'm going to be **** scared of incurring the wrath of the HR team. So I agree with your point regarding people getting tested. People are sick of lock down so are going to try and mask minor symptoms.
0.01% of the population - 1 in every 10,000 people - would be 33. I can't believe 1 in every 10,000 people falling ill on any given day is going to swamp the NHS is it - which was the stated purpose of the lockdown.
Anglesey had 175 cases in a population of ~70,000 last week after an outbreak at a meat-processing factory. They were seriously considering a local lockdown too.
How do these local lock downs work? If you say lived in Leicester but worked at Derby Hospital would you be able to still commute to work?
They've had 866 cases in 14 days, an average of 61 per day. It's a third of all Leicester cases in total. I'm confused about where the number of 6 sits within that. Genuinely confused, mind, not confused just for the sake of argument. I asked him how high should the number be before action should be taken. He said "More than 6". What a brilliant answer. 7 is more than six.
A negative anti-body test doesn't mean that you didn't have COVID-19, it means that you do not have the antibodies and are still susceptible to it. There is still a question over how long the immune response lasts. If you worked at an hospital, that would be essential travel and you could commute to work. If you work in Sports Direct, that is non-essential and they have to stay closed - as do pubs, cafes, etc.
Doncaster and Wakefield are two places being discussed for a local lockdown, I think I read last night. Barnsley wasn’t mentioned.
Fair point on the more than 6 thing. I'm also confused a bit with where 6 sits. I can see why that is important as that's what affects the NHS but I can also see why the larger pillar 2 number could be the important one as that is how many people in the community have it and are able to pass it on to someone who may die. For me it's clear that the vulnerable shouldn't be coming out of shielding.
Agreed. I think we can probably also agree that none of us on here are experts in this. We might be surprised about the things that are being done, but that doesn't make the actions wrong. I'd also remind people that while Leicester numbers may still feel low to some of us, the word "exponential" hasn't yet been removed from the dictionary. This thing always starts off small and if left unchecked, quickly becomes unmanageable. We seem to want to criticise the govt if they act too late, but also criticise them if they act too soon.
We like to criticise them over the care homes until it came out that the care homes were taking money in return for NHS Covid-19 patients and it was totally optional.