Luckily as yet we’re not on the list of 36 areas where it’s increasing, Wakey, Donny and York are mind.
As far as I see it the government are doing this for 2 main reasons: 1. To test how a local lockdown will work, as no one seems to know & no one knows what best practice may be. Leicester having a high level of cases compared to elsewhere & being a decent size city may just be unlucky to be the test case. 2. To send a message out that whilst things are being relaxed, they can be tightened up if the local population is vigilant. These are decisions made by politicians remember. The scientists really know very little about COVID-19 transmission as yet in any country, even ones that have handled it a darn sight better than we have & can only give advice.
Spot on. They still don't know why you and me could be coughed on and you die and I live or vice versa. They're telling us to wear face masks yet if the mask gets infected it exposes you to a prolonged dose of the virus when you could have had a mild dose. They're doing this knowing it's length of exposure that proves fatal.
They said they were putting a shield around the NHS and care homes etc so if that’s the case as you say then they should have seen what the care homes management were doing and acted . The fact they didn’t says they didn’t know what they were doing which we all suspected anyway . I’m not convinced all care homes acted in the way you are implying tbh , the system didn’t allow them to refuse patients at some care homes . I think the inquiry will paint a different picture from the narrative of what you believe the Govt did tbh .
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11995540/leicester-lockdown-other-vulnerable-towns/ Barnsley being looked at as it's got a third of the Leicester cases per 100k.
I suspect that like Leicester, they don't know for sure that any single factor causes it. But what strikes me is that it's difficult to take the wider BMBC area as one homogenous district, although that may not matter in the eyes of the authorities.
Our estates been out of lockdown for weeks, kids are at each others house and the street looks like a normal 6 wks hols.
So what was Keir Starmer referring to in PMQ's? People quoting 6 or 7 cases yet Labour are saying the government have failed again for not locking it down a week earlier?? Some different figures being quoted. Didn't Starmer mention a figure of 900 for Leicester today in PMQ's but that was just from an ONS survey not official stats. No idea what the real number is have we..
It's the difference between Pillar 1 cases (tests carried out in hospitals) and Pillar 2 cases (all other tests). That's what I think he means. As in the government have been saying look how well we've been doing here are the numbers. When really they were just the figures for tests carried on out in hospitals and not covering them all. I think.
Clear as mud then.. I think one answer to preventing a second wave and loads of places being locked down is even more localised.. Just from a mindset view, if I were to log on to a stats page and see that in my local area in Barnsley there are so many confirmed cases or another area in Barnsley etc.. I would avoid that area more vigilantly.. Would be really helpful.. Ie Wombwell has 500 cases, don't go near there or form social bubbles.. Recommend locking that smaller area down and it's residents. Leicester is a big place, more localised stats would have been helpful.
I don't live that side of town but Wombwell isn't that bad really. I mean Wombwell has.....errr.. Ah yeah ok.. I agree.
I don't know why Doncaster was mentioned, it was, and continues to be well below the national average....also the Doncaster figures appear worse than they really are because there are a number of DN postcodes that are outside the Borough. https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.u...-cases-after-fears-local-lockdown-2899471?amp