Why is the R rate in London...

Lower than the rest of the country?

The biggest city in Western Europe, one of the biggest cities in the world, a city where Covid-19 was rampant, that has suffered far more, and a much higher percentage amongst the population of, corona virus infections than anywhere else in the UK has an R rate less than half that of most other places.

It started there earlier and spread much faster because it's the main transport hub and because it's so densely populated, but it hasn't reached anywhere near the percentage of infections required for herd immunity. Yes, the rest of the the country is playing catch up, but London should not be slowing down its infection rate any faster than anywhere else with the relatively small percentage of infections it has had.

Had London locked down much more tightly than the rest of us then that would have made a difference, but the very nature of the city means the opposite is true. House prices in London prevent anyone on low to medium income from living in the city, yet the size of the place provides thousands of jobs to a commuting work force. The public transport system is streets ahead of anywhere else in the country, while the layout of the huge sprawling city, that has barely changed for centuries, the congestion charges and the price of parking makes driving impractical.

In Barnsley, like most provincial towns and cities across the country, some people get the bus, but many live close enough to their place of work to walk and loads of us drive. We naturally social distance without even trying. In London they're packed on to the tube and buses. The scenes we have all watched of London commuters simply are not replicated in most of the rest of the country. Yet the R rate has dropped far more substantially than anywhere else. From a point of more concentrated infection within the population. Many more people with the virus to pass it on with far less social distancing and the R rate falls lower than anywhere else. The same happened in New York. The number of infections reaches a certain level, way below that required for herd immunity, and the R rate begins to drop, while in other places with a lower percentage of infections under similar conditions, and more often conditions far less favourable to the spread of the virus, the R rate remains much higher.

Unless the number of infections in London was much larger than the figures suggest, getting close to that of herd immunity, or there is a large natural immunity amongst the population, then the models we have been shown and the reality of what has happened simply do not tally, and what we're seeing makes no sense. But sense is in the reality not a fabricated construct.

 

Maybe we don't know everything about the splead of this particlular disease yet? Wasn't there mention of it mutating to a weaker strain?

 

I do wonder what the psychological impact of seeing the 1st Nightingale hospital being erected in East London must have had on Londoners. It was massive and must have put the wind up them. Drove home the stay at home mantra I guess.

 

But it didn't. Look at the images from the tube stations etc they are absolutely rammed.

I don't believe for one minute that the r number is lower in London. What I do believe is that this lying government will use false figures to allow it's favoured London to have less restrictions than elsewhere

 

I don't believe that. Nor do I give any credence to the point about the London Nightingale Hospital, which suggests that Londoners were far more sensitive to the building of such a structure than the residents of other towns and cities, and anyway, as you pointed out, it didn't happen.

I believe there are huge gaps in our knowledge of the virus and our models of infection rates. Or maybe our testing accuracy. Whatever, it doesn't add up, but I don't put that down to manipulating the figures.

 

Maybe 5G kills it.

 

I’ve been wondering the same, can’t work it out. Asked my wife who is more clued up on this stuff than me and she has no idea either

 

If Its not manipulation of the figures it simply has to be that herd immunity works. I've read stories that many Londoners believe they had the virus in late January or early February if that's the case perhaps it was in England much sooner than anybody thought and cases and deaths were just put down to it's doppelganger flu. I don't believe it's mutated just there as that wouldnt explain its apparent eradication, surely it would just mean more strains with some being less serious.

If it is the case that London has developed a sort of herd immunity then it did so without overwhelming the NHS in the busiest city around and that's before lockdown too meaning all of these measures were not needed to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. That would certainly explain why so many people close to sage have ignored what the rest of us have had to endure. The prime minister, his top advisor, the health secretary, minister for patient safety, Scotland's chief medical advisor etc have all flouted the guidelines. The people with the most access to the stats

 

its certainly worth noting that many prominent people seem to be firmly using the one rule for us, one rule for you mentality.

I can’t believe the lockdown was anything other than vital however as the chancellor wouldn’t be paying everyone’s wages voluntarily if he didn’t need to surely?

 

They didn't want a lockdown remember. Their aim was herd immunity and lockdown was only brought in after intense media and public pressure

 

Herd immunity requires a hell of a lot of people to have been infected. 70 to 90 percent, depending on how contagious the virus is. The coronavirus appears to be extremely contagious (not on the same level as measles, but way higher than seasonal influenza), which suggests we require something on the upper end of that scale to achieve it. The best thing I've read on the subject https://ncase.me/covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR0tincdkOb_qFNCtu0VXFsKkMuyeOZ8yeMd_V-3KwpoZlF2dgLNCmJc5bk also states that without preventative measures (which weren't taken until much later) the population actually overshoots herd immunity, all of which would point to London requiring almost everyone to have contracted Covid-19 for herd immunity to be a factor. I don't buy that. And anyway, the R rate hasn't dropped to zero, it's just lower than elsewhere. There's something else. Or there isn't, and I don't understand it, which is probably true, but I haven't read anything that would help me understand it.

 

Even if herd immunity itself isn't fully achieved would the rate of transmission slow if more people are immune? So if 0% have had it the rate is highest, 25% it's lower, 50% even lower and so on? I'm not sure what constitutes herd immunity to be honest. Is it when the r number falls below 1 naturally or when the r number is 0?

 

All the pirates have left

 

That's what I'm trying to figure out. It would make sense that the more people who have had it, the slower the transmission rate, particularly as that gets towards herd immunity. However, they're still claiming the percentage of people infected in London is quite low, and the models predict that infections still grow exponentially even when 50% of people have contracted it.

Preventative measures stop that. We've taken them and, to a certain extent, they have worked. But there's no reason given the information and predictive models released why that should result in the city with the largest population and least social distancing reducing the R rate the most. There obviously is a reason, because it's happened, but it's not in the model.

 

true, I’d forgotten that the science suddenly changed, the same science that hasn’t changed in 100’s of years!

 

I live in zone 4. I imagine London has a greater share of people able to work from home than the rest of the country.
My entire company, for example, is working from home, and it is a very large, multi-national company that has the infrastructure in place. I really never need go into the office again.
Presumably London is more advanced in that regard than elsewhere in the country.

There'll be other reasons I'm sure, but just putting it out there.

 

.

 

I can't give you any figures, but I don't agree. You need a computer, a phone and Microsoft teams. My friend is an accountant at the council, which I believe is still the biggest employer in the borough, although that might have been surpassed by places like ASOS. The council have shut the whole building.

I still go into work. Because I solve problems on site. But the rest of the department is at home. I have entire office to myself and we converse through Teams.

And nowhere else in the country has had scenes like the footage of the London Underground we've all seen.

It's my opinion, it's not fact, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. No offence intended.

 

Its worth noting as well that while the r number was rising across the UK it was actually falling in London before lockdown even began so before people were told to work from home