North East vs South East

Not so much a battle royale but Im perplexed by the comments being made by people both in the North East and the South East regarding this impending local lockdown (or rather enhance restrictions).

Whatever that idiot Hancock comes out with will be interesting to say the least. I'm struggling particularly with comments regarding the fact that 'Northerners' are at fault for being heavy drinkers and just going to pubs is the cause that our figures are high.or because people in the North East dont really care and think the rules never applied to them. Naive comments but these same people are ramming the beaches, filling the pubs, and enjoying restaurants in equal measure.
Add to that, the 'younger' population are flouting the rules like anyone else their age. So why on earth is the south east seemingly experiencing some of the lowest figures in the UK for infections?

Personally, from what I have personally seen in the North East, businesses, (Supermarkets, retail stores, bars and restaurants) have portrayed an example of what you should be doing. I have to say that Kent in general dont seem to give a f***.
Also loved the fact that SKY used Sunderland city centre as the likely 'epicentre' of all things COVID
 


If NE is complying with rules and SE is not, why are infectious rates rising in NE and not in SE
Could it be that as London and the SE was hit quite hard in the first wave, more people have had it so their level of herd immunity makes it more difficult to spread?
 
Could it be that as London and the SE was hit quite hard in the first wave, more people have had it so their level of herd immunity makes it more difficult to spread?
Doubt it. I’m sure the London boroughs with the highest rates were still only registering around 1 in 5 people as having already had it. ‘Herd immunity’ needs more like 3 or 4 in 5 across a population.
 
Doubt it. I’m sure the London boroughs with the highest rates were still only registering around 1 in 5 people as having already had it. ‘Herd immunity’ needs more like 3 or 4 in 5 across a population.
Yes, but it’s about the level of herd immunity really. Surely even only a small difference in the percentage of people who are now immune could have an impact.
 
How do you evidence something you cannot test?

I'm making assumptions that they are looking a the numbers of cases and then at the track and trace data (I know) to determine numbers and how/where people are catching the virus. Then I'm also assuming they're acting on the evidence they have before them.

I realise that given the evidence from the last 8 months this is wildly optimistic but I am a glass half full sort of person. :cool:
 
It can only be that people are behaving differently. As has been proven, the more poverty stricken places get hit hardest.

Several successive generations of lower educational attainment, poorer economic outlooks, poorer health outcomes, @Frijj will give me some stats but it’s no coincidence that the case increases are occurring the post industrial areas of the north and midlands.
 
I would guess that the affluent SE didn't need to take advantage of the Eat Out To Help Out scheme whereas areas of poverty and destitution, such as the NE did. Hence the rise in cases?
 
It's clear that the rona can't be contained. So what's the endgame?
Lockdown after lockdown waiting for a vaccine which may NEVER materialise?
That's not a strategy,- it's postponing the inevitable.
Time to stop this ridiculousness and have at it
 
Last edited:

Back
Top