atypical_boro
Well-known member
The numbers in the South East, South West and London (largely just as densely populated) are so much lower than North West, North East & Yorkshire.
I know but I'm damn sure London and the South East is. I was talking about the 3 regions as a collective.The South west is not densely populated, major cities are Bristol and Bath. Many inhabitants are older and have been isolating, also may be a different make up of ethnicity than the hotspots and as such it may be easier to get the message across. Not trying to be prejudiced but just trying to point out a difference.
But is it THAT big a difference? Ok, so a few people are a bit fatter. But today there were over 100 deaths in those 3 northern regions, in those 3 southern regions, there was about 12.General health is worse in the north which may make a difference e.g. more overweight people (myself included!)
I just can't quite get my head around 7 deaths in London hospitals today and 57 deaths in the North West. Its a 700% increase.from the beeb:
Lesley Jones, Bury's head of public health, told Radio 4's PM programme there was "more vulnerability within our populations" with "higher levels of deprivation, more density, more people in exposed occupations".
Throughout the crisis, research from Public Health England (PHE) has highlighted that people living in deprived areas "have higher diagnosis rates and death rates than those living in less-deprived areas".
Deprivation is linked to serious health conditions and other issues such as overcrowded housing.
Looking at the local authorities on PHE's coronavirus "watchlist" at the end of September shows that a quarter of all these areas are ranked within the most deprived fifth in England. These areas are also more likely to have higher rates of coronavirus than the less-deprived areas within the "watchlist".
- Deprived areas hit twice as hard by coronavirus
- Which regions have been worst hit?
- Higher virus death rate in poorer areas - ONS
On population density, people in south-western and eastern England are more likely to live in rural areas or small rural towns. This means they are less likely to live in overcrowded housing, reducing the spread between households.
According to the 2011 Census, 35% of southerners (excluding London) lived in these areas, compared with 26% in the Midlands and 19% in the North.
Unsurprisingly, almost all Londoners fit within urban areas, which could help explain the surge in cases experienced at the beginning of the crisis.
Done a little bit of research;I know but I'm damn sure London and the South East is. I was talking about the 3 regions as a collective.
I'd also be amazed if SW was any less densely populated than the NE, as an aside.
Fair enough.Done a little bit of research;
Uk average persons per hectare 4.1
North East 3.0
South West 2.2
London 52.0
So while it isn't a significant difference it is lower
Fair enough.
Still doesn't explain the enormous deltas we're looking at though.
I mean London is getting a fraction of the deaths the NE is getting, and its population density is 52.
Fair enough. That's the best explanation I've known anyone come up with so far.The only thing I can think of is;
South west is very similar to East England very rural and escaped the virus in the first wave.
London and South East were hit hard during the first wave and may have built some immunity, also some of the older vunerable may have already passed away.
I am based in the South West and people are worried about the virus coming south, as it is slowly moving in our direction.
Sweden have actually recorded a similar number of deaths per capita to UK though. Though they've managed to do it without decimating their economy.Points to areas of depravation, not simply population density. Perhaps why Sweden's cities have done so well compared to UK cities of similar density, why Scandinavia on the whole had been fairly successful and Germany has coped better than the UK
Our country is battling its way down the league of how it's working class are treat. The contempt shown towards Manchester today highlights the problem.
Have you got the third quarter GDP for Sweden as they were hit badly in Q2?Sweden have actually recorded a similar number of deaths per capita to UK though. Though they've managed to do it without decimating their economy.
Ok, I will bell the cat.The only thing I can think of is;
South west is very similar to East England very rural and escaped the virus in the first wave.
London and South East were hit hard during the first wave and may have built some immunity, also some of the older vunerable may have already passed away.
I am based in the South West and people are worried about the virus coming south, as it is slowly moving in our direction.
I dont disagree, but there is some debate as to whether it is more likely that BAME people get the virus due to their ethnicity or due to their workplaces and/or residential situation.Ok, I will bell the cat.
Areas of social deprivation where the figures are the worst have huge ethnic populations.
Dont bother screaming racist at me.
Afro Caribbean and Asian people appear to be more susceptible to this virus.
The areas worst hit have immensely dense populations.
The South West can rest easy.