London in Tier 2, Whole of North East Tier 3

Enough is enough
 

Attachments

  • 9B71CBBC-5AA1-42FD-9A7C-A6B84FEFC176.jpeg
    9B71CBBC-5AA1-42FD-9A7C-A6B84FEFC176.jpeg
    384.4 KB · Views: 76
I'd love someone to explain scientifically how London cases manage to stay so comparatively low.
It's not low all over London but it is, comparatively, over a lot of it. All I can offer is a couple of things I've heard. Firstly, more people are able to work from home in London because of the nature of what they do. I don't know how true that is. Secondly, I heard somewhere that something like 18% of people in London have already had the virus compared to 9% elsewhere.
 
💷💷💷💷💷💷

Lockdowns work don't they? It's what we keep been told yet the area is still in lockdown.
So Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds, all of the Tees Valley 'city region', Sheffield, Hull, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, Grimsby, Manchester/Lancashire (and all surrounding), Birmingham/Coventry (and all surrounding), Bristol and the Potteries are all in tier 3.

Liverpool has come out of tier 3 due to longer restrictions and rapid testing.

London, by far the biggest and most densely populated city, has not once been in the top tier. I'm genuinely just questioning how its even possible, when most people use public transport too.
 
It's not low all over London but it is, comparatively, over a lot of it. All I can offer is a couple of things I've heard. Firstly, more people are able to work from home in London because of the nature of what they do. I don't know how true that is. Secondly, I heard somewhere that something like 18% of people in London have already had the virus compared to 9% elsewhere.
Ok, well that might explain it to a point. But I'd actually be surprised that across the whole population of London there is a higher proportion of home workers. Yes so they have loads of 'office types' but they also have **** loads of cleaners, and newsagents, and fast food shops and whatever else.

Havering has 360 cases per 100,000 yet avoids tier 3.
 
Back
Top