Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Are the housing estate red zones from Years and Years going to become a reality.

42 replies

HeIenaDove · 27/05/2020 00:01

twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1265384406203719680?s=20

Cant see how this could be enforcable just based on income and housing tenure.

OP posts:
Sleepyblueocean · 27/05/2020 15:19

The article is confusing mixing those in close contact with those living within an area and saying both types with self isolate. Safeguarding reasons mean we will not be doing self isolating unless we have been in close contact with someone.

HeIenaDove · 27/05/2020 20:46

@LilacTree1

OP posts:
HeIenaDove · 28/05/2020 00:50

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-emergency-cash-poor-england-hotspots-conservatives-a9528371.html

Coronavirus: Poorer areas miss out as £100m of emergency cash diverted to richer Tory councils with lower infection rates
Exclusive: Anger as ministers strip out deprivation weighting from grants to ‘fight the pandemic’ – despite higher infection rates in poorer neighbourhoods

Poorer parts of England, many of them Covid-19 hotspots, have lost out on more than £100m of emergency cash, after ministers diverted it to richer – mostly Tory-run – areas, a new analysis suggests.

The government stripped deprivation out of its calculations, despite announcing plans for that switch had been shelved – and despite saying the money was to “fight the pandemic”.

As a result, Labour-run councils which lost big sums include Sunderland (£3m), Knowsley (£2.6m), Sheffield (£2m), Gateshead (£2m), South Tyneside (£2m) and Oldham (£1.1m).

All are among the 10 areas of England with the highest rates of coronavirus infections, according to official figures, and among the most deprived.

Yet, when the cash was announced, local government minister Simon Clarke said it was to recognise that councils are “the unsung heroes of the fight against Covid-19” and faced huge extra costs as a result.

It is intended to fund getting rough sleepers off the streets and domestic abuse victims into safe accommodation, as well as to help manage funerals and bolster frontline services; all tasks more onerous in deprived areas with more virus cases.

The biggest losses in percentage terms were suffered by Knowsley (38.8 per cent), Blackpool (37.4 per cent), South Tyneside (32.8 per cent) and Liverpool (32 per cent), according to the Labour analysis seen by The Independent.

All are among the five poorest council areas, according to the government’s official index of multiple deprivation, except South Tyneside, which is 22nd
In stark contrast, the 10 richest areas all enjoyed huge boosts in funding, including (Wokingham £2.2m, 83 per cent), Buckinghamshire (£4.3m, 41 per cent), Windsor and Maidenhead (£1.7m, 39 per cent), Surrey (£8.1m, 32 per cent) and Oxfordshire (£4.7m, 32 per cent). All have Conservative-controlled councils.

The Labour analysis follows a study by the Health Foundation finding that the risk of dying from coronavirus is more than twice as great in the most deprived areas of England as in the least.

Steve Reed, the shadow local government secretary, condemned the way funds had been allocated after ministers “promised to fund ‘whatever it takes’ to get communities through this pandemic”.

Now the government is cutting emergency funding for areas with the highest rates of Covid-19 infection and diverting it to areas that are suffering less,” he told The Independent.

“This money was earmarked for fighting Covid-19, so it must go to the communities that need it the most. Emergency funding should go to areas with the highest rates of infection.”

Steve Rotheram, mayor of the Liverpool city region, said its authorities believed ministers had “pulled the rug from under them”, after promising they would receive “whatever it takes”.

“Now it’s ‘take whatever you are given’ and it’s noticeable that it’s Labour areas that have missed out in the second tranche,” he protested.

“It is disgraceful if funding is being allocated in that partisan way, after what ministers said about putting away party-political squabbles in a time of national crisis.”

In total, more than £100m was diverted from councils in the bottom half of the deprivation index, when £1.6bn of emergency grants were announced in late April, according to the Labour analysis.

That is the difference from the allocations to each town hall from the first £1.6bn pot, handed out in March, which did include deprivation in the weightings.
The second £1.6bn tranche was awarded on a per-capita basis, raising fears in town halls – which still face an estimated £10bn black hole because of coronavirus costs – that the method will be used for future allocations.

The future downgrading of deprivation was signalled in the so-called fair funding review which began under Theresa May and triggered loud protests.

However, it is supposed to be on hold, until April 2022, after poorer areas that delivered Boris Johnson’s general election triumph were among those facing big cuts.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We’re providing councils with an unprecedented £3.2bn in the fairest way possible and giving them the resources to tackle the immediate pressures they have told us they’re facing.

The two tranches of funding were allocated in different ways because they address different needs, but should be considered together as the true picture of this additional support.”

OP posts:
HeIenaDove · 30/05/2020 02:09

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/the-housing-pandemic-four-graphs-showing-the-link-between-covid-19-deaths-and-the-housing-crisis-66562

The housing pandemic: four graphs showing the link between COVID-19 deaths and the housing crisis
INSIGHT
29/05/20
7:00 AM
BY NATHANIEL BARKER
Is poor housing a factor in the COVID-19 pandemic? Nathaniel Barker crunches the numbers to find out.

t has been widely recognised for years that housing is a public health issue.

Live in poor-quality, cramped, unsuitable accommodation and you are more likely to suffer from a wide range of illnesses, such as cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

In 2015, the Building Research Establishment estimated that poor housing costs the NHS at least £1.4bn a year. Yet, despite the growing body of evidence, the disconnect between housing policy and health policy remains steadfast.

Now, the coronavirus pandemic – described by prime minister Boris Johnson as “the worst public health crisis for a generation” – has thrown the problems into sharp relief. With more than 37,000 people having lost their lives to COVID-19, the UK has the highest number of deaths in Europe and second-most globally.

While a myriad of factors have contributed to the high number of deaths, housing conditions are likely to have played a key part. At the start of the month, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) released shocking figures showing that poorer areas of the country have significantly higher coronavirus mortality rates

Through exclusive analysis, Inside Housing has delved into the issue further to highlight how the housing crisis may be a major driving factor in this worrying trend.

The contagiousness of the disease has been one of the most worrying characteristics of COVID-19. If people are close together for long periods of time, the risk of spreading or catching the disease increases drastically. Overcrowded living conditions are therefore the perfect environment for the virus to spread.

Graph one shows the age-related COVID-19 mortality rates in each council area across England and Wales plotted against levels of housing overcrowding. Mortality rates (deaths involving coronavirus per 100,000 people) are taken from the ONS’ data and capture the period between 1 March and 17 April.

Overcrowding data is based on 2014 analysis by the ONS on data gathered through the 2011 census. Obviously, the figures are likely to have changed in the past nine years, although these remain the most up-to-date authoritative statistics on overcrowding at a local level.

An overcrowded home is defined as one with one or more fewer bedrooms than required by the household according to the government’s bedroom standard. Here, levels of overcrowded homes are presented as a percentage of all homes in the area

As graph one (above) shows, the correlation is stark. It strongly indicates that areas with more overcrowded housing have been worst hit by coronavirus.

Out in the top right corner – with the highest COVID-19 death rate (144.3 deaths per 100,00) and the biggest housing overcrowding problem (25.2% of homes are overcrowded) – is Newham in east London.

John Gray, lead member for housing services at Newham Council, thinks that is no coincidence. “This is a housing disease,” he tells Inside Housing.

The council is currently working on a combined health and housing strategy in response to crisis’ terrible impact on the borough.

“There are plausible reasons why overcrowding could contribute to the transmission of the virus,” says Adam Tinson, a senior analyst at The Health Foundation. “It makes it quite hard to self-isolate if you do have symptoms. People on low incomes are also more likely to be overcrowded with a person over 75 or with an underlying health condition

There is a distinct London focus to the overcrowding problem. Of the 30 areas with the highest percentages of households living in overcrowded conditions, 26 are in London. Part of that can likely be explained by the acute affordable housing shortages in the city.

Incidentally, then-London mayor Mr Johnson introduced a target in 2010 to halve severe overcrowding in social rented housing by 2016. Despite some initial progress, overcrowding in London only fell from 16.7% in 2010/11 to 13.8% by 2016/17. The problem has worsened since.

The ONS has also confirmed that people from BME backgrounds are hugely over-represented among victims of coronavirus. Overcrowded housing conditions may be partly behind this worrying trend.

According to the English Housing Survey, while around 2% of white British households experience overcrowding, 30% of Bangladeshi households are affected – as well as 16% of Pakistani households and 15% of black African households.

Many overcrowded households will likely be living in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) – homes that are rented to five or more people not from the same family with shared bathroom and kitchen facilities.

The chart above shows COVID-19 mortality rates in England plotted against councils’ estimates of how many HMOs are in their area according to the 2018/19 Local Authority Housing Statistics (LAHS) published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Inside Housing has presented the figure as the rate of HMOs per 100,000 dwellings in the area, per MHCLG statistics.

HMOs, usually run by private landlords, are often the cheapest way of renting and so are common in places with housing affordability issues. They are also sometimes associated with cramped and sub-standard conditions. The scatter is wider, although the graph indicates a link between HMO prevalence and COVID-19 death rates across local authorities

The chart above shows the same COVID-19 mortality rates data used in the two previous graphs, broken down by proportions of homeless households in temporary accommodation across England as of 31 December 2019, according to MHCLG figures.

For instance, among local authorities where less than one household per 100,000 is in temporary accommodation, the average coronavirus death rate per 100,000 people is 27.4. But for areas where more than 15 households per 100,000 are in temporary accommodation, the average death rate is 102.9. Again, Newham has the highest temporary accommodation rate in the country, at 46 households per 100,000.

The graph indicates a clear link between areas where the council is struggling most to source adequate permanent housing for everyone that needs it and those where most people are dying from coronavirus.

Graph four (above) presents this concept in a slightly different way, mapping the COVID-19 data against areas with the acutest shortages of social housing.

We have calculated social housing shortages by dividing the number of households on each council’s housing waiting list per the 2018/19 LAHS by MHCLG data showing the number of social housing lettings in each area in the same year. Newham, where there are 35.6 households on the waiting list per letting, tops this list as well.

Those languishing on the waiting list are likely to be in homes unsuitable for their needs in some way – perhaps too small, affected by issues such as damp and disrepair, or inappropriate for someone who has a disability.

“We’ve got to get our act together, especially Newham in the context of worst age-related mortality rates in the country,” says Mr Gray. “Housing is definitely linked to that fact

Consider too the secondary potential health emergency which has emerged from measures imposed to limit infections. “Poor-quality housing and overcrowding are almost certainly contributing to poor mental health during the lockdown,” says Mr Tinson. “The nature of housing in the UK is making it a lot harder for people to cope with this scenario.”

Once the pandemic eventually subsides, work to evaluate how we avoid a similar crisis in future may begin in earnest. Clearly, this analysis does not tell the full story of coronavirus, since the prevalence of underlying health conditions, concentrations of care homes and types of industry are all significant factors in the areas that have been hardest hit.

However, there is evidence that our failure to get to grips with the housing crisis has helped make our society vulnerable to coronavirus. If the pandemic is not the wake-up call policymakers need to ensure our homes and health are treated as intrinsically linked, then nothing will be

OP posts:
HeIenaDove · 30/05/2020 02:11

Author of that article also has the graphs on his Twitter

twitter.com/NatBarkerIH/status/1266277319066304517?s=20

OP posts:
CayrolBaaaskin · 30/05/2020 02:14

Wow nothing better than some copy and pasting of an irrelevant article. Way to ad value...

HeIenaDove · 30/05/2020 02:20

Yes you often find that an article about housing placed into a thread that has housing in the title is totes irrelevant.

OP posts:
OP posts:
EmperorCovidula · 08/06/2020 04:08

Even a national lockdown was easy to evade. In order for this to work they will need police guarding every exit and no permissible reasons to leave unless you’re leaving in an ambulance.

HeIenaDove · 11/06/2020 15:54

Contact tracing app doesnt work in tower blocks.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-nhs-test-trace-app-matt-hancock-london-assembly-tower-block-a9560451.html

OP posts:
OP posts:
HeIenaDove · 04/10/2020 17:54

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-wealthy-areas-avoid-government-labour-tory-b781344.html

The government has been accused of sparing wealthy and Tory voting areas from local coronavirus lockdowns, while poorer areas of the country with comparatively lower infection rates face tougher restrictions.

Some constituencies in the so-called red wall that switched from Labour to the Tories at the last election have not faced curbs on movement despite recording an increase in cases sufficient to trigger restrictions in Labour-voting areas in the region.

The red-to-blue swing seats of Wakefield in West Yorkshire, with 73 cases of coronavirus per 100,000 population, and Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, with a rate of 112, are both free of additional measures, for example

But Greater Manchester, home to a swathe of Labour seats, had an average rate of almost 24 per 100,000 when lockdown was introduced earlier in the summer.

According to an email published by The Sunday Times, Professor Dominic Harrison, director of public health for Blackburn with Darwen, wrote to ministers last week warning that “more economically challenged boroughs [were] being placed into more restrictive control measures at an earlier point in their ... case rate trajectory.”

He said that had the effect of “exacerbating the economic inequality impacts of the virus...giving an economic ‘double whammy’ to more challenged areas.”

Professor Harrison was responding to figures that showed the government first imposed restrictions on Blackburn with Darwen - one of the poorest areas in the country - when their weekly Covid-19 rate passed 60 cases per 100,000.

Seats represented by the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, have rates of infection of 73 and 84 respectively but have avoided lockdowns. Those figures compare with a national rate across England of 28.

“Are you more likely to have social lockdowns earlier and for longer and at a lower confirmed case rate if you are a northern, less wealthy, non conservative voting #localgov area?” Professor Harrison tweeted. “Check the data...”

Jim Shorrock, a former Labour mayor of Blackburn with Darwen, said the figures were “confirmation of what some of us have thought for some time”.

Labour said the data raised questions as to why those living in parts of the Midlands and the north were “having to face restrictions when other parts of the country that have seen infections rise are not”.

Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "Because there is no clear guidelines as to why an area goes into restrictions and how an area comes out of restrictions then there is a suspicion that there is political interference - I hope there isn't.

"But until the government publish clear guidelines, that suspicion will always linger."

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson told The Independent the Covid-19 incidence rate was “only one of a set of considerations regarding when it is appropriate to impose and release restrictions”.

The spokesperson said: “Decisions are made in close consultation with local leaders and public health experts, informed by the latest evidence from the JBC (Joint Biosecurity Centre) and NHS Test and Trace, PHE and the Chief Medical Officer for England.

“While we recognise how much of an imposition these measures are, they are based on the latest scientific evidence in order to suppress the virus and protect us all while doing everything possible to support the economy.

“We continue to work closely with local authorities and health protection teams and announced £7m funding to support them during this period of further restrictions.”

OP posts:
sanityisamyth · 16/04/2021 03:16

Why have you woken up your own zombie thread?

MercyBooth · 16/04/2021 03:19

I would have thought that was obvious

savethegrannies · 16/04/2021 03:33

...

Are  the   housing estate  red zones  from  Years  and Years   going to become  a reality.
Cornettoninja · 16/04/2021 07:50

@MercyBooth

I would have thought that was obvious
From an article behind a paywall? Not really.
New posts on this thread. Refresh page