Why is the North of England and Glasgow worse than London?

[ssd]

I think this thing travels north, so hopefully London is doing better than us up here as its maybe swept through London and is wrecking havoc up here now.

Or is that too simplistic?

Targeted testing

It isn’t a case of it can only affect a maximum number of places at once, like an army limited by a certain number of soldiers. It’s perfectly possible that havoc can be wreaked country wide at the same time. Numbers in cities in the south are also rising but from a low base.

I’m not sure what you’re asking really.

South numbers are creeping up. In a few weeks we may be right up there too.

My town hovered on 20 cases for 6-8 weeks in summer. Now is on 75 or so. I'm in a commuter town 20miles north of London. So I hope we have some level of immunity in the community but I doubt it will be enough to stop a second wave here.

Glasgow had an influx of students to uni which didn't help

This is completely unevidenced, but In my experience, massive cities like London are really just small well-stocked villages collected together - you don’t need to leave your village. Small cities like Leeds and Manchester function differently - there’s more movement between areas. There are food deserts in poorer parts and overall more reliance on single large shopping areas. I suspect that affects how much the virus spreads.

I think London is a few weeks behind at this point.

London cleared their first wave when things started opening up whereas areas like the north west never cleared their first wave when lockdown ended and cases were already rising when 'get back to the office' came in and 'eat out to get the virus'.

@kistanbul

This is completely unevidenced, but In my experience, massive cities like London are really just small well-stocked villages collected together - you don’t need to leave your village. Small cities like Leeds and Manchester function differently - there’s more movement between areas. There are food deserts in poorer parts and overall more reliance on single large shopping areas. I suspect that affects how much the virus spreads.

Yeah the cities up north (Leeds,, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle etc) are very converged around the city centres in terms of nightlife, visitors and tourism, landmarks and colleges and universities. Therefore it's around these areas where many of the huge spikes are.

The timing of the national lockdown was geared towards London, where cases were highest earliest in the first wave.

It was begun and lifted too early from a Northern perspective.

Now, some people are ignoring local restrictions because they're sick of being locked down, having endured months of lockdown in the spring before it was actually needed in the North.

Now, some people are ignoring local restrictions because they're sick of being locked down, having endured months of lockdown in the spring before it was actually needed in the North.

I think this is key. The lockdown happened when the north was weeks behind London, therefore when we had a national lockdown rates were relatively low. However, in parts of the north when lockdown eased into June/July the first wave was still bubbling away and as things opened up it was increasing more rapidly from July.

Things were still quiet/restricted enough to stop exponential growth but then once the schools and universities came back at the start of September cases quickly rose dramatically because there was enough infections in the community already for that to spread. Combined with people herded back to offices around the same time under government instruction.

Parts of the north have been screwed over massively by the government. A more localised approach would have helped in terms of devolving powers to local authorities, instead of being at the whims of the London-centric government.

On radio 4 last week the reasons given ref the north were larger households smaller homes and more people in customer facing jobs. I dont know why in Glasgow though.

On radio 4 last week the reasons given ref the north were larger households smaller homes and more people in customer facing jobs. I dont know why in Glasgow though.

I'm not sure I'd agree with this R4 perspective. I don't think the north has 'smaller homes' than somewhere like London - for the price of a decent detached house in many parts of the north, you'd only get a tiny flat in London. And are there really fewer people in customer-facing jobs in London? Think of London's plethora of shops, pubs, restaurants and hotels, the capacity it has for tourists who use service industries.

@kistanbul

This is completely unevidenced, but In my experience, massive cities like London are really just small well-stocked villages collected together - you don’t need to leave your village. Small cities like Leeds and Manchester function differently - there’s more movement between areas. There are food deserts in poorer parts and overall more reliance on single large shopping areas. I suspect that affects how much the virus spreads.

This sounds right to me too -- even more so now that so many Londoners are working from home.

My local area of London has one of the lowest rates of cases. I don't ever really need to leave it except to see friends, which isn't that often these days.

Yes that's true, the demographics of London make it unique

Small cities like Leeds and Manchester function differently

Leeds isn't far off Birmingham population wise

The "city areas" of Manchester and Leeds are the counties of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. About 5 or 6 million people all together. Next door to each other and densely populated. Not London no, but still big closely connected metropolitan areas all the same

It's interesting that the first outbreaks, aprt from Leicester, leading to local lockdowns were in these 2 counties but not in Manchester and Leeds (the actual cities) at first

I'm in the house with relatively low numbers compared to the north, but they have doubled in the last three weeks. Local lockdown restrictions supposedly haven't really helped the north, so those of us placed in a lower risk tier are probably going to see numbers continue to increase. I really hope what's put in the tier that the north will follow, really helps get those numbers down.

area, not house!!

But in Scotland's case NS decorates the virus as gone and yet it's spiked massively so the theory of lockdown lifting early doesn't ring true for Scotland as they seemly had nearly eradicated it.

Personally I thinks it's holidays returns late August that seeded the areas Same happened post feb when all the schools got back from sking.

The borough I live in in London has very high MC population so greater percentage will do jobs they can WFH. Low obesity and smoking rates. High mask wearing.

Compared to where I'm from in the north east, it's a very different demographic and easy to see NE being higher.

Re timing of lockdown.

National lockdown was too late for London - hence it suffering very high numbers ( as did some areas of the north west).

It’s generally thought the earlier you lockdown in the epidemic the better ( hence the studies showing how many more deaths the U.K. had than if it had locked down a week earlier). On that basis areas of the north should have seen numbers lower and more quickly. So I don’t think it’s to do with timing of lockdown.

There is a good question as to why even when locking down earlier certain areas of the north ( a massive place and with different populations!) didn’t get the numbers as low. Which may also explain why it’s been quicker to rise again. And to be clear I don’t mean that in a ‘blame the people that live there’ way.

It is also true that London numbers seem to be rising. So it may be London is simply a few weeks behind The mayor certainly wants London to go into more severe restrictions.

I think @kistanbul explains it well.
I live in London and didn't leave the walkable area around my 'village' for months. Was kind of easy as I avoided public transport, could walk to work and had enough food shopping options to go to.

My family are all in the North East. They all need to travel further for shopping etc.
I also think as PP have said, the national lockdown was too early for the north.

I work in a hospital and it was really kicking off in Feb/March.
By the time of the lockdown I could see how serious it was.
My parents were still a bit lax at the start because it didn't seem serious at home.

I hope for everyone's sake the whole country deals with this soon.
I want to visit my family!

The borough I live in in London has very high MC population so greater percentage will do jobs they can WFH. Low obesity and smoking rates.

But obesity and smoking status don’t affect infection rates? They impact severity, though I think for some reason smoking may be protective. So those two things presumably aren’t to blame for the different levels of positive tests?

Volume of ski trips per capita.

Can a great proportion of people WFH in London?? Are there more people working in manufacturing or service industries in the North?

@doadeer But Richmond now has the highest rate in London and this is the definition of a middle class borough?

I'm not sure - two London boroughs add up to the whole of Manchester, for example so the "village" thing doesn't necessarily add up. There are far fewer car owners in London too so if you can't walk or bike you will have to take public transport. Far greater working from home here, though? And we have got a higher rate of immune people from the first wave, so perhaps that also breaks the chains of transmission?