[quote LidlMiddleLover]@x2boys “ you mean like when the rest of the country locked down because the virus was rampant in London?
I'm not advocating for a lockdown ,but let's not pit areas against each other .”
No very different because people in London didn’t have the opportunity to have the vaccine then Now they have been offered and declined it in those areas wgere the Indian varient is now rampant Their choice but their consequences not for everyone else to have to lockdown to protect them[/quote]
Your argument makes no sense. Forget the vaccine. There was no need for the entire UK to go into the first lockdown when London did.
We had virtually zero cases in our area but we still had exactly the same lockdown conditions - when I say virtually zero, I mean that in our geographically very large rural main postcode area (35,000 residents!) we had between 5 and 20 cases per week over the 13 week period prior to July 4th when the first lockdown started to lift.
After that first national lockdown lifted and within 6 weeks we were back in almost total lockdown here due to a 'surge' in cases in a city 25 miles from us - we still had fewer than 30 cases per week or average - but we were left stuck indoors watching Londoners partying on the streets of Soho while their case rate was way in excess of ours.
It took intervention from councillors, and then MPs raising it in the Commons to get any movement for us.
And even then we were thrown back under the bus when some other Northern areas saw a surge later. Presumably because to the government the north is just some homogeneous inconsequential place that doesn't matter, so no point thinking about the details.