StuartO Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 I read an article by a nurse who worked in Track & Trace who described the way lots of people avoided being notified to self-isolate if they didn't feel too ill and still wanted the freedom to go out or carry on working, regardless of the risk to others. Understandable that neither the politicians nor journalists want to risk making public statements which are critical of selfish behaviour but there does seem to be rather a lot of it about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 Difficult choices to be made if people have no money. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted December 17, 2020 Author Share Posted December 17, 2020 There was nothing in what I read to suggest it was behaviour forced by financial or other pressures, just unwillingness to be traced and told to self-isolate. Having previously been sent a text message with the positive result of their test result, lots were not answering phone calls or someone was claiming they weren't in or even pretending to be someone else or respoonding aggressively or with threats - and having been left a message to call back were then even blocking calls from that number to try to avoid further contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 If one looks at the wide disparity in the incidence of Covid around the country, one is tempted to wonder why. It seems logical enough that predominantly rural areas would have lower incidence than cities. Lower population density, with lower availability of public transport, vs high population density with plentiful public transport, for instance, just for starters. But then, one has the extraordinary surge that has taken place in north-east Kent, where Swale is the worst affected district. Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 150,082 • Density 1,000/sq mi (400/km2) • Ethnicity[1] 96.1% White 1.3% S.Asian 1.1% Black 1.0% Mixed Race Swale is currently at 783 cases per 100K. OTOH Sevenoaks, 25 miles west, and closer to London, is the least affected district Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 120,750 • Density 840/sq mi (330/km2) • Ethnicity 95.2% White 1.5% S.Asians 1.2% Black 1.2% Mixed Race Sevenoaks is currently at 285 per 100K, only just over 1/3 the Swale rate. No-one seems able/willing to explain how or why this gaping difference has arisen, yet I assume there must be sufficient information to be able to point to something as a reasonable cause. Or is this just due to this strange prevailing reluctance on the part of our politicians to highlight local human behaviour. If people mix, they spread the disease. Covid does not spread itself. So the numbers seem to indicate that people living in Swale, possibly only in parts of Swale, mix more than those in Sevenoaks. But is that because they are more cross-grained, and reject the advice not to mix, is it because they are less well housed (possible) than those in Sevenoaks, are they more dependent on attending their workplaces than those in Sevenoaks (possible), are they less inclined to stay off work when infected due to relative poverty (again, possible), or what? I just get this image of the three wise monkeys, not wanting to see, hear, or speak, the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-12-17 3:40 PM If one looks at the wide disparity in the incidence of Covid around the country, one is tempted to wonder why. It seems logical enough that predominantly rural areas would have lower incidence than cities. Lower population density, with lower availability of public transport, vs high population density with plentiful public transport, for instance, just for starters. But then, one has the extraordinary surge that has taken place in north-east Kent, where Swale is the worst affected district. Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 150,082 • Density 1,000/sq mi (400/km2) • Ethnicity[1] 96.1% White 1.3% S.Asian 1.1% Black 1.0% Mixed Race Swale is currently at 783 cases per 100K. OTOH Sevenoaks, 25 miles west, and closer to London, is the least affected district Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 120,750 • Density 840/sq mi (330/km2) • Ethnicity 95.2% White 1.5% S.Asians 1.2% Black 1.2% Mixed Race Sevenoaks is currently at 285 per 100K, only just over 1/3 the Swale rate. No-one seems able/willing to explain how or why this gaping difference has arisen, yet I assume there must be sufficient information to be able to point to something as a reasonable cause. Or is this just due to this strange prevailing reluctance on the part of our politicians to highlight local human behaviour. If people mix, they spread the disease. Covid does not spread itself. So the numbers seem to indicate that people living in Swale, possibly only in parts of Swale, mix more than those in Sevenoaks. But is that because they are more cross-grained, and reject the advice not to mix, is it because they are less well housed (possible) than those in Sevenoaks, are they more dependent on attending their workplaces than those in Sevenoaks (possible), are they less inclined to stay off work when infected due to relative poverty (again, possible), or what? I just get this image of the three wise monkeys, not wanting to see, hear, or speak, the truth. Does seem odd and I can't find much info as to why Swale has been hit so hard. There was this https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/coronavirus-infection-rate-rising-swale-4729682 but it doesn't seem to have the answers other than people being afraid to test incase they have to isolate and end up off work. This was an odd one on the news a couple of days ago. Some loony Romeo in Scotland pining for his girlfriend who lives on the Isle of Man, took a jetski trip over having never jetski'd before, thought it would only take 25 minutes but took four and half hours! He got banged up for a month courtesy of HMP Isle of Man who were not impressed! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-55280466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-12-17 3:40 PM If one looks at the wide disparity in the incidence of Covid around the country, one is tempted to wonder why. It seems logical enough that predominantly rural areas would have lower incidence than cities. Lower population density, with lower availability of public transport, vs high population density with plentiful public transport, for instance, just for starters. But then, one has the extraordinary surge that has taken place in north-east Kent, where Swale is the worst affected district. Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 150,082 • Density 1,000/sq mi (400/km2) • Ethnicity[1] 96.1% White 1.3% S.Asian 1.1% Black 1.0% Mixed Race Swale is currently at 783 cases per 100K. OTOH Sevenoaks, 25 miles west, and closer to London, is the least affected district Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 120,750 • Density 840/sq mi (330/km2) • Ethnicity 95.2% White 1.5% S.Asians 1.2% Black 1.2% Mixed Race Sevenoaks is currently at 285 per 100K, only just over 1/3 the Swale rate. No-one seems able/willing to explain how or why this gaping difference has arisen, yet I assume there must be sufficient information to be able to point to something as a reasonable cause. Or is this just due to this strange prevailing reluctance on the part of our politicians to highlight local human behaviour. If people mix, they spread the disease. Covid does not spread itself. So the numbers seem to indicate that people living in Swale, possibly only in parts of Swale, mix more than those in Sevenoaks. But is that because they are more cross-grained, and reject the advice not to mix, is it because they are less well housed (possible) than those in Sevenoaks, are they more dependent on attending their workplaces than those in Sevenoaks (possible), are they less inclined to stay off work when infected due to relative poverty (again, possible), or what? I just get this image of the three wise monkeys, not wanting to see, hear, or speak, the truth. 1000 per sq km though Brian with a population of 150000. Thats quite dense though isnt it? Well it is for up here. I dont know the area but its the south east. Dont people commute a lot, use public transport etc? Here our population is 32 per square KM and there is pretty much no public transport and from what I can gather cases are extremely low now but they never go high, they did in the towns of course in Durham county further north and they did in the south of Yorkshire but not so much in the North Yorkshire Dales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 https://covid-assets.joinzoe.com/latest/covid_symptom_study_report.pdf This is the report sent to the government. Its interesting to see the age groups of those reported with symptoms. Very few inthe 60 to 70 age groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 17, 2020 Share Posted December 17, 2020 Yes, but for contrast where we live is: Population (mid-2019 est.) • Total 103,268 • Density 920/sq mi (350/km2) • Ethnicity 97.9% White And although we're in a town, most of the district is rural. 110.4 cases per 100K. Quite a lot of commuters to London, although most who can will, I imagine, be working from home. That's the south-east for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 There is an on line calculator that will give the estimated date of your likely Covid 19 jab. Mine is likely to be Feb to March. So still quite a wait for most of the country even if it all goes to plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.