Is it time to move to a more localised approach to lockdown?

[Skymonster]

This is the case, yes.

But an increase in 'pillar 2' test positives isn't *necessarily* indicative of much at all. For example, if we're finding more asymptomatic or mild cases simply as a result of increased testing - then that doesn't appear to be a problem. The issue is if cases are resulting in more hospitalisation/ICU/death - and so far, there doesn't seem much evidence of that being the case in Leicester.

I thought the argument for lockdowns was that even asymptomatic and mild-case carriers could pass it on to others, increasing the spread and ultimately some will come into contact with and possibly infect more the more vulnerable.

 

[MikeWM]

I thought the argument for lockdowns was that even asymptomatic and mild-case carriers could pass it on to others, increasing the spread and ultimately some will come into contact with and possibly infect more the more vulnerable.

The rationale for lockdowns now seems to change to suit whatever purpose most suits the current politics - but leaving that aside, the argument above applies to the whole country, and will for evermore.

The question here is whether there is actually a large increase in Leicester, or whether more cases are being found because more testing is being done. I think we'd all agree there are going to be cases out there that aren't being caught by testing - if we do start catching them by ramping up testing in a specific area, is that necessarily a justification for such dramatic action?

 

[MikeWM]

From articles such as https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...irus-rate-children-caused-leicester-lockdown/ it appears that the rate of infection of children in Leicester is much higher than elsewhere and they may be acting as more of a vector for spreading.

But that doesn't tell us a lot, because the article also says

The huge rise in cases in Leicester led to mass testing of children under 18 on a scale that had not been seen in the UK.

So we don't know whether Leicester is unusual on that basis, or whether similar results would be seen if similar testing was taking place elsewhere.

 

[Taunton]

The issue with a government definition of "local" is they tend to follow things like council boundaries, which can be very arbitrary. Here in Canary Wharf for example we are regularly lumped together with the rest of Tower Hamlets council for all sorts of things, such as the council loving their label of "the most deprived borough in London". Canary Wharf (and the housing around it) deprived? Haha. There is very little interplay between the different areas, shop staff tend to be either very local or come from other boroughs, even in the social housing areas the population mix is quite different. But one could envisage issues in Whitechapel and Bethnal Green being used to lock down or stigmatise here. Meanwhile if there was a comparable issue in say Greenwich, physically nearer, which has a far greater interconnection and visits, it would be seen as somewhere separate.

Then there are the "local" decision makers and their agendas. Our council delights in nothing more than to spite the current government. This is not a one-sided political point for when political divisions between local and national governments have been reversed in the past, the same can be seen to have applied. It's a real shame it's continuing like this at such a time, but I guess people ingrained with a lifetime of political direction just can't change. I think it was Churchill who said "Never let a crisis go to waste".

 

[Scrotnig]

Whilst the Journalist's reporting may have been a load of bunkum, we can't actually draw any conclusions about case numbers from the data available, as discussed above. Anything published by the government with a geographic 'tag' is pillar 1 - ie samples taken from medical staff and those actually in hospital. The useful data is the pillar 2 data taken from the public in a wider setting but for which there is absolutely no information whatsoever released other than the number of positive tests detected in the previous 24 hours - no breakdown of when or where the sample was taken. The numbers such as Plymouth going from 1 case to 3, or Wiltshire recording an additional case are the blue bars from the tweet linked in post 100, the actual picture will be worse than data available to all bar the government themselves will show.

What concerns me deeply about all of this is that we now have a situation where the people of Leicester - which includes myself - are once again under house arrest. Except that unlike the first time when we could at least see figures for how well things are progressing, we now have no way of knowing what's going on.

When the review happens on 18th July, the government will say "sorry, things haven't improved enough, another three weeks", but we simply have to take their word for it. There will be no data available to justify their continued indefinite imprisonment of the city's residents.

It's terrifying, frankly.

 

[midland1]

I live and work in Wigston people come in to were I work from Blaby, Cosby, Enderby and near Kettering and I know of people going of out of the "red" zone to do other things so what I see a lot of people are just ignoring the lockdown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What concerns me deeply about all of this is that we now have a situation where the people of Leicester - which includes myself - are once again under house arrest.

Even more so than before, as the advice to Leicester doesn't include going out for exercise from what I can see?

 

[birchesgreen]

And very little warning that this local lockdown was coming, how can anyone plan anything now?

 

[midland1]

There are plenty of people exercising out from what I have seen some playing cricket on Knighton park about 2 hours ago.

 

[Smidster]

I live and work in Wigston people come in to were I work from Blaby, Cosby, Enderby and near Kettering and I know of people going of out of the "red" zone to do other things so what I see a lot of people are just ignoring the lockdown.

It is perhaps worth noting that as of now there is no legal force behind the Leicester lockdown - the regulations have not yet been updated (which will need to happen before Saturday to allow pubs etc to open)

It will be really interesting to see how it is addressed within those regs - though doubtless it will be as an emergency Statutory Instrument without any scrutiny.

PHE have published the data including the commercial testing - Leicester by far the area with the highest rates (150 per 100,000 with next highest being about 40) though some of that will be driven by increased testing.

 

[adc82140]

It's all driven by testing. Pick any city, anywhere in the country, do saturation testing and you could generate yourself a local lockdown.

 

[Scrotnig]

Even more so than before, as the advice to Leicester doesn't include going out for exercise from what I can see?

I think we can do that, indeed we can still do the 'single people can meet up with another household but only outside' thing, and I am pretty sure the 'meet up with up to six other people from one other household' (or whatever that rule was) still applies too. So I'm sure exercise is ok.

Let's put it this way - I'd like to see them try preventing it.

 

[sheff1]

I think we can do that, indeed we can still do the 'single people can meet up with another household but only outside' thing, and I am pretty sure the 'meet up with up to six other people from one other household' (or whatever that rule was) still applies too. So I'm sure exercise is ok.

Indeed, The legislation has not (yet) been changed.

 

[Scrotnig]

Indeed, The legislation has not (yet) been changed.

There is legislation coming, but it is only to mandate the closure of non-essential businesses, and to cover the non-opening of pubs and hospitality etc that were due to open on the 4th July.

 

[DB]

We won't get back to normal unless...

1. A vaccine
2. A treatment which brings deaths down to the level of winter flu

...is developed and implemented.

But it's quite posible that neither of these will ever happen. But having local 'lockdowns' jumping around the country just isn't workable either - and neither, at a national level, is indefinitely closing borders. New Zealand won't be able to keep it up long-term as they rely on international trade and tourism.

 

[DB]

I think we can do that, indeed we can still do the 'single people can meet up with another household but only outside' thing, and I am pretty sure the 'meet up with up to six other people from one other household' (or whatever that rule was) still applies too. So I'm sure exercise is ok.

Let's put it this way - I'd like to see them try preventing it.

Is it being followed? I'm not anywhere near that area, but where I am it's quite noticeable that compliance with the government stipulations is dropping all the time - people in houses nearby are having assorted visitors, larger groups of teenagers are hanging around together in the nearby park, etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

36 areas are considered at high risk of needing lock down. Without data there will be delay.

Except there won't be data as the contract to one provider says it doesn't have to be made public. Confirmed by a Minister.

https://twitter.com/justinmadders/status/1278257062561153024

"Not in the contract", the ultimate kop out! And it does make me even more suspicious about the data, especially given that other areas that might be facing lockdowns are being talked about in terms of numbers per 100,000 rather than exact numbers. Its almost as if they are projections rather than precise numbers, and if so projection modelling can be changed to suit.

I thought the argument for lockdowns was that even asymptomatic and mild-case carriers could pass it on to others, increasing the spread and ultimately some will come into contact with and possibly infect more the more vulnerable.

The primary reason for the lockdown was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. That goal was reached some time ago and since then the goal posts have been in constant movement.

What concerns me deeply about all of this is that we now have a situation where the people of Leicester - which includes myself - are once again under house arrest. Except that unlike the first time when we could at least see figures for how well things are progressing, we now have no way of knowing what's going on.

When the review happens on 18th July, the government will say "sorry, things haven't improved enough, another three weeks", but we simply have to take their word for it. There will be no data available to justify their continued indefinite imprisonment of the city's residents.

It's terrifying, frankly.

My home city Bradford is currently underneath the same threat, with only the vague xx per 100,000 figure being banded about. And the BBC yesterday seemed grimly determined to inflict it on us, constantly mentioning the city and when quoting the leader of the council, managing to omit that the figures had according to her (via an email to people in the city yesterday) been going down for the last two weeks. And at the risk of entering the realm of tinfoil-hattery, pretty much of the the boroughs that were "causing concern" were all Labour run councils even though there have been spikes elsewhere. Now I'm not saying that there is a chance that the government is using local lockdowns as a political weapon, but I'm thinking it loudly!

 

[yorkie]

Can we keep this to discussion of local lockdowns please.

(I removed the national Christmas lockdown proposal discussion; if anyone wishes to suggest it, feel free to create a new thread)

 

[317 forever]

It will be hard for Leicester having restrictions re-imposed while the rest of England is having some restrictions relaxed.

Maybe there could be criteria for local lockdowns eg R clearly above 1.0 and/or number of cases per 100,000 over 100.

 

[ainsworth74]

So the Regulations for Leicester have been published (find them here) I've had a skim through and most of it is sort of what you'd expect, though some aspects don't seem to be quite as severe as the original lockdown (for instance the concept of linked households still exists). However the thing that has taken me very much aback is that it appears that the regulations divide a couple of streets in half down the middle of the road. For instance in Schedule One, Part Two in Table Six we have the following addresses as being included in the "protected area":

20 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

22 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

24 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

26 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

28 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

30 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

32 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

34 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

36 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

38 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

40 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

42 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

44 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

​

(Extract from table six, the full list is longer)​

​

Now I've looked on street view at Laverton Road and whilst it's not complete (the estate seems to have still been being built at the time the Google car went around) and I couldn't make out any house numbers it's clearly a conventional road with houses on both side so unless I miss a trick if you're on one side of the road in even numbered properties you're included in the restrictions but just a few meters away on the other side of the same road you're not and are able to carry on as everyone else in England!

I'm very much open to correction on this because if I've not gotten the wrong on the stick this seems, to say the least, crackers...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

though some aspects don't seem to be quite as severe as the original lockdown (for instance the concept of linked households still exists)

It effectively puts Leicester back into the position the rest of England was in on 13 June, i.e. linked households ("bubbles") and car dealerships but not general retailers.

 

[BJames]

So the Regulations for Leicester have been published (find them here) I've had a skim through and most of it is sort of what you'd expect, though some aspects don't seem to be quite as severe as the original lockdown (for instance the concept of linked households still exists). However the thing that has taken me very much aback is that it appears that the regulations divide a couple of streets in half down the middle of the road. For instance in Schedule One, Part Two in Table Six we have the following addresses as being included in the "protected area":

20 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

22 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

24 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

26 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

28 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

30 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

32 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

34 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

36 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

38 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

40 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

42 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

44 LAVERTON ROAD LEICESTER LE5 1WJ​

​

(Extract from table six, the full list is longer)​

​

Now I've looked on street view at Laverton Road and whilst it's not complete (the estate seems to have still been being built at the time the Google car went around) and I couldn't make out any house numbers it's clearly a conventional road with houses on both side so unless I miss a trick if you're on one side of the road in even numbered properties you're included in the restrictions but just a few meters away on the other side of the same road you're not and are able to carry on as everyone else in England!

I'm very much open to correction on this because if I've not gotten the wrong on the stick this seems, to say the least, crackers...

I've had a look and I can't make out a single number either which is incredibly frustrating. But it's looking like you're right, and that this isn't the only place in Leicester with this problem. Have a look at this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-grove-coronavirus-cases-latest-a9598926.html

I won't quote it here as it's quite long but in case it's not accessible, it is split in exactly that way: one side of the road is in lockdown and the other isn't.

I saw a video from a bar manager somewhere near Leicester, who says that they're going to take people's addresses so that a) they can contact them by mail if their phone number doesn't work and b) so that if they're in the lockdown zone, they will be turned away. It is absolutely ludicrous that half of one street is allowed to resume their daily activities and the other half isn't. Looks like another failure to plan properly.

Not good for any future local lockdowns - more care needs to be taken than this.

 

[midland1]

I see on page 6 there is no restriction on movement other that not staying overnight, so if you want to go out for day you still can.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see on page 6 there is no restriction on movement other that not staying overnight, so if you want to go out for day you still can.

Which is a bit odd and not really a lockdown. Apparently, though, the Nottingham pubs are going to turn Leicestrians away.

 

[Scrotnig]

It effectively puts Leicester back into the position the rest of England was in on 13 June, i.e. linked households ("bubbles") and car dealerships but not general retailers.

Car dealerships here have been ordered to close.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Car dealerships here have been ordered to close.

No they haven't. Paragraph 58 of Part 3 of Schedule 3 of the Leicester Regulations exempts:

Showrooms and other premises, including outdoor areas, used for the sale or hire of caravans, boats, or any vehicles which can be propelled by mechanical means.

from having to close.

 

[sheff1]

I'm very much open to correction

You are entirely correct.

I saw a video from a bar manager somewhere near Leicester, who says that they're going to take people's addresses so that a) they can contact them by mail if their phone number doesn't work and b) so that if they're in the lockdown zone, they will be turned away.

There is no restriction on someone living in the lockdown zone travelling outside it, as long as they do not stay overnight.

A pub manager can, of course, refuse service to anyone as long as the refusal is not based on a protected characteristic (e.g. race, sexual orientation).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...so unless I miss a trick if you're on one side of the road in even numbered properties you're included in the restrictions but just a few meters away on the other side of the same road you're not and are able to carry on as everyone else in England!

I'm very much open to correction on this because if I've not gotten the wrong on the stick this seems, to say the least, crackers...

You are exactly right; the BBC were reporting on this on, I think, Wednesday evening in the main bulletin at 18.00 and they were reporting from within this actual road and pointing out exactly that - one side restricted, the other side not.

 

[yorksrob]

You are exactly right; the BBC were reporting on this on, I think, Wednesday evening in the main bulletin at 18.00 and they were reporting from within this actual road and pointing out exactly that - one side restricted, the other side not.

It reminds me of all those news reports at the time of the poll tax - "On this side of the street, residents will pay ten thousand pounds a year, whilst residents on the other side will only pay tuppence ha'penny and a turnip...etc"

 

[squizzler]

Every time I hear the phrase 'local lockdown' I can't help but to think of the old League of Gentlemen sketches. Maybe Royston Vasey will be subject of a local lockdown for local people!