Possible 2nd lockdown for Leicester?

[Chrysalis]

On 14/07/2020 at 14:58, Leicester_Loyal said:

If anyone can get a test, even without symptoms, it's no wonder our cases are higher than the rest of the country.

Yet none of the media want to highlight this, its a facepalm moment, notice also they only putting effort to test people in the worst areas.

 

Its kind of like telling the disabled runner, every time he laps the field last he will have a new handicap introduced as long as he remains last.

[fox_favourite]

So, the places that are now classed as outside the zone...Birstall, glenfied, thurmaston are these restrictions lifted from now/sat or the 24th? I'm a little confused as he didn't actually give a date for this as.he said this in another part of the statement. Then I see parish councils and County saying different things. Why can't the government be clear. 

[FoxesDeb]

10 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

They high, but we are testing "LOTS" of people, they keep publishing cases per 100k population instead of cases per 100 tests.  Which makes it sound worse, as we testing more people.

 

Test more = find more.

 

Now I see glenfield and some other areas been removed, why?  This is looking more and more political, boundaries been set by the council someone lives under, my part of the city has lower case numbers, but because I am under a labour council I remein in lockdown.

 

Also how is it schools can reopen (high risk), shops can reopen (high risk), but travelling inside an enclosed vehicle is not allowed?

 

I have been in lockdown approaching 5 months.

Surely though the more tests, the smaller the percentage would be if there wasn’t a higher number of cases compared to other places? I thought the comparison to the 100k population was country wide? 

[FoxesDeb]

15 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

They high, but we are testing "LOTS" of people, they keep publishing cases per 100k population instead of cases per 100 tests.  Which makes it sound worse, as we testing more people.

 

Test more = find more.

 

Now I see glenfield and some other areas been removed, why?  This is looking more and more political, boundaries been set by the council someone lives under, my part of the city has lower case numbers, but because I am under a labour council I remein in lockdown.

 

Also how is it schools can reopen (high risk), shops can reopen (high risk), but travelling inside an enclosed vehicle is not allowed?

 

I have been in lockdown approaching 5 months.

I also don't understand your point about the Labour Council where you are, Oadby and Wigston are Conservative but still also under lockdown? 

[yorkie1999]

14 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

 

They high, but we are testing "LOTS" of people, they keep publishing cases per 100k population instead of cases per 100 tests.  Which makes it sound worse, as we testing more people.

 

Test more = find more.

 

Now I see glenfield and some other areas been removed, why?  This is looking more and more political, boundaries been set by the council someone lives under, my part of the city has lower case numbers, but because I am under a labour council I remein in lockdown.

 

Also how is it schools can reopen (high risk), shops can reopen (high risk), but travelling inside an enclosed vehicle is not allowed?

 

I have been in lockdown approaching 5 months.

Don’t forget though that the figures being reported are the figures for people who have it, or have had it. How many of those are actual deaths, because et the start it was all about the deaths, now it’s gone down to people catching it. We’re never going to be rid of it but I would have thought that .13% was more than manageable therefore, why the need for lockdown in Leicester

[Chrysalis]

On 14/07/2020 at 16:26, Legend_in_blue said:

The figures keep getting mentioned and the more they are, the less sense they make.

 

It's very easy to manipulate statistics to set the agenda.  This 126 per 100 000.  An outlier?  Seriously?  Around the country the next highest figures are around 50 per 100 000.  I'd call into question whether this is actually an outlier or just a simple miscalculation.  

 

Of course we'll never know.  As far as I'm aware we are not privy to sample sizes or how these figures per 100 000 are reached.  If we are, someone make it clear where this information can be obtained.

 

Back to this 100 000 figure for a moment and Oadby and Wigston.  Assuming all 8000 tests are carried out, in order to be at a level of 126 per 100 000, there would need to be 10 positive tests in 8000.  Assuming they scale it up to 100 000 for comparison purposes.

 

That's a factor of 12.5.  Again, statistically speaking, how accurate can this possibly be?  

 

In terms of going purely by figures, I don't see an end to this at all.

They now also using the criteria "above the national average"

 

Its kind of like expecting a dog to catch up with its own tail.

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Don’t forget though that the figures being reported are the figures for people who have it, or have had it. How many of those are actual deaths, because et the start it was all about the deaths, now it’s gone down to people catching it. We’re never going to be rid of it but I would have thought that .13% was more than manageable therefore, why the need for lockdown in Leicester

Social experiment.

[Chrysalis]

On 14/07/2020 at 20:57, orangecity23 said:

I can't think of anyone I'd trust less to do a full analysis of a set of numbers than Peter Soulsby. The sharp analytical mind that thought placing concrete blocks 10 ft apart on New Walk would deter cyclists, who pedal a vehicle approximately 1 foot wide.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-mayor-peter-soulsby-explains-2948619

 

He's claims that better stats would enable him to target prevention efforts better, but has he actually made any efforts to prevent the virus spreading? He seems to be devoting all his energy to setting up pop up cycle lanes, completing the worlds slowest window repair job at his girlfriend's house and doing an endless barage of public interviews claiming we don't have a problem in Leicester, lockdown's all politically motivated, and spreading the message that we shouldn't follow any of the rules, because **** it, the stats are rubbish and the rules are too confusing anyway, so why not just do whatever you feel like hey?

But you trust the government?

 

There is lots of data they are refusing to release, and its coincidental its a Labour stronghold i this lockdown.

 

There is no explanation given as to why they not taking into account the extra testing, also as to why they lock down an entire city yet only do this testing in parts of it.

[FoxesDeb]

5 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

But you trust the government?

 

There is lots of data they are refusing to release, and its coincidental its a Labour stronghold i this lockdown.

 

There is no explanation given as to why they not taking into account the extra testing, also as to why they lock down an entire city yet only do this testing in parts of it.

So again, how do you explain Oadby and Wigston? 

[yorkie1999]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So again, how do you explain Oadby and Wigston? 

Interbreeding

[orangecity23]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

But you trust the government?

 

There is lots of data they are refusing to release, and its coincidental its a Labour stronghold i this lockdown.

 

There is no explanation given as to why they not taking into account the extra testing, also as to why they lock down an entire city yet only do this testing in parts of it.

I don't the government much at all, but I'd sooner trust bodies like the ONS over Leicester City Council.

And after all the bloody fuss he made, his own map showed orange or peach spots (indicating 10% plus positive cases) dotted about the entire lockdown area. Yes most it is fine, but each bit of the zone had a dot that could lead to a wider outbreak in those areas. If Nadine Dorries is telling the truth (could be a big if) and Soulsby and Rushton drew the boundary, and he's spent 2 weeks complaining about a line he drew himself, then he really is a massive clown.

[Chrysalis]

On 14/07/2020 at 22:57, Fktf said:

Scientifically it's a nice problem, because this sort of blanket testing works against finding bad news. So if you do end up finding bad news, you know it really is bad news.

 

It'll take me a bit to explain.. 

 

They've identified we seem to have a high prevalence of the disease, but initially this was probably based on a limited amount of testing. As so say, more testing can only give you a more accurate picture of what's going on, so increasing testing is sensible. Let's work out if Leicester really has a problem..

 

Now, if we don't have that much of problem, when we ramp up testing we should see the case rate per 100000 decrease. If it doesn't (or goes up) it's bad news.

 

This is particularly the case when you start testing people with no symptoms. If there's not a problem, testing people with no symptoms should return a load of negative results, and the case rate decreases. If the case rate doesn't decrease when you blanket test people with no symptoms, it means you've got a bunch of people who have the virus without knowing it - the exact group that spread it so easily.

How about this.

 

Yellow area population.

Yellow area below red line, is infected people not tested, considered clean.  

Purple area below purple line people confirmed via pillar B tests

Black area confirmed via Pillar A tests

 

I suspect the truth is like my image portrays, basically infection rates only a bit higher in Leicester, but more of the unconfirmed cases becoming confirmed due to more testing.

 

 

[Chrysalis]

On 15/07/2020 at 01:53, WigstonWanderer said:

If I’ve understood @Fktf properly, the results are per 100k people tested, not per 100k population of the city. In this case the more you test the more you are testing people with no real symptoms that are therefore less likely to be positive. If you still have a high “hit” rate despite diluting the sample with those less likely to have the infection, then you know you have a genuine problem.

They per 100k population, I dont know what makes you think otherwise.

 

If you think I am wrong, read the report compiled by public health England, I put it in this very thread.

 

It shows graphs per population, and also shows graphs per test, on the per test Leicester is only about 20% worse, on the per population it skyrockets, and the author of the report even put in the notes the numbers per population are due to the testing.  I can relink the document if you cant find it, let me know.

 

But of course there is also the fact people without symptoms can get tested in Leicester, whilst you are required to have symptoms elsewhere.

Edited 16 July 2020 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

12 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So again, how do you explain Oadby and Wigston? 

They will be out of it on the next review probably. 

[Chrysalis]

9 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

I don't the government much at all, but I'd sooner trust bodies like the ONS over Leicester City Council.

And after all the bloody fuss he made, his own map showed orange or peach spots (indicating 10% plus positive cases) dotted about the entire lockdown area. Yes most it is fine, but each bit of the zone had a dot that could lead to a wider outbreak in those areas. If Nadine Dorries is telling the truth (could be a big if) and Soulsby and Rushton drew the boundary, and he's spent 2 weeks complaining about a line he drew himself, then he really is a massive clown.

Look at the map.

 

Yellow and orange dots near Glenfield which is coming out of lockdown.

Lots of orange and yellow on the eastern border.

Some orange dots outside the border.

 

If that was the criteria then most of the western side of city would be coming out of lockdown as well.

 

By the way where did you get this graph from as its shows the test counts, and can you get the same data for other cities?

[Chrysalis]

37 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

So, the places that are now classed as outside the zone...Birstall, glenfied, thurmaston are these restrictions lifted from now/sat or the 24th? I'm a little confused as he didn't actually give a date for this as.he said this in another part of the statement. Then I see parish councils and County saying different things. Why can't the government be clear. 

They will be outside of the boundary, then whatever restrictions are there no longer are applicable on the 24th.

[FoxesDeb]

9 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

They will be out of it on the next review probably. 

I meant how do you explain Oadby and Wigston still being under the extended lockdown given that they are Conservative, when your reasoning for Leicester still being under lockdown was because it is a Labour area? 

[orangecity23]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

Look at the map.

 

Yellow and orange dots near Glenfield which is coming out of lockdown.

Lots of orange and yellow on the eastern border.

Some orange dots outside the border.

 

If that was the criteria then most of the western side of city would be coming out of lockdown as well.

 

By the way where did you get this graph from as its shows the test counts, and can you get the same data for other cities?

Maps from the mercury, and data is 2 weeks old - from the councils own report. This is their "proof" the lockdown wasn't needed. It's the pre lockdown map. So if anything, the dots outside the city border and around Glenfield justify the original lockdown boundary.

Full report

https://www.leicester.gov.uk/media/186767/measuring-covid-19-in-leicester-15-july-2020.pdf

Don't know about other cities, but if this is Soulsby's "smoking gun" to prove the lockdown wasn't needed its not terribly persuasive. Seems to show a smattering of hospital admissions all over the city, and a long "tail" on the distribution of death and pillar one test positives. The conclusion the report seems to be drawing is that cases aren't spiralling upwards - but the counter to that is they've shown their not really falling away yet either.

 

If this is all politically motivated - then why Leicester? There's Labour strongholds all over the country in inner cities, so why is Leicester the only one chosen? The Tories big plan is to embarass Labour in a city where the chances of Labour losing an MP or even a single council seat is about zero? Just to spite Jon Ashworth?

[peach0000]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

I meant how do you explain Oadby and Wigston still being under the extended lockdown given that they are Conservative, when your reasoning for Leicester still being under lockdown was because it is a Labour area? 

Oadby and Wigston is a Lib Dem stronghold not tory. 24 out of the 26 seats on the council are Lib Dem.

Edited 16 July 2020 by peach0000

[Guest Fktf]

2 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

How about this.

 

Yellow area population.

Yellow area below red line, is infected people not tested, considered clean.  

Purple area below purple line people confirmed via pillar B tests

Black area confirmed via Pillar A tests

 

I suspect the truth is like my image portrays, basically infection rates only a bit higher in Leicester, but more of the unconfirmed cases becoming confirmed due to more testing.

 

 

I appreciate the effort. Genuinely. It's nice to talk about the substance of the matter. The bitch is that I'm colour blind! I think I can work out what you mean, though. The pillar 1 pillar 2 thing certainly does confound things. From your figures, I (think - based on the position of the lines not the colours!) will concede that a rise in diagnoses from pillar 2 testing can in part be attributed to increase in testing. 

 

The issue for me is that the proportion of positive returns (from all testing) is increasing (or at least it was in June) - which indicates an actual increase in cases, rather than an increase in testing due to an artefact of more testing. 

 

 

Edited 16 July 2020 by Fktf

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, orangecity23 said:

I don't the government much at all, but I'd sooner trust bodies like the ONS over Leicester City Council.

And after all the bloody fuss he made, his own map showed orange or peach spots (indicating 10% plus positive cases) dotted about the entire lockdown area. Yes most it is fine, but each bit of the zone had a dot that could lead to a wider outbreak in those areas. If Nadine Dorries is telling the truth (could be a big if) and Soulsby and Rushton drew the boundary, and he's spent 2 weeks complaining about a line he drew himself, then he really is a massive clown.

Very believable they may have drew the boundary but was the dataset there to give an informed view? 

[CosbehFox]

6 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

I see Birstall has had it's restrictions lifted, tbh I've always thought that was the root cause for the sour mood on the forum as opposed to anything City have shown on the pitch recently.

Well now everyone can relax. Come here, soak up the climate, marvel at our plethora of cosmopolitan bistros, bars and brasseries, and admire our bevy of sunkissed stunners in the jewel of LE4.

When you taking over the Stamford and turning into craft beer only? 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

When you taking over the Stamford and turning into craft beer only? 

 

Such a grim gaff - I give the White Horse a swerve these days in all, beer is shite. Selection not gonna bowl you over in The Plough either but it's well kept and makes it the only boozer in the village worth visiting which is incredible really given the size of the metropolis. Thank Christ it's the best served village for buses in the county.

[Samilktray]

24 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

Such a grim gaff - I give the White Horse a swerve these days in all, beer is shite. Selection not gonna bowl you over in The Plough either but it's well kept and makes it the only boozer in the village worth visiting which is incredible really given the size of the metropolis. Thank Christ it's the best served village for buses in the county.

Have you been to the beer pharmacy in syston? Bit of a weird gaff but the beer selection is very good 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

10 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Have you been to the beer pharmacy in syston? Bit of a weird gaff but the beer selection is very good 

 

Yeah mate had a look last year, seemed decent imqhõ - was ****ing heaving mind