It wouldn't make a significant difference either way. The important thing is having it in place once transmission is under control.
Shouldn't that be happening in the first week of lockdown, ie you go into lockdown and the only transmission is to people you're locked down with, then no more after that (assuming a perfectly-functioning lockdown).
It wouldn't make a significant difference either way. The important thing is having it in place once transmission is under control.
Shouldn't that be happening in the first week of lockdown, ie you go into lockdown and the only transmission is to people you're locked down with, then no more after that (assuming a perfectly-functioning lockdown).
I don't think it's perfectly functioning. How many millions are still going to work, for example?
Fascinating Sunday Times front page. Leads with the claim that grandees are wanting an end to lockdown and then proceeds to skewer them by describing them all as billionaire financier, millionaire banker and so on. Very unsubtly it plays on people’s suspicions that a lot of rich men want those less well off to put themselves at risk to save those fortunes.
Even after 15,000 returnees to the Republic from the murderous Cheltenham Festival?
Just done some insomniac number crunching on GB Vs Italy at local level. I wouldn't yet read much into RoI Vs NI.
So, Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in areas with higher, up to 4x, incidence than any single GB low level area - the hotspot area has drifted a bit west relative to the initial outbreak to incorporate Piedmont, Liguria and mostly exclude Veneto, whilst still centred on Lombardy and Northern Emilia. I think mostly regelects that Italy is further on, but some impact of how far local spread went before lockdown.
Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in low incidence areas (<100 cases per 100000, covering most areas south of Rome and none north). The equivalent UK cool spots in SW England, Fen counties and Highlands & (most) Islands, cover about 10% of the population.
Very low incidence areas (<50 per 100000) cover 10% of Italy, mainly south and west facing coast areas south of Rome. In the UK only Orkney, Western Isles and Rutland still showing at this level.
So, RoI Vs NI: areas South and SW of hot spots/cities, SW facing coasts and areas much further from large population centres could all.be relevant factors.
Comments
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-9-more-charter-flights-from-pakistan-to-return-thousands-of-stranded-brits
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/25/two-weeks-quarantine-travelling-uk/
So, Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in areas with higher, up to 4x, incidence than any single GB low level area - the hotspot area has drifted a bit west relative to the initial outbreak to incorporate Piedmont, Liguria and mostly exclude Veneto, whilst still centred on Lombardy and Northern Emilia. I think mostly regelects that Italy is further on, but some impact of how far local spread went before lockdown.
Italy has over 1/4 of its population living in low incidence areas (<100 cases per 100000, covering most areas south of Rome and none north). The equivalent UK cool spots in SW England, Fen counties and Highlands & (most) Islands, cover about 10% of the population.
Very low incidence areas (<50 per 100000) cover 10% of Italy, mainly south and west facing coast areas south of Rome. In the UK only Orkney, Western Isles and Rutland still showing at this level.
So, RoI Vs NI: areas South and SW of hot spots/cities, SW facing coasts and areas much further from large population centres could all.be relevant factors.