London moving to Tier 2 from midnight on Friday

Many news outlets are reporting that London will move to Tier 2 in the Covid alert levels as of midnight on Friday. Local MP Ellie Reeves has been briefed and tweeted the news with a handy link to the BBC article that describes a little about what this means:

From the Beeb article, this entails the following restrictions:

Let’s hope this helps to slow the spread of Covid-19.


Pity. All the SE London boroughs seem to have relatively low levels of infection. The problem areas are in the north and west.


I noticed that. It would be interesting to know why this is. Maybe the lack of tube is a factor?


Might population density and extent of overcrowding be factors?

1 Like

The BBC have a nice infographic showing the distribution you point out:

Given the rate of increase and mobility between boroughs, I guess it could all get worse quite quickly, so we’re all in this Tier 2 together.


Are these positive tests? Zoe estimated cases doesn’t show the same pattern.

Oh indeed. It seems unfair on those of us in lower areas but treating London as a whole is the only way to do it.


Good question @Beige!

Noting that the BBC took the data from the gov website, I found this as a much better described map, showing the same tend with a bit more explanation and better resolution (but also some omitted areas!?):

Of course you are not wrong :slight_smile:. The Zoe data does look different. From :

1 Like

As if anyone is going to follow such unjustifiable rules. It’s time to push back

The number of Covid-related deaths in England for the week 7-14 October involving individuals under 60 and free from an existing medical condition was … zero.

Source: NHS England LINKS 7th October data:… 14th October data:…

Here is the argument for a more targeted approach, which protects the genuinely vulnerable, if they so choose, while letting everyone else go about their normal lives and business. We cannot go on like this. Enough. Let’s find our backbone.

As posted in the other thread, a “targeted approach” doesnt work in practice. People dont abide by the rules and the vulnerable die.

Here is the post I made in another thread pointing out a couple of examples that would make it extremely difficult to enforce this protection:

One thing you have failed to understand that Covid is not just about living and dying. Thousands of people under 60 have had serious problems, that although may not have led to death, that have forced them into hospital. Hospitals are already nearing capacity, in Liverpool they have said that all ICUs in the city area are at 90% capacity. Imagine what letting the virus roam free would do to these hospitals. The health system would collapse.

Here is a great counter argument piece that I would recommend reading (dont be put off about the title being about the US):


It is but then there are people like myself who live here but have to work in an area with a higher rate with colleagues who also travel in from other areas (like tower hamlets hackney and ealing that all have a higher rate than Lewisham)

1 Like

Covid has a 99%+ survival rate, and has killed fewer people than flu every week since June.

Hospitals are not at capacity at all. It’s disgraceful - A friend works for NHS trust - their area is now in Tier 2 - they have 9 covid patients. Their friend works for NHS trust in adjacent borough - also put into Tier 2 - that hospital has 2 covid patients . We are being taken for fools…

Lockdowns make no difference to the virus, but they destroy lives, livelihoods and kill thousands.

Yet the entire country is now either an open prison or a high security prison.

Well done. I guess you have a safe and secure job.


Genuine question I never hear discussed:

IF the virus does spread to such an extent (either because we give up or fail at trying to stop it) and we end up with more people requiring hospital care that the NHS is able to provide to and they are forced to somehow triage / deny care to large numbers of people would that outcome be acceptable to the anti-lockdowners? (Can I define acceptable to be that the the risk was worth taking).

Aside, isn’t the risk of this ‘collapse’ the dominant public health / political argument (as opposed to recent death numbers, age and health of dead)?


Even the WHO’s special envoy on Covid-19, Dr David Nabarro​, has recently said that lockdowns should only be used to buy authorities time to set up systems that allow society to live with the virus. ‘We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method’.

1 Like

Nabarro notes that the ‘middle way’ (an idea of medium term alternative to lockdowns) proposed requires a “remarkable degree of engagement by the people”.

It comprises physical distancing, mask-wearing, testing and contact tracing and isolation.

I hope we manage a better stab at this the next time around:


You can find opinions from medical professionals and politicians to support either side of the debate. Suddenly everyone is an expert! You make the point about hospitals not being overwhelmed - surely that is just a matter of time. The absolute number of people dying is still ‘relatively’ low compared to April at its peak, so what is happening right this very minute is irrelevant. In the end, no one definitively knows the right answer as although it feels like we’ve been living with covid for a long time, we haven’t and there is still a lot to learn.


It absolutely has not killed fewer people than flu.

Please stop spreading disinformation and encouraging people to not take it seriously. That will destroy lives and livelihoods.


I think I would trust the mayor of Liverpool over “your friend”:

(Apologies it was 80% not 90%)

Would be interesting to see your source on it “has killed fewer people than flu every week since June”. As you can see in the post above showing figures from the ONS that is factually incorrect. Is that something you could share?

Whilst lockdowns might not be the answer at least it puts rules/regulations in place to try and force people to abide by the social distancing that they seem to forget about almost instantly after the restrictions were lifted in the summer. Again as your video points out, the only way to avoid lockdowns and extremely high number of deaths is for the general population to be engaged with the new way of thinking. Which we have tried, and failed at.


There are in fact fewer ICU beds are occupied than last year

On paper the 95 per cent statistic, revealed earlier this week by Liverpool city councillor Paul Brant, conjures up a disturbing image of overflowing hospitals and inadequate care.

So rest assured that it bears no relation to reality. Indeed on Thursday, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust dismissed Mr Brant’s claim, insisting that its units were only 80 per cent full with just 47 of its 61 critical care beds occupied.

That may still seem high, but it is actually perfectly normal for ICU beds to be full at this time of year.

Last year, for example, 51 out of 59 ICU beds in Liverpool’s hospitals were full, while in 2018 it was 52 out of 59 beds.

Meanwhile, if there is a surge in demand for intensive care beds for Covid-19 patients, let’s not forget how quickly the NHS was able to repurpose general and acute care hospital beds during the first coronavirus spike.

In fact, only on Thursday Liverpool’s Aintree University Hospital revealed that it has already fitted 40 beds with ventilators and a further 30 beds with specialist CPAP breathing equipment.

1 Like

Anonse23 - I’m sorry the facts don’t back up your need to destroy the economy and refuse to face up the fact that life necessitates risk. You can remain hiding under your bed, but the rest of us believe that life is for living.

People who are overweight should shield if they want to. Mind you the stats are stacked very much in their favour of not even showing symptoms - 80% - and of recovering should they get it. The long term issues do seem to be all the pro lockdown people have now. There are loads of awful side effects to all kinds of conditions and diseases. We don’t shut down society unless the numbers are significant enough to justify it, and there not even anywhere near. Lockdown will / has caused far more destruction than covid. Sorry. But I’ve witnessed such an inexplicably disproportionate response to such low risk to the vast majority of people. It’s a profanity removed by moderator travesty. The compliance of people willing to wreak s o much damage in the name of being good is astonishing. Life is risk, and it would appear western societies have been insulted from it for so long we’ve become too easily spooked by what lies at the marrow of life. Our cowardly response to this is embarrassing at best and wilfully destructive at worst.

1 Like