Notice on Stockport Council web site

[Dave]

Here are the latest Greater Manchester infection rates per 100,000:

- Manchester 217

- Bolton 206

- Bury 192

- Oldham 182

- Rochdale 171

- Salford 158

- Tameside 147

- Wigan 136

- Trafford 113

- Stockport 85

Ours may be the lowest but it’s still well above the national average which is 58. (Source: MEN)

[Melancholyflower]

Not quite!  The population of Stockport Metropolitan Borough is about 290,000.  So if there were 71 cases per 100,000 last week, that's about 200 cases across the borough as a whole.  That's 0.07% of the population, or to put it another way, less than one case per 1,000 people.

It's not a lot is it, although in reality there are likely to be many more cases - after all, we know that some people get very slight symptoms or no symptoms at all, but are nevertheless covid-positive. They won't have got a test, but are still carrying the infection and could easily infect someone else. 

But I still think Mrs Dave ought to be allowed to have her friend round for a cup of tea!

Well, quite.  and the nearer 300,000 figure makes more sense. It does seem an awful lot of testing to get a small number of cases.

The real issue is whether any of these restrictions are proportionate to the problem.

[andrewbowden]

Agree when you think windsor castle have outside music out side every sat on the car park not till late though goes of about 8 ish and theres quite a few there .

Due to lack of childcare options caused by Covid 19, I have only been in a pub once in Marple since March.  I

But if everyone is following the rules then there shouldn't be an issue.  People listening to music is fine after all.  Issues usually come from people not following the rules.  Such as what's happened in Bolton where a good chunk of cases there are believed to have been caused by someone going on a pub crawl when they should have been in quarantine...

[andrewbowden]

Not quite!  The population of Stockport Metropolitan Borough is about 290,000.  So if there were 71 cases per 100,000 last week, that's about 200 cases across the borough as a whole.  That's 0.07% of the population, or to put it another way, less than one case per 1,000 people.

The people behind the Covid 19 tracker app currently estimate that there's about 1 active case per 100 people in Stockport.  Active being people who have it right now.  I presume their figures look at all cases not just people being tested given we know lots of people can carry it and not show any symptoms.

The ONS do surveys that use antibody tests to estimate how many cases they are but I don't know if they break it down to a borough level.

[amazon]

Not quite!  The population of Stockport Metropolitan Borough is about 290,000.  So if there were 71 cases per 100,000 last week, that's about 200 cases across the borough as a whole.  That's 0.07% of the population, or to put it another way, less than one case per 1,000 people.

It's not a lot is it, although in reality there are likely to be many more cases - after all, we know that some people get very slight symptoms or no symptoms at all, but are nevertheless covid-positive. They won't have got a test, but are still carrying the infection and could easily infect someone else. 

But I still think Mrs Dave ought to be allowed to have her friend round for a cup of tea!

Agree when you think windsor castle have outside music out side every sat on the car park not till late though goes of about 8 ish and theres quite a few there .

[Dave]

If we round the town's population down slightly to 100,000, that means 70 new people tested positive last week.. but, proportionally, that could only have happened if the whole town was tested? I am very sure that didn't happen (not to me anyway, or to anyone I know locally), so let's say 10,000 were tested (I still think that is a pretty generous estimate).. that means as few as just 8 new positive tests were sufficient to move us into this state of affairs.

Do I have that right?

Not quite!  The population of Stockport Metropolitan Borough is about 290,000.  So if there were 71 cases per 100,000 last week, that's about 200 cases across the borough as a whole.  That's 0.07% of the population, or to put it another way, less than one case per 1,000 people.

It's not a lot is it, although in reality there are likely to be many more cases - after all, we know that some people get very slight symptoms or no symptoms at all, but are nevertheless covid-positive. They won't have got a test, but are still carrying the infection and could easily infect someone else. 

But I still think Mrs Dave ought to be allowed to have her friend round for a cup of tea!

[Condate]

Ok, so we've been told that the rate rose to 71 new infections per every 100,000 people in Stockport this week, and that this justified these measures.

If we round the town's population down slightly to 100,000, that means 70 new people tested positive last week.. but, proportionally, that could only have happened if the whole town was tested? I am very sure that didn't happen (not to me anyway, or to anyone I know locally), so let's say 10,000 were tested (I still think that is a pretty generous estimate).. that means as few as just 8 new positive tests were sufficient to move us into this state of affairs.

Do I have that right? My maths was never that great.

I posted it before, but I'll post it again

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=47574f7a6e454dc6a42c5f6912ed7076

Shows the number of cases. This is up to four days ago. The number of cases in Marple has dropped in the last week shown of the map. Of course things may have changed in the last four days (and things can change quite quickly).

[Melancholyflower]

Ok, so we've been told that the rate rose to 71 new infections per every 100,000 people in Stockport this week, and that this justified these measures.

If we round the town's population down slightly to 100,000, that means 70 new people tested positive last week.. but, proportionally, that could only have happened if the whole town was tested? I am very sure that didn't happen (not to me anyway, or to anyone I know locally), so let's say 10,000 were tested (I still think that is a pretty generous estimate).. that means as few as just 8 new positive tests were sufficient to move us into this state of affairs.

Do I have that right? My maths was never that great.

[Dave]

I think I did read that both the council and local MPs were against these restrictions being reintroduced probably because the chances of them actually doing any good are slim based on the evidence we have already.

Quite so. And it seems a bit pointless to prevent Mrs Dave from having her friend round for a cup of tea this afternoon when a few miles away there are things like this happening:  https://mancunion.com/2020/09/25/new-videos-show-massive-fallowfield-rave-while-security-look-on-helplessly/

[Condate]

Interesting. I do think doing things in boroughs is rather odd, but no doubt somebody thinks it's a good idea. I don't think most people think in terms of boroughs that much, although we are lumped in with Stockport for Council Tax and bins and the like at the moment.

Anyway, we are stuck with the new rules for a while (I think we all hope it's only for a while).

I do think the notice was very short and not well publicised, but in the circumstances, it's understandable.


 

[andrewbowden]

The bit about the council not being in favour of these changes came from here

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/new-lockdown-restrictions-imposed-stockport-18997386#ICID=Android_MENNewsApp_AppShare

[andrewbowden]

Overall rates are rising in Stockport as they are across Greater Manchester.  The Manchester Evening News publishes daily figures and as of yesterday there is now a rate of 80.5 cases per 100,000 people.  It's only a few weeks that the rates were about 12 cases per 100,000 people.

This puts Stockport well above the national average (which has also rapidly increased) which is currently 51.4 cases.

Given most boroughs in Greater Manchester have been under these restrictions since late July and the rates have still increased, I wouldn't expect the  restrictions to lead to a reduction in the rates any time soon.

I think I did read that both the council and local MPs were against these restrictions being reintroduced probably because the chances of them actually doing any good are slim based on the evidence we have already. 

Latest figures from Friday are here
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/latest-covid-19-infection-rates-19001124#ICID=Android_MENNewsApp_AppShare

[Condate]

Just noticed

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-54263791

Marple's figures were quite low. Perhaps that has changed.

[Condate]

Ah thanks. I read that page you link to and saw

"Local restrictions were lifted in Stockport on 2 September and Wigan on 26 August. They align to the national restrictions with the rest of the country."

However, I'm sure they will get round to updating it soon to include Stockport.  Just as well Stockport Council website mentions it, or otherwise I would never have known.

I imagine most people are unaware of the change.

I'm not sure why this has been done, as https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=47574f7a6e454dc6a42c5f6912ed7076 shows the rate here as low, but it is a week out of date, so presumably things have changed.

[andrewbowden]

I notice the attached on the council website

Following the link gives no information about Stockport, except to say restrictions were lifted.

Anyone know what it is about?

The restrictions detailed on gov.uk didn't previously apply to us as we had been released from them.

 From today they will. 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/greater-manchester-local-restrictions

So just imagine gov.uk have got round to actually putting correct information on their website (sigh...) And where it says Salford and Tameside etc, assume it says Stockport too