How London kept Covid at bay during the new lockdown

At the Government’s Covid data briefing this week, alarming graphs revealed rapidly growing infection rates nationwide – from 1 in 2,200 people in August to 1 in 85 people today. The numbers in hospital in England with Covid over the same period reflect that dramatic rise: from just a few hundred to more than 14,300.

But a closer look, by region, showed something else. As might be expected, the south of England was faring better than the north. Fewer people were going to hospital across the south-east, south-west, and east of England combined than in Yorkshire, where 376 people were admitted on Sunday.

And one region above all appeared to be thriving: London, where the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that, in contrast to every other part of the country, there are currently no “excess deaths” at all compared with previous years.

The percentage of those testing positive in the capital, at 0.71 per cent, is lower than any other region in the country, bar the East.

Not only that, but the infection rate in London is trending noticeably down, from its peak of 0.85pc about three weeks ago.

Our most prosperous, populous city appears to be ducking the second wave.

Intensive care units that were jammed exclusively by Covid patients in March are ticking along as normal. Two weeks into lockdown, doctors say case numbers show few signs of spinning out of control.

What’s going on? Is the new wave merely lurking somewhere, ready to break across the capital’s skyscrapers and cascade along the runnels of each asphalt street?

Or might Covid be having a tougher reckoning this time around? Here are five theories doing the rounds in the medical profession:

1: Fewer people

There are simply not as many people in London as usual. A complete absence of tourists has changed the face of the city.

In 2019, there were 21 million tourist trips to London – 10 times that of Edinburgh, the city in second place.

Visitbritain, the national tourism agency, notes that “from mid-march to mid-july, Covid-19 triggered a near-total shutdown in international tourism”. Things then picked up a little, but full-year estimates are desperate.

“Our central scenario forecast for inbound tourism to the UK in 2020 is for a decline of 74 per cent,” it said – and that was before the latest national lockdown.

2: Behaviour changes

Those left in the city are doing different things. No more clubbing, massive concerts, sporting events or gigs.

Packed commuter trains and Tubes are also a thing of the past. There were just 36.3 million Tube journeys in the last month for which figures are available. The equivalent in 2019 was 99.4 million – representing a fall of two thirds.

The same is true of the rest of the country of course. But such restrictions leave “general mixing” of households as the principal driver of infection.

“Although everyone goes on about illegal raves or parties, the general mixing of people in London has changed,” says Nicky Longley, associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“All that has gone away.”

By contrast, household mixing has been a problem in other regions. Andy Street, the West Midland mayor, for example, said lockdown measures imposed in September were “to emphasise … about mixing between households”.

Even just a few breaches can be critical – some studies suggest that just 10 per cent of people might be responsible for 80 per cent of infections.

3: Second time lucky

London was badly hit in the first wave. Over the summer, REACT-2, the huge Imperial College study tracking Covid-19, reported that a national average of 6 per cent of us had antibodies to the disease, showing we had been infected.

London – at 13 per cent – was more than twice that, and the highest in the country. In a separate nationwide study of children aged two15 years old, 11.6 per cent had antibodies – “significantly higher than all other sites”.

SAFER, a study of front-line healthcare workers at University College London Hospital (UCLH), showed a whopping 45 per cent had been infected.

“Obviously that is bigger than the general population [in London] but indicates that rates were likely to have been higher here than in the country as a whole,” says Prof Longley, who also works at UCLH.

Even this is not “herd immunity” level, but protection in London is almost certain to be higher than elsewhere.

4: Jobs and wealth

Of course there is deprivation in London. Of course there are multigenerational households, where vulnerable people can easily be exposed to the virus.

But the city is richer than other parts of the country. In 2018, disposable income per head stood at £29,362. In Yorkshire, it was £17,665. That is a consequence of the types of jobs people do.

Close contact is the overwhelming route of infection. A study found that in Sweden, the job carrying the greatest risk was a taxi driver: 4.8 times higher than the average for all professions.

In London, workers are more likely to be part of the “knowledge economy” and can more easily work from home. An ONS survey this summer showed that 57 per cent of Londoners worked from home, 11 per cent above the national average, and 20 per cent above Yorkshire.

5: The Government favours London

This is the controversial one. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government is, at the very least, dazzled by the fortunes of London and its 9 million residents.

Take the first lockdown – many regions were forced behind doors when infection rates, high in London, were low with them.

When lockdown was first imposed, hospitalisation figures were the inverse of those today. London was way out in front. On March 23, when Boris Johnson told us to stay indoors, some 1,515 were admitted in the capital, half the national total.

In Yorkshire and the North East, by comparison, there were just 190 admissions.

When lockdown measures were eased, London had dramatically reversed the trend. On the last day of May just 748 people were in hospital – fewer than half the total at the beginning of lockdown, and an 84 per cent decline from the capital’s peak of 4,813.

But everywhere else, the story was very different. In every other region of the country, the numbers in hospital at the end of lockdown were higher than at the start.

The Midlands, with 1,113, had almost three times as many people in hospital at the end of lockdown as at the beginning, and was only 64 per cent down from its own peak of 3,092. Yorkshire had almost five times as many, just 66 per cent down. The North West, too, had five times as many people in hospital at the end as the beginning, and was just 57 per cent down on its peak.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the first lockdown was timed to suit London.

And that this time around, the new national lockdown was imposed in time to protect London.

“Last time our London figures dropped off and they released lockdown but it hadn’t done the same in the North, and they never really had a chance to catch up,” says Prof Longley.

“It’s possible that the second lockdown has also been timed in a London-centric way.”