Is it possible that the areas which now have the highest incidence were at first effectively protected from the initial surge by cultural isolation - and are merely late to the party?
Aren't these areas experiencing similar numbers to major population areas at the peak of the virus a couple of months ago? They certainly don't seem to be much higher.
It's just a thought and I may well be wrong but if it is the case, rural towns and villages that have largely got away with it so far may face mini-surges in the future when covid finally comes to town.
I doubt it.
I think it probably goes something like this -
London being a world global hub was the first place the virus got a hold of and spread.
Those effected at that time were the London Boroughs and commuter belt towns.
Those areas triggered the lockdown, with London deemed to be 2 weeks in front of everybody else in having the virus - which is I thing an important point to what follows.
During lockdown the facts emerge that basically the virus kills the old and sick but everybody else is more or less ok.
People start to break lockdown across the country, start to ignore social distancing and more or less start to carry on as normal. London and surrounding authorities do likewise but having experienced the brunt of the virus and deaths so far are a little bit more circumspect about social distancing, masks, etc.
In the middle of the lockdown a large number of people are brought home from India and Pakistan where the virus is circulating.
Others have been repatriated sooner from all corners of the world and had therefore been in lockdown longer so less chance of the virus spreading if they had caught it.
It takes a couple of weeks from catching it to falling ill, so those arriving from India and Pakistan and passing on the virus in their households for others to catch (many presumably unknowingly and not having any symptoms) are only becoming ill three, four, five weeks later, around the time many people have given up on the lockdown and seeing their family and friends in other households, doing religious group celebrations, working and that's how I think the virus has taken hold in these northern/midland places shown on the list at current time.
Why didn't the same 'bounce' happen in London and commuter belt too?
Well it already had the 'peak' of the virus/deaths already and everybody had become more cautious about it. It's likely the family and the community were a bit more clued up about it, knew people who had had it and even some who had died from it - for instance I personally know one person who had it (although she was not an Asian) and knew of one person who died (who was). I know that's not scientific in anyway but I bet most outside of the London area reading this don't know of any.
I don't think the spread of the virus in the towns above have been done deliberately in any way at all but more a consequence of events mixed in with culture and sprinkled with a bit of unwillingness to accept the need for social distancing.
As I tried to explain earlier yesterday the virus isn't ripping through the country generally, a hand full of positive results or five or six days of little no no infections can send authorities catapulting up and down the list of infections per 100,000 people, for instance Slough was at 54th on that list with a rate of 8.7 (with 13 positives in the seven day period) and on Thursday 16th a week later on Thursday 23rd at 240th with a rate of 2.0 with just 3 positives - so in Sloughs case just 10 people out of 100,000 can cause a nearly 200 place drop in the rankings - and no doubt 10 or more positives in the next seven day period will send it up the 'league table' by a similar amount.
The 'tables' as such are meaningless if such a very small number can effect them so dramatically the key indicator is the rate per 100,000 and which authorities are growing dramatically and why is that so?
In most of the top cases for the last month or so the problem seems to be in the Asian communities of northern and midland towns and cities and that indicates the issue is in how go about their lives.
An interesting counterpoint is this article today -Did Bournemouth beach crowds spread coronavirus?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53519668
Seems on the face of things it didn't.
There's no rights and wrongs, it's just a learning through experience process.
It does seem though that some practises both social and cultural may or may not have a direct effect on the spread, whilst some - sweat shops in Leicester, 250 people inside a mosque for a funeral seem to most definitely do.
Many people are angry with the governments handling but the reality is that we are all grown ups, if we kept to lockdown, self isolate when returning from abroad, wear masks, keep to social distancing and don't take the piss generally we'd all be in a better place than where we are but many people simply don't seem to do that in this country.