LARGE parts of Scotland are at a relatively low risk of exposure to coronavirus, but a new interactive map shows most of Glasgow and its environs at a high risk of exposure.
The Covid-19 Community Risks Index has been drawn up by the Scotianomics think tank using datasets covering connectivity, population structure and health for Scotland’s 354 council wards.
It calculates each area’s risk of exposure according to the probability of transmission and the potential for fatalities.
The free-to-access, colour-coded map shows the highest concentration of red zones – where the risk factor is between 90-113 – in west central Scotland, including from Newton Mearns South to Bishopbriggs North and Campsie, out to Lomond and Inverclyde. There are also smaller high-risk zones in Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, Inverleith and Corstorphine in Edinburgh, and parts of Dundee and Aberdeen. As population density lessens, so the risk factor drops, and the map shows large rural and Highland areas coloured blue, signalling a factor of 0-22.
Glasgow-based Scotianomics, foun-ded by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, said it hoped the map would help guide Scottish Government policy on lifting lockdown restrictions on a phased, geographic basis, enabling schools or businesses to fall in line with risk levels in their individual communities.
MacIntyre-Kemp said the reaction to coronavirus had been highly charged and he believed the map would give a clear analysis of existing data across the country.
“What is evident is that, for a wide variety of reasons, the risks vary hugely in different communities across Scotland,” he said. “In terms of both the economy and health and wellbeing, we believe it makes sense to ease the lockdown according to those regional differences in risk.
“There has already been a great deal of debate on whether the four nations within the UK should ease restrictions in lockstep, despite the fact that Oban is likely to have a completely different risk profile to Tower Hamlets in London.
“What our research shows is that there are also significant variations even within Scotland.”
He said other countries across the world including China, Italy and Germany, had responded to the initial threat on a regionalised basis and were now lifting lockdown in line with regional variations.
“Our research suggests this is the most likely way to prevent a second wave and to protect the economy.”
Senior researcher Samuel MacKinnon carried out the study during April and it has already been submitted to the Scottish Government’s Advisory Group on Economic Recovery.
The think tank is now making it publicly accessible with a pledge that it will update the online tracker as new datasets become available.
Their research does not yet factor in actual infection rates or fatalities which may have been recorded in each ward because the data are not yet available in a sufficiently detailed format.
MacIntyre-Kemp continued: “This is nothing to do with the number of cases in an area or how well people living in each area have observed the lockdown.
“We already have a weather warning system with yellow, amber or red alerts which are adapted to different parts of Scotland. Likewise, schools have different holidays in different council areas, all of which suggest that a phased re-opening of Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK, would not be that complex.
He added: “It is our hope that this kind of fact-based, data-driven research will help shape the Scottish Government’s plans to get the best possible outcomes for both public health and the economy, by lifting lockdown according to the very different risks in different areas.”
The COVID-19 Risk Monitor can be viewed here.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel