Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
It looks like HMG's balancing act in the next few months will become increasingly fraught. Clearly the infection rate is falling fast, with most surveys giving an R rate of about 0.6 (REACT is saying 0.9 but it's methodology tends to lagging the real world)
The "R-rate" hides a range brave assumptions and unreliable statistics. The R number itself coves a range of statistics from R0 through to RZ: all are defined by temporal and regional parameters , all are characterized by some degree of heroism in their application. It's probably best to accept values at or above 1 as bad news, values below 1 as better news.
"Real world" is a difficult concept here. The more robust R numbers cover large populations, and are lagged to previous weeks. Contemporaneous estimates, and projection estimates, are more troublesome. Region-specific calculations can suffer from thin data.
Of course, this confusion allows pundits to select the R value that best suits their agenda.
Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
.....the number of cases and hospital admissions falling sharply.
While it's certainly good news that daily hospital admissions have fallen significantly from their recent peak, it's probably worth noting those admissions remain well above the levels of the first peak, while hospital bed occupancy is at a troublesome 150% of that peak. Bed occupancy, and the number of patients on ventilators, are falling, albeit much more slowly than admissions.
A drop in demand for hospital beds and ventilators will take some of the extreme pressure off the health services. Sadly, the drop in demand will be an immediate signal for the more excitable in BJ's party to cry for freedom. But such demands would ignore lessons offered from previous whack-a-mole releases.: they should be resisted to allow health service personnel an opportunity to take breath, and the service itself to take stock and regroup for (likely) future shocks.
Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
They are keeping up the fear part of the messaging, desperately keen that people don't start treating the vaccinated, and partially vaccinated, as immune.
We clearly see this in quite a different way. Those who have received doses of the the vaccine are
not immune from the disease. They are protected from infection but not immune from it: they can get sick, and they can transmit the disease while unaware they are infected. It seems to me important that those vaccinated should be made aware of this.
Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
I'm really not sure that they will be able to suppress people until mid March, let alone May.
They only really have the manpower to stop movement at the border and I wonder if Pritti's tough talk is a recognition of that fact.
Are you suggesting civil unrest ?
Polls on the level of public support for Covid restrictions have been consistently high. Of course we all grumble, some skirt regulations, but I guess we understand why restrictions have been imposed, and by and large we comply. A recent survey suggested only round 7% strongly opposed the imposition of the current lockdown.