There is a middle ground here. When the levels of infection fall to a particular point then the risk remains, particularly for those with low immunity, those with bone cancer in particular but also to vulnerable people, the unvaccinated, those in poverty, those in sub-standard housing or multi-generational households. But with better treatment, increased immunity levels in the community, continued vaccination of the immunity suppressed, better testing - all these mean that outcomes are improving. Once the level of infection gets to around 400 per 100,000 per 7 days cumulative, then random infection, from non household members, is going to be less common (though not rare). Most infections are within the same household, and the next biggest infection route are linked household (another family member or friend that you visit).

Now we can go into the emotions of the argument, and say "it's gone on long enough" or "it's too soon to relax" or "we are putting vulnerable at risk" or "children have been damaged enough". And I guess all these views have validity even though they point to different outcomes. Alternatively we can use the data argument and say "we know that below 400 cases per 100,000 this has a lower risk and better health care impacts, but it's not risk free".

Currently the England overall rate is 748 per 100k, so well above 400. However there is a delay built into data collection, and my estimate of the real rate today is about 585 per 100k. When the prime minister stands up in the Commons on 24 February, my current estimate is that the rate at that point will be about 450 per 100k, or 350 per 100k projecting forward the data. This assumes the current case load continues to fall.