Read on Twitter
Data over the past week has utterly demolished the case made last week for the latest national lockdown, i.e. that infections (and subsequently hospitalisations) would not decrease without another full lockdown. https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1348966251465465858
Current indicators show infections were decreasing nationally before lockdown 3, the most dramatic falls being in London, SE & E, but most regions decreasing.
(& let’s be clear: the more promising trends were already becoming evident even when lockdown was announced last week).
(& let’s be clear: the more promising trends were already becoming evident even when lockdown was announced last week).
You can credibly make a case for Level 4 restrictions on the grounds they were having some effect. FWIW, I don't think there is anything in the data to suggest that, but let's put that to one side for now.
If you want to push it, you can make a case for keeping primary schools shut as well (secondaries already staying closed). The case wd be based on guesswork not evidence & involves huge harms to children. But we can’t absolutely rule out some effect on infection rates.
Finally you can try to make a case that national lockdown will lead to a significantly faster decrease in cases. Good luck with that: let us know which of the extra measures you think will have made such a difference: criminalising outdoor swimmers? banning golf? tennis?
What no-one can credibly do any longer is continue to make the argument that a new, open-ended national lockdown was needed for the rise in infections to be reversed.
That debate is over.
That debate is over.
