Thank you for the explanation about the R number - that seems to make sense. As regards the fall in infections around the lockdown, it seems to my eye to have had an effect that fits well with the alteration in infections. You can see it in the chart I published a week back - though admittedly this was very specifically to do with a discussion about Cornwall so maybe wasn't reflected nationwide:-jfgw wrote:Arborbridge wrote:BTW, you say the November lockdown didn't do much - well it certainly brought the infection rate downChecking the dates, I see I made a mistake here. However, it is difficult to see how much effect it had. The non-S- gene variant admissions started to fall around the time of the start of the lockdown or slightly after, possibly too soon to be attributed wholly to the lockdown (but data are noisy). There is a noticeable fall which could be attributed to the lockdown, although the fall continues after the lockdown ended (which I would not otherwise expect). It could be that the lockdown (with schools open) selectively suppressed the non-S- gene variants. The government themselves said that the lockdown had little effect on the new variant, however, and that is what we are dealing with now.jfgw wrote:The government timed the second lockdown too early to take credit for the November dip - as far as I can see, the second lockdown had toilet-all effect on infections (although it probably had some small effect).
Julian F. G. W.
The change in curve about the black horizontal line - the duration of lockdown - is what I would expect as an effect of lockdown. It was just beginning to bite when we took the foot off the brake.
Arb.