servodude wrote:Did you ever have a listen to the BBC podcast that debunked the lockdown timing?
As a general principle I will read things, but I rarely listen to things simply because of the amount of time it takes.
Similarly I am not going to spend a lot of time repeating what I have said previously.
One thing I listened to part of (although I was put off by them using dates of reports of deaths as opposed to dates of deaths) was the independent SAGE committee as they call themselves. They suggested that people who get hospitalised generally do so 2 weeks after infection and deaths then follow 3-4 weeks after infection.
I accept that the profile of deaths following infections is relevant. However, I do not accept the argument that a sufficient number of people died within 2 weeks of infection as to make the lockdown a limiting factor on the peak number of deaths per day.
If the government has any scientific sense they will be driven primarily by numbers of admissions to hospital which is pretty well as timely a measure as counted infections in practice.
I looked at the leicester figures and there appeared to be a spike rather than a jump in admissions. Obviously if there was a continuning increase in admissions this would warrant further study and could potentially be a cause for some action. It is politically sensible for the government to publicly talk about this process as it would indicate they are "on the case".
Whether there is a good case for Leicester to be locked down and whether it will be locked down does not affect any of the above. There probably isn't a good case. However, one should keep an open mind.
Given the pattern of hospital admissions more recently across England (I have not seen the figures for the rest of the UK) I think the position is now settled even if people don't all agree.