[Stabbsy]

By referencing the 750 as "the Assembly's own figures" is it from the Firebreak evidence doc here - https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-10/technical-advisory-group-fire-breaks_2.pdf ?

If so below is the relevant data table (copy pasted as text):

                                                     Modelled estimate of deaths                   
                                           No Change        2 weeks          3 weeks
12 October - 31 Dec               2,500               1,540               1,200
12 October - 31 March            4,890               4,140               3,770

So inspired by this thread's thirst for clarity on figures (!), some reflections on that data:

+ You are correct that the projection for a single 2 week firebreak now, then "as you were" until March, is 750 fewer deaths (4890 - 4140)
+ It is also evident that a single firebreak now, then back to previous regime until new year is projected to result in 960 fewer deaths (2500 - 1540)
+ The Welsh CMO has stated that it is probable they will have multiple of these firebreaks between now and next spring
+ If that is the case then the 750 figure will be an underestimate, and a more likely figure would be more or less additive to the 960 (i.e. 960 +++) if a subsequent firebreak was timed correctly.

I realise that this does nothing to answer the thrust of you question! But it may help inform.

It's interesting that some of the benefit of the 2/3 week lockdown over the rest of the year is lost in the first 3 months of 2021. So for the 2 week lockdown you get 960 less deaths over the remainder of the year, but 750 until March 2021 (so 210 more deaths over Q1 2021 as a result of lockdown). Or am I misreading it?

The graph in section 9 of the linked paper looks to support this because the case run-off is far slower post-lockdown than without any lockdown. Any thoughts on what's going on here? You'd expect lower infection fatality rates as the peak cases is lower, so it seems to be implying that overall cases will be higher under the lockdown scenario. In that case, is this some "bad behaviour post lockdown effect" being factored into the modelling? Or some sort of herd immunity impact? Had a quick scan through the report and didn't seem to cover this off - it just states that R returns to the level seen pre-lockdown. I don't think it says which of the scenarios shown in the graphs below drives the deaths in figure 4.

[Paul B]

https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1319232492428316672?s=19

Again, I think this is pretty relevant to the earlier points regarding GM/Lancs already having endured T2 type restrictions.

[teestub]

Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!

[tomtom]

Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!

Quite. And it won't just be me in this part of the world who thinks that!

[Nigel]

It's interesting that some of the benefit of the 2/3 week lockdown over the rest of the year is lost in the first 3 months of 2021. So for the 2 week lockdown you get 960 less deaths over the remainder of the year, but 750 until March 2021 (so 210 more deaths over Q1 2021 as a result of lockdown). Or am I misreading it?

No you are correct - that is what the forecast implies i.e. no lockdown 2360 deaths Q1 2021, firebreak then 2600 deaths Q1. If the lockdown was 3 weeks (the other column) then 2570 deaths Q1.

As to why - don't know. As you say, without knowledge of the modelling assumptions you can't really infer what is the driver. I have just imagined two layman's theories involving the available pool of susceptible people, plus the predictable effects of household mixing at Xmas (regardless of restriction on the ground), but I am not an epidemiologist so I won't share them!

[Nigel]

Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!

Its certainly how it looks isn't it?! Given the to-ing and fro-ing with Greater Manchester this last week over a few million quid I really don't get the Tory political strategy here, since they surely knew this was happening? Too proud to let Burnham know? Or the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?

Incidentally Sunak's justification for retroactively changing his part time working scheme (i.e. admitting he'd got it wrong first time) was that it was based on the assumption that cases would continue to decrease i.e. no second wave. Was that really what the government expected until recently????

They get increasingly weird to be honest. They refused free school meals in holidays earlier this year, then u-turned, then gave Marcus Rashford an MBE for his campaign. Now they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with? If so its worrying.

[chris j]

@ Nigel/Stabbsy - the piece in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/19/uk-coronavirus-live-wales-short-fire-break-lockdown-manchester-boris-johnson-covid (item at 17:31)  has a chart which shows a lower peak pushed to the right by the firebreak, followed by a more gradual decline. They assume R goes back up after the firebreak but the piece talks of a 'new simpler national approach to behaviours and restrictions' with 'sustainable changes in behaviour in many areas of life'...

[tomtom]

Well - I guess we’re going to find out how the different plans work out in the next 3-4 months...

[Nigel]

@ Nigel/Stabbsy - the piece in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/19/uk-coronavirus-live-wales-short-fire-break-lockdown-manchester-boris-johnson-covid (item at 17:31)  has a chart which shows a lower peak pushed to the right by the firebreak, followed by a more gradual decline. They assume R goes back up after the firebreak but the piece talks of a 'new simpler national approach to behaviours and restrictions' with 'sustainable changes in behaviour in many areas of life'...

OK Chris, that chart is the "Fig 4" referenced by Stabbsy, from the Welsh doc I linked to. The quotes included are snippets from the same doc. In black and white as not everyone will follow a link, the last two paragraphs are:

The second phase is a new, simpler, national approach to behaviours and restrictions.
Simpler messaging and regulations are expected to be easier to understand and comply
with. Some existing restrictions may be removed if they are shown to be less effective or
more harmful than originally expected, such as the Local Authority travel boundary
restrictions. However, there would need to be sustainable changes in behaviour in many
areas of life in order for Rt to remain as near to 1 as possible.

11. Conclusion
Without intervention, continued increase of cases of Covid-19 in Wales, in hospitals and in
ICU will be too high for the NHS to sustain. In order to balance the four harms effectively,
TAC recommends urgent consideration and execution of a hard national fire break to
massively reduce transmission for a period of weeks, reduce the number of cases to a
sustainable level and then a set of sustainable, national interventions to keep Rt around 1
while maximising social, economic and health benefits.

The Welsh CMO has as I said suggested there may be more than one firebreak, so this may be what is meant by "a set of sustainable, national interventions to keep Rt around 1 while maximising social, economic, and health benefits", although that is my assumption.

Whether it works as a strategy in the round - i.e. maximising social, economic, and health benefits - well if England and Scotland stick with their (separate) tiered systems, and NI with their circuit breaker, then as Tomtom says we will see next Spring.

[petejh]

So hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options. I'm close to not caring about trying to think it through anymore.

How many lives lost, short, medium and long-term from locking down, versus not locking down.
How many lives suffering short, medium or long-term health impacts from locking down, versus not locking down.
Unhappiness, lowering of quality of life, damage to education in short, medium and long-term, from locking down, versus not locking down.

I think laws that criminalise people exercising their freedom to travel into the countryside to partake in non group-based recreation are completely unjustifiable and should be defied. I'm strongly opposed to the Welsh labour government taking away people's liberties in these areas of life. There's no evidence of any benefit in drastically reducing covid transmission or saving lives, while there's lots of anecdotal evidence of it just massively pissing people off and reducing people's happiness for no positive health or economic gain.
I could just about accept the premise the first time around, with some mild discrete rule-breaking out of public view. This time around the premise is clearly ridiculous and given half-decent weather I'll definitely be breaking those laws and openly traveling into the hills for exercise.

Other areas of life such as pubs, restaurants and retail etc. makes far more sense as the evidence suggests shutting these things is effective. But only provided people are supported properly and not left to rot. I support the idea if the evidence shows it will have an overall positive impact.   

How would any of you in England appreciate being criminalised again this time around for popping out in the car for a boulder, a hill-walk, or a route climb within your household? 

[spidermonkey09]

I agree with all that. Criminalising outdoor exercise is dumb and counter intuitive.

[shark]

Any thoughts on ‘trying to avoid’ travelling out of Sheffield or other tier3 areas into Derbyshire? Impression I’m getting is that most climbers still plan to go climbing in the Peak as it’s not a legally enforceable instruction.

[tomtom]

Any thoughts on ‘trying to avoid’ travelling out of Sheffield or other tier3 areas into Derbyshire? Impression I’m getting is that most climbers still plan to go climbing in the Peak as it’s not a legally enforceable instruction.

Going to the chippy in Tideswell seems like a genuine reason to me...

You know - doing what Rishi wants and all that.

[Muscle.Coach]

Just go climbing, don’t ask on here mate. You’ll get 10’000 words of flatulence

[petejh]

Well said Dominic.

[Muscle.Coach]

9997 words to go...

[Oldmanmatt]

9997 words to go...

🌟👏💥🤯
.
.
 

[Bonjoy]

Just go climbing, don’t ask on here mate. You’ll get 10’000 words of flatulence

Are you one of those Qanon guys?
What's with the Swiss decimal separator?



Fart, etc.

[Muscle.Coach]

Oh Lordy it’s UKB’s answer to Morgan Freeman.

Fart etc.

[Bonjoy]

[Muscle.Coach]

Very good indeed

[Oldmanmatt]

Very good indeed

Unlike your little efforts...

[Muscle.Coach]

Woah there control your steed Holy Paladin

[spidermonkey09]

You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/

[Oldmanmatt]

Woah there control your steed Holy Paladin

Awesome.
Sharp as a wet tissue.