A quick overview thread of case rates prior to moving to Step 3 on 17 May.
Overall cases in the UK are at 21 cases per 100,000.
Case rates are higher than they were last summer after the first wave and before that unlocking.
Some of this is increase is due to mass testing.
In late June last year, cases in all age groups were under 10 cases per 100,000 (except 80+ where they were 12 per 100,000).
Cases now are higher.
If we compare to the extreme situation in January (seen below), things don't look too bad. If we compare to June last year, cases do look relatively high.
As you zoom in to areas, the highest case rates increase. This is to be expected, as nowhere is 'average'.
From Bolton with a very high 133 cases per 100,000 to low rates in some parts of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
In England, Cumbria has a case rate of 5 per100,000
Zooming in further (note that some upper tier local authories are also lower tier local authorities, which confuses things a bit) we have some local authorities with *very high* rates
Erewash with 187 cases per 100,000
Bolton with 133 cases per 100,000
Rates over 100 cases per 100,000 were sufficient to cause local lockdowns. Some history:
The question is - what is the Government's plan if and when we have large outbreaks meaning that case rates are very high? Are regional lockdowns going to re-emerge? There appears to be scope for that in the legislation.
If the whole of the UK moves to being in a Step 3 area as expected on 17 May, it presumbaly means that the Governement reserves the right to moves areas back to Step 2 or even Step 1 areas by statutory instrument.
The Government hopes that the moves are 'irreversible'. I assume the 'irreversible' applies to the whole of the country, not individual areas. It would be prudent to retain the option of reimposing these measures, even if the headline is that they are 'irreversible'.
Nobody wants to go back into restrictions, but there is a risk of that happening due to variants. This is however a *risk* not a certainty.
But if the rhetoric is Covid is almost over, then that risk becomes more likely to be realised.
The pandemic is not over.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The UK Covid Public Inquiry has published its first Report, on Resilience and Preparedness. It is the most urgent report, as we are still ill-prepared for the next pandemic.
🧵
This is the first of many reports, each reviewing a specific area, including healthcare systems; test, trace, and isolate; and the economic response to the pandemic.
The Module 1 Report sets out nine significant flaws from the Covid-19 pandemic:
"Inflation is currently 10%. If inflation halves, how much will a £1 pint of milk cost".
Sounds easy. It's not. It's ambiguous. It's not a good question. Unless it's designed to be a bad question. In which case it's a good question.
1. It talks about 'inflation'. But *what* inflation? At the moment, we have overall inflation at roughly 10% but inflation of food at roughly 20%. So is the overall inflation rate the same as the inflation rate for milk? It's not clear. Bad question.
First, the @ONS Covid Infection Survey is being paused, and @CovidGenomicsUK is being retired. This will have implications for data reliability and availability going forward.
OK, I'm going to write a response to this maths problem, published in @DailyMailUK, that has caused a lot of comment, some thinking the answer is 1 and some thinking the answer is 9.
Many of us would go straight to the answer 1. That's because we know (or our children know, and have taught us), that there is a 'rule' for how you deal with the order of doing the calculation - do you do + first or ÷, for example?
Enter BIDMAS (or BODMAS).
"It stands for Brackets, Indices [or Order], Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction."
That's the conventional order. Forget about indices [or order] for now - that's not important for this one. bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topic…