Patrick O’Flynn Patrick O’Flynn

Cut Boris some slack on the ‘Rule of Six’

(Getty images)

Happy ‘Rule of Six’ day everyone. I’m off out a bit later to meet five friends in a pub (true story). So I will be fully compliant and will positively baste my hands in sanitiser on the way in. But I hope to get a little merry nonetheless. But across media land toys are being propelled out of prams at high velocity over the new restriction as pundits declare what a nonsense it is (see my previous piece from last week for examples).

One of the arguments they cite is that deaths from Covid are still flatlining (correct) while hospitalisations are not rising (incorrect, they bottomed out at under 750 and have now gone above 900). Dealing with these arguments in turn, deaths are a lagging indicator, so one would not expect a notable rise in those before lots of other warning signs have gone off on the dashboard anyway. Hospitalisations are one such warning sign and it is true they remain relatively low, having peaked at nearly 20,000 per week back in the spring.

But ‘Rule of Six’ antagonists are letting their hearts rule their heads here. Of course, none of us – bar I suppose Matt Hancock and one or two other ‘Jumped up Little Hitlers’ (copyright, every bar room prophet ever) – actually relishes restraints on citizens going about their normal lives.

Yet Covid-19 has potentially exponential characteristics, as we saw earlier in the pandemic after the R value had been out of control. Daily deaths seemed to go from a dozen to 100 to nearly 1,000 in the veritable blink of an eye.

Let us conduct a little statistical experiment to highlight what we are dealing with. Suppose that no new restraints are imposed and the R value (which may already be up to 1.7)

Already a subscriber? Log in

Keep reading with a free trial

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that it’s just £1 a week.

There’s no commitment, you can cancel any time.

Or

Unlock more articles

REGISTER

Comments

Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in