road2ruin
Q-School Graduate
I can't answer that. It is always preferable to use more recent and reliable data, but anyway you do it, predicting what is about to happen has a large measure of uncertainty attached, especially when the factors which influence the short term have already taken place and you are in the dead time waiting for that to translate into cases.
But does it really matter? If people are told there are going to be 2000, 5000, 10000 more cases, and 100,200, 500 deaths a day, how does their behaviour change across that scale? Is there a point where they say 'well, 100 deaths a day is acceptable so I can still go to the pub, but gee, 2000 a day is bad. I'll stay at home'?
The public does not have a good feel for what these numbers actually mean. They look at a 1% risk and see a 99% chance that it will be alright, not realising that the 1% repeats. The message needs to be simple, that the NHS will be overwhelmed and the economy, their job, the pubs and shops, will not be opened until people get their act together.
To an extent I agree however could you not argue that by being a little more positive with the numbers that people might actually buy in to the whole thing more? It appeared that the Tiered system was having an affect and the numbers were coming down so maybe people would have felt that the restrictions were actually having an impact and so worth sticking to as an end would be in sight. By showing data that is potentially out of date and that everything is out of control then people may resign themselves to nothing is working so what is the point in trying etc.