We don’t hear much about the R rate any more. I guess that’s all part of the “ignore it and it will go away” plan.
Yes, it was considered most useful when there was a need to educate the public about pandemic wave dynamics because their behaviours were the most important tool we had. Especially when other forms of data were missing, eg before we had mass testing in the first place.
So yes, its greatest use and emphasis was when policy makers were aware that there would be cycles where they needed to switch on and off various heavy policies that had huge implications for public life. And that was still true even during periods where for example policy makers in England came out with rhetoric that implied they didnt see future lockdowns as likely, because there was a period when privately they still did, and were just bullshitting to increase levels of economic activity during the gaps between lockdowns.
This all changed once vaccines became the new tool in the arsenal, shifting the focus of public education and desired public behaviour towards getting vaccinated when asked, and emphasising the 'light at the end of the tunnel'. A period where roadmaps that moved away from lockdowns could be considered in a more sincere manner rather than being empty rhetoric with a short shelf life. There were still some wobbles along that road, especially in winter, but then they could use other data and framing, eg hospital data, information about the rise and increased transmissibility of new variants, and framing things along the lines of 'get a booster to save Christmas'.
And yes they were especially keen to de-emphasise R when they were moving away from wanting people to pay attention to and react to the rise of case numbers. This has been ongoing since early 2021 in this country. It was an incomplete mission this time last year, whih is why some people were still put out there to talk shit about 'endemic equilibrium' when Delta came along and caused an enduring wave. That shit hasnt been deemed necessary this time around, for various reasons including having at least superficially dealt with 'the pingdemic' by removing the requirements to self-isolate. The reality is messier than that, disruption still happens and new waves still get some coverage.
Official estimates for R had some obvious limitations even when they were being relied on heavily by authorities and public communications. They were and still are a bit laggy, tending not to show the situation as quickly as mass testing data (when we still had such systems) and not really being much more timely than hospital admissions data.
All the same there are contradictions at this stage, including in what I've said above. Because these days the ONS estimates have taken their place. These are also laggy, but not quite as laggy as R estimates, and are at least framed in the manner of '1 in 20 people had covid that week' which people can grasp. These being mentioned in the media every week contradicts what I was saying about authorities no longer wanting people to pay attention to infection levels. The most gung-ho of those in power would like to have ditched such indicators long before now, but since the situation can still be delicate at times, the least they can do is hedge their bets by keeping that stuff in place just in case. Its availability also adds a little bit more credibility to their rhetoric about the public 'using their own judgement' about risks and behaviour, since if there were no indicators available at all that people could use to assess personal risk, that rhetoric would ring extra hollow, and that might undermine the normalcy agenda.
publichealthscotland.scot
www.nhs.uk
Raging fevers, headache, sore throats/lost voices, coughs. Basically exactly the same as they had in March. All missing school yet again. But no testing this time and even if they did test positive they only have to be off school for 3 days!
