...but then there will likely be something else; if not then, no bother.
I doubt whether there will be a 'something else' appearing within the next 2-3 weeks. Even if a new, and even more transmissible variant than that, were to appear tomorrow, it would take longer than that for its effects to show appreciably in the numbers. Hence, the only thing likely to change in the next couple of weeks is Monday's relaxations, so if there is any change (in either direction) in the numbers by then, by far the most explanation will be the 'relaxations'.
...but how much restriction has there been lately on inter-personal contact/proximity?
a fair bit - but if you think there's little restriction at the moment, then there wouldn't be much to 'relax' on Monday, so nothing much for anyone to 'fear.
So, it all boils down to whether masks are effective. ...
Not really. I think that most people are agreed that masks are, at best, only a small part of the total package (which is why the lengthy diversion onto masks in this thread was somewhat of a 'waste of time').
The main, and most important, relaxations on Monday will be the ability to meet indoors in unlimited numbers and without social distancing. That will be a direct change in "restriction on inter-personal contact/proximity".
Back to the maths: Looking at yesterdays numbers, there were 1,177,716 tests and 51,870 positive - 4.4%. Is this in the realm of false positives being significant?
Not really. Just a small proportion of that 4.4% of positive will be false positives (and that will be at least partially cancelled by false negatives). In any event, the rate of false positives and negatives will remain fairly constant over time, so will not affect changes in the figures, which is what we are looking at.
717 were admitted to hospital yesterday - I can't find total number in hospital.
3,964 today - I'll show you the graphs later.
I know it is down to the numbers of staff but there are 160,000 hospital beds in the UK (used to be 240,000).
We need all of those 160,000 (or whatever) beds (and more, and the staff to service them) in relation to our desperate attempts to do something about the 12 million or whatever people on waiting lists, to address the delayed diagnosis and treatment of those with cancer and any other number of other serious illnesses (including mental health disorders). If we get up to anywhere near (let alone above) the January figures of people needing beds for Covid, that will have taken a substantial bite out of the beds (and staff) available for those other urgent uses.
In any event, the greatest problem is in relation to ICU beds, since about one-third of patients admitted to hospital with Covid end up in ICU. We have very limited numbers of ICU beds (and, most important, specialist-trained staff to service them) and ICU ('ventilator bed') occupancy is already up to about 15% of the January peak. Filling what ICU beds we have (and can staff) with Covid patients precludes the undertaking most major surgery (for cancer or anything else).
On another tack; do you think Ferguson has save ~400,000 lives; he forecast 500,000 deaths; or was he wrong - again?
That depends what alternative scenarios you're talking about. If you are thinking of a situation in which we had 'done' absolutely nothing, then one can easily undertake a rough calculation 'on a fag packet' ... the virus would have done it's thing until 'herd immunity' was achieved, say when about 80% (about 53 million) people had been infected. In terms of what we were seeing back then, we could probably have expected about 1% of those infected people to die - so, say, about 530,000 deaths. For those who 'like' that sort of strategy, it would all have been largely 'over' fairly quickly, but 53 million infections would (unless we had taken 'Draconian' decisions) certainly have brought the NHS to a 'halt', so goodness knows how many additional people would have died of other things - during the pandemic or in the following years.
Kind Regards, John
