//A period of stabilisation (of the number of patients being admitted with COvid) Fairly rapid decline numbers in hospital thereafter. And a much happier wife ;-)//
But did the lockdown cause that? If so, what do you base that on?
//If that's the case (and auxiliary staff couldn't have been recruited) why go to the expense of setting them up at all?//
Because it looked good, Dave. It gave the impression that the government was on top of the virus (which it never was, nor was any other government). They had to be seen to be "doing something" because the population expects the government to protect them from everything that's nasty.
This was the governments "Covid Action Plan", published just three weeks before lockdown:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk#responsibilities-pandemic-preparedness
It is not until you get to three quarters of the way down that you read this:
"Action that would be considered could include population distancing strategies (such as school closures, encouraging greater home working, reducing the number of large-scale gatherings) to slow the spread of the disease throughout the population, while ensuring the country’s ability to continue to run as normally as possible."
Even then, there is no inkling that the entire non-essential (and a good bit of the essential) economy and services might be closed down. So what changed in those three weeks that wasn't predicted earlier (whilst the action plan was being compiled)?