Certainly worth hoping that hospital admissions, ICU usage, long-term symptoms, and death rates stay (relatively) low. But given this is a very recent development, and considering the historical lag time between cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, the fact that the later is currently lagging doesn't inspire much confidence.

All in all, there are so many variables--some known, some unknown or unaddressed--that it's largely guesswork at this point. If determined, any of us can find lots of evidence to support whatever position we wish to support, e.g., "...we plan to go ahead...whatever the government says." That may be a reasonable way to plan a Christmas dinner, but it's probably not a good way to make predictions about the future course of the pandemic. And we should all probably bear in mind that many of the folks we're relying on to provide solid information are in hot pursuit of their own private agendas, too.

The same holds true when evaluating retrospectively; if 99% of COVID cases do *not* end in fatalities (and the majority of the fatalities do not involve people previously fit, healthy and/or young), we might conclude that Christmas dinners were fine all the way around last year, too. I mean, except for the dead, the suffering, and those who care for the sickly, who're having a resoundingly difficult time.

Note that I'm not taking a stand for or against social occasions, personal precautions, lockdowns, or any of the rest. I'm just pontificating about the way we evaluate information to suit our pre-existing interests.

Mark