It does not explain why fewer women get ill with it 
Rwy20 wrote:
But you are in good company of politicians who think border controls are a great of showing to your electorate that you are doing something against this danger from outside.
Well, there are some people who want to see closed borders for entirely different reasons and who are happy about that particular aspect of the current situation.
Rwy20 wrote:
politicians who think border controls are a great of showing to your electorate that you are doing something against this danger from outside.
I so do hope people will remember that at the next election. I will be sure to remind my wife how her vacation plans got overruled by people who thing holding an election is fine, but crossing borders is not.
Peter wrote:
It does not explain why fewer women get ill with it
Your gem was not lost on me
This is the kind of thing which makes the govt’s patronising attitude so objectionable
Where is this sudden cluster? It’s a State secret…
Peter, those look like nice charts and tables… what is the source? I can find something similar on the NHS site, but it is not quite the same format.
I think you will find it here
I am looking here but can’t find that exact one now… I see this
The 21% fatality rate simply shows that they have not been testing asymptomatic people, especially historically
EDIT: found it here
and if you put in West Sussex you see it
Looks likely somebody has just come back from a ski holiday in Ischgl and popped into a few “high density” night clubs when they got home…
Nice. Thanks!
New data point. 1 in 400 are currently infected (around 10th of may) with the virus in England. Or 1 passenger per a380. Since this is an aviation forum.
From above: “This indicates about 148,000 people in England could be currently infected – 0.27% of the population.”
That is bang in the middle of the range put out in a briefing 2 days ago. Well, they probably had this data by then.
Not a good idea to go out into crowds, unless you are young and fit.
