
Damn numbers and facts.
Don't get me started on "r" numbers (I believe r is a short for RAND() as it's somewhere between 0 and 1)
Knowing that one person has reported positive, then surely knowing how many contacts they have had and how many of those became infected, would be a very accurate way of calculating a more accurate r value? It seems so bloody obvious compared with the current dozen committees who vote on a random number that they then seem to average before saying it's somewhere between 0.5 and 0.999 but less than 1.