163 now dead in Argentina via Swineflu

[d000hg]

Sure thing. Stick to arguing with your own "member", you are probably more accomplished at that judging by the nonsense you produce.

It's just like being at school... sadly I've outgrown playground jokes so I'll leave you and SG to it.

Jeez... "argue with your own member"... even his insults are nonsensical now. Anyone know does he have a history of trying to pick fights with total strangers here?

[shaunbhoy]

It's just like being at school... sadly I've outgrown playground jokes so I'll leave you and SG to it.

Jeez... "argue with your own member"... even his insults are nonsensical now. Anyone know does he have a history of trying to pick fights with total strangers here?

Of course it is. It is CUK. Don't take it all so seriously, being a grumpy contentious old git is what I do. Chillax!!
CUK is like a box of chocolates, there is something for everyone. I only come on here for sarky banter, usually sg responds in his own rather clumsy pedestrian way and tries to respond, bless him, but anyone is fair game really. Think of me as a kind of Statler/Waldorf figure hurling abuse from the balcony. I know I do!!

[oracleslave]

Think of me as a kind of Statler/Waldorf figure

No idea who those are so if I use a combination of Chris Moyles and Michael Carroll am I close enough?

[Bagpuss]

muppet show

[xoggoth]

I very much doubt most of the world stats. Mexico/US and Europe, especially UK, have these big balloons of infection over them. Elsewhere, India, Africa, etc almost nothing.

Now I can understand how low population densities would impede the spread, and that due to numbers of international visitors, the UK would soon become infected but once it was in, common sense would suggest normal contacts within a densely populated country would be most important. So how come there are so few in, say, Mumbai where the slum dwellers surely cannot be in the best of health?

One obvious explanation, variations in reporting. The third/developing world has few infections because most infected people have no access to health care and it does not get reported.

PS Hey SB! All the good old crew are coming back.

[d000hg]

Now I can understand how low population densities would impede the spread, and that due to numbers of international visitors, the UK would soon become infected but once it was in, common sense would suggest normal contacts within a densely populated country would be most important. So how come there are so few in, say, Mumbai where the slum dwellers surely cannot be in the best of health?

Firstly, the slum people have to get in close contact with those at high exposure to the virus... there's a big barrier there but of course once these people do get infected, it could spread really fast. But...

One obvious explanation, variations in reporting. The third/developing world has few infections because most infected people have no access to health care and it does not get reported.

Definitely. In countries which have 'proper' poor people, the poor will not see a doctor even if they get seriously ill.

[shaunbhoy]

No idea who those are so if I use a combination of Chris Moyles and Michael Carroll am I close enough?

Michael Carroll the author might be over-egging the pudding somewhat, but what the hell, I'll take it!

[oracleslave]

Michael Carroll the author might be over-egging the pudding somewhat, but what the hell, I'll take it!

Had this one in mind

[shaunbhoy]

Had this one in mind

Maybe, but I'd need a makeover first!

[RichardCranium]

The Whizzo Quality Assortment

CUK is like a box of chocolates, there is something for everyone.

Care for a Crunchy Frog, anyone? Spring Surprise, perhaps?

Clinky linky.