Defra note: 240 "dangerous contacts" of which 120 were "contiguous culls" and 54 Slaughter on Suspicion cases have now been included as "Infected Premises".
Or, according to one commentator
IPs - 1450 current, 1184 sampled and 883 positive results.
SOSs - 256 current, 249 sampled and 54 positive.
DCs - 5377 current, 559 sampled and 221 positive.... Of which contiguous - 2960 current, 320 sampled and 120 positive)
This is said to account for the increase of 250,000 slaughtered animals since September 30th. (We do not know - and cannot find out - in which counties these "new" IPs are to be found.)
We therefore print this information and the figures below must be viewed in the light of that information.
WHEN were the results "later returned"? WHERE were they? Were these late results received after or before Dec 4th?
If a Dangerous Contact premises can be later termed an "Infected Premises" why are there so many IPs that returned negative results still referred to by that category?
How many recorded infected premises (IPs) were confirmed as laboratory positive? Similarly for dangerous contacts (DCs), Contiguous Premises (CPs) and Slaughter on Suspicion (SOSs).
How are the untested "IP" distinguished from "SOS"?
What criteria were used to identify the "IP" that were not laboratory-tested?
Of those tested, what type of sample was taken and how many samples of each type?
What percentage of each category of premises that were laboratory tested was virus and/or antigen positive? What percentage was antibody positive? What percentage was both antigen and antibody positive?
Is not the time between September and December a very long time for a laboratory result to come back?
*The single positive DC is explained on a note at the end of the data sheets, again in very large print. " This premise was sampled as part of the 3 km cull in Cumbria. Sampling policy for this pre-emptive cull was to sample as many sheep as possible. Sheep were blood sampled as they were slaughtered. If a sample tested positive all other animals on the premise were culled.
For the said DC, initial laboratory results came back positive for the presence of antibodies, which indicated exposure to the disease, and so was converted to DC status. DC premises classified from the 3km culls are only converted to IPs with positive results from a further stage of laboratory tests called probang, which indicates the presence of live virus.
However this premise did not have samples submitted for probang testing. This is because all the animals on the premise had already been slaughtered and therefore the tissue samples required for probang could not be taken.
The premise was not converted to IP status because only 1 of the 32 blood samples, taken initially, returned a positive result. This is insufficient for a change in premise classification."