If the tests were accurate (big assumption I know) do we think an infection rate of about 0.1% is good? I suppose given the business of the Marsden they would have been very rigorous about preventing spread because of how vulnerable their patients are, so it looks pretty good to me. Would be interesting to test everyone in a particular community to get a sense of prevalence outside managed environments.
In a hospital environment and in London I would take that 0.1% infected rate as excellent and VERY surprising, especially as they were assymptomatic and so not isolating.
My worry is about the assymptomatic patients, as they are not isolating, and if not care workers, probably not taking a lot of care with touching things and cleaning and even washing hands. Things are still really not acting entirely logically and basic particles such as virus' really ouught to be nothing more than just pure logic