Have Helmand troops been told to lie low during election?
Britain has not lost a soldier in Afghanistan since the day after Gordon Brown called the general election - that's more than three weeks.
Yet the fatality on 7 April was the third in a week, and throughout the early part of this year the grim news came frequently, sometimes five times in a week.
The Ministry of Defence has been applying an election "purdah" to journalists' embeds or statements by senior officers about current operations there.
Has it also ordered the troops to limit their activities so as to avoid casualties in this sensitive period?
Senior people deny that explicit orders of this kind have been given. Is that right, or could such a change in the pattern of operations have taken place without it being formally ordered?
At first I wondered whether a troop rotation between brigades in Helmand might explain it. But commanders always deny that there is any loss in "effect" when an experienced unit leaves and newcomers arrive.
Indeed it is only fair to observe that a new battalion is often more likely to incur casualties than not.
So has Britain's Task Force Helmand just been lucky since 7 April? The recent period of good fortune could of course be broken at any time, with some family receiving the dread news from uniformed officers at the door.
Luck can undoubtedly play a part in avoiding fatalities - just talk to the soldiers of A Company, 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment who we've filmed with many times over recent months.
They're recently returned from six months in Sangin. The 3 Rifles battle group that A Company was part of lost 30 soldiers, but the company itself lost none. There were certainly in plenty of firefights alongside their 3 Rifles comrades - many put their survival down to luck.
Could good luck really explain the past three-plus weeks across the whole of the British area in Helmand?
Good fortune has certainly played a role, because the soldiers would still need it even if some order to avoid operations that might cause casualties had indeed been given.
Talking to people at a Royal United Services Institute conference on Afghanistan in London today, I did hear an interesting explanation that goes beyond chance.
It is currently the season for harvesting the opium poppy in southern Afghanistan and that usually produces a lull in fighting.
One Nato official confirmed that reports of violent incidents were "down somewhat" across the south of Afghanistan.
Many gunmen take time off from shooting or laying bombs to help in the harvest. With more people working the fields, there's also a greater danger of the insurgents killing villagers at this time with attacks aimed at Nato.
I'm not sure I believe that the poppy harvest entirely explains the lower British fatality rate since there are still circumstances in which patrols could be attacked.
That and good luck though are important ingredients in explaining the current situation.
But I cannot help remembering hearing tell that in the run up to the last British general election, the British Army in Iraq did try to avoid major set piece operations that might lead to a flare up in fighting.
So I'm keeping an open mind about the current situation in Afghanistan.