3 ms·
The percent given is deceptive, it’s in fact 40% of outbreaks where the cause was known. But since many outbreaks have no known cause, it’s only 25% of all outb
by explaininjs 3y ago
The percent given is deceptive, it’s in fact 40% of outbreaks where the cause was known. But since many outbreaks have no known cause, it’s only 25% of all outbreaks.
Extrapolating “known cause” data to all cases is foolish - clearly if someone had been sick then the cause would be known (unless for some reason they were hiding that fact from investigators).
- kitsunesoba 3y agoEven so, that 25% represents a lot of cases that could've easily been prevented. It's extremely low-hanging fruit that would quickly be acted upon in just about any other situation.
- explaininjs 3y agoWhat exactly is this “extremely low-hanging fruit”? A federally fin cancer sick leave program seems the only option. Creating, maintaining, and preventing fraud in such a program seems far from easy or low-hanging.
- dboreham 3y agoThe stats might work against your thesis: the outbreaks where the cause is unknown might be more likely to be caused by pathogens transmitted by workers.
- explaininjs 3y agoPerhaps, but the fact remains that the title as stands is deceptive. The direction of the deception is related to the probability investigators are unable to determine if someone working at a restaurant was sick. Which seems slight.