My biases; Looking at raw data and collections of data is pretty boring to most people and I am very hesitant to do much of that here. (picture one of those little yellow guys sleeping here) But there are certain standards that need to be met to have a reliable data base to evaluate and solve a problem. I'll grant you its been awhile for me, but I still know how this stuff is done. Look, I've written SOP's (standard operating procedures) for drilling, sampling in soil, water, groundwater, chain-of-custody, data analysis (including statistics), and sampling grid development for environmental and geophysical sampling, and followed that up with tons of field work. Be aware that I have worked with "thin" data sets (small clients with spills) and know how to build a statistically robust data set. I've even presented results to the US EPA. So I do have a biased outlook and it's based on my past experience.
I have no axe to grind one way or another; I readily accept the need for people to treat drinking water as well as those who trust themselves to "choose wisely". Heck, there are plenty of areas where I treat the water before I drink it.
Rockwells article; Well I did sort of address it. I said It"s been a while, I need to re read it. The only point I remember clearly is about the surface water of lakes which I addressed a couple of posts above. Frankly, I agree that Rockwells study is not that great and my response to it was that I pretty much I ignored it. It hasn't really affected me in a meaningful way so why should I bother. I'm still waiting for a REAL study to come out. And I admit when I say REAL it is given my aforementioned bias. If you have a link to one, I would love to see it.
I'm not sure how the CDC's 9 day mean incubation time is "conservative." There would be no reason I can see to not get it as accurate as possible. We have to go by the best data we have, and the best data we have shows 9 days is "average." I think that's a more useful and accurate number than "weeks." The whole incubation time is only tangential regardless.
On a fact sheet, they are stuck with producing guidance for public consumption. They are forced to come to a conclusion with a lack of data. I've been in a grossly similar circumstance before. Conservative is the only way to go, unless someone above them overrides their process. But also a fact sheet or guidance doc is not the same as a study. The easiest way to tell the difference is to look at the references. The CDC guidance doc basically has none, and the CDC study has a huge laundry list of ref's. And that study looks pretty solid to me given the cursery look I've had at it. And what's funny is the language in the conclusion screams this topic needs a lot more study. You will not see that in a guidance doc as it's supposed to give confidence to the public that "we know what's going on here". The other part of the whole equation is the politics, right? You may think it's not there, but it is.
Oh yea, tangential or not, the incubation was only one example of how you seem to not really fully understanding what the data mean. First you quote an average of 7 days, and then say " A mean incubation of about 9 days is often quoted, and it seems it's usually over 5 days and can be 25 days or more". I can't really tell, but this does suggest that you are starting to grasp the problem. An incubation range of 1 to 25 days? That is a data nightmare given all the possible variables that are unknown at this time. And that is just the incubation we are talking about.
You said ...the Sierra which is one of the "safest" ranges out there. I'll apply the same standards to you. What study is that drawn from and did you study the underlying data? I suspect that statement isn't science based at all.
You are right about that. It's just based on observations and personal experience in the Sierra and numerous other mountain ranges. But that is just really an aside alluding to regions with moose, larger black bear, brown bear, and harsher mountain weather like Montana, British Columbia, and Alaska. The point I was really making there was that we all make multiple risk assessments dependent upon the area we are heading into a particular region. It's not just about drinking water which is an easy fix. If you are worried about the water, bring treatment. If you are worried about brown bear, well you need to get multiple stratigies worked out for different situations. You know what I mean. The one problem is a slam dunk and the other is never 100%.
Coulter, it will probably be a few days before I am back (finally got the plumbing fixed!!!) I'll try to spend some time on this between now and them.
Chris