Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

lucas_SP_BR said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Fair, and it stops being fair at the extremes. The middle of the range is well understood; the ends are where the honest answer is that nobody knows.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

lucas_SP_BR said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

Worth separating that from cost and coverage, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Carry on.