Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

TirzTom 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.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

rachel_ABQ said:

It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.