SleepDoc_PDX said:

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

I read this differently from SleepDoc_PDX, on substance rather than tone. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

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

SleepDoc_PDX said:

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

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.

SleepDoc_PDX said:

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

Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.

hans_munich said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.