Since the doctors and epidemiologists don’t seem to have a clear grasp of what’s going with the still-developing anthrax scare, perhaps there’s not so much harm in amateurs putting forward theories. Whether that’s the case, or not, I must confess that I’m increasingly struck by the age spread between the cases of inhalation and cutaneous anthrax, which I noted in the last post.
As you’ll note, from the numbers I referenced previously, all but one of the victims of inhalation anthrax was over 50. Actually, all but one were 55 and over. The exception was 47.
All but one of the cases of skin anthrax were under 50. The one exception was 51.
Of course I know we’re dealing with extraordinarily small samples here. Far too few to reveal a true statistical significance. But it’s hard for me at least to figure that this is mere coincidence. Could age be a key determinant of which you get, in addition to numbers of spores?
- -Hiring More Journalists
- -Providing free memberships to those who cannot afford them
- -Supporting independent, non-corporate journalism