If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VIN reports the real numbers - pet food recall
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...in-follows-up-
affirms-thousands-of-pets-potentially-affected/#comment-28052 To date, more than 1,500 VIN member veterinarians have taken the survey, and of those, 36 percent believe they’ve seen an animal affected by the recall. Further pressed, 17 percent felt confident the case was related to the recall – because the food the pet had eaten was confirmed to be on the recall list – while 29 percent believed the link was likely. Of those with cases they felt were either confidently linked or potentially so, the VIN veterinarians reported 951 sick pets and 313 dead ones. buglady take out the dog before replying |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VIN reports the real numbers - pet food recall
"buglady" wrote in message nk.net... http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...in-follows-up- affirms-thousands-of-pets-potentially-affected/#comment-28052 To date, more than 1,500 VIN member veterinarians have taken the survey, and of those, 36 percent believe they’ve seen an animal affected by the recall. Further pressed, 17 percent felt confident the case was related to the recall – because the food the pet had eaten was confirmed to be on the recall list – while 29 percent believed the link was likely. Of those with cases they felt were either confidently linked or potentially so, the VIN veterinarians reported 951 sick pets and 313 dead ones. buglady take out the dog before replying |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VIN reports the real numbers - pet food recall
Cr*p, I dunno what's happening....mashed the wrong button ...sorry about
double post - the url is wrong below, should be: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...in-follows-up- affirms-thousands-of-pets-potentially-affected/ To date, more than 1,500 VIN member veterinarians have taken the survey, and of those, 36 percent believe they’ve seen an animal affected by the recall. Further pressed, 17 percent felt confident the case was related to the recall – because the food the pet had eaten was confirmed to be on the recall list – while 29 percent believed the link was likely. Of those with cases they felt were either confidently linked or potentially so, the VIN veterinarians reported 951 sick pets and 313 dead ones. And Banfield has weighed in: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...anfield-says-3 9000-pets-may-have-been-affected/ Pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical may have sickened or killed 39,000 cats and dogs nationwide, based on an extrapolation from data released Monday by one of the nation’s largest chains of veterinary hospitals. Banfield, The Pet Hospital, said an analysis of its database, compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals, suggests that three out of every 10,000 cats and dogs that ate the pet food contaminated with melamine developed kidney failure. ............sort of freaking unreal. Looks like the petconx database is way below the actual numbers. I wonder though if this extrapolation took into account the there may have been more contaminated food coming out of one plant than the other. I like Dr. Pion's (of VIN) insistence on stating a range rather than a number. buglady take out the dog before replying |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VIN reports the real numbers - pet food recall
"buglady" wrote in message ink.net... Cr*p, I dunno what's happening....mashed the wrong button ...sorry about double post - the url is wrong below, should be: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...in-follows-up- affirms-thousands-of-pets-potentially-affected/ To date, more than 1,500 VIN member veterinarians have taken the survey, and of those, 36 percent believe they've seen an animal affected by the recall. Further pressed, 17 percent felt confident the case was related to the recall - because the food the pet had eaten was confirmed to be on the recall list - while 29 percent believed the link was likely. Of those with cases they felt were either confidently linked or potentially so, the VIN veterinarians reported 951 sick pets and 313 dead ones. Lets put this in context of the above percentages... 36% of 1500 surveyed vets is 540 vets 17% of 1500 is 285 vets. 29% of 1500 is 435 vets (is there a reason these two percentages don't add? I would have thought they should...) So, these 540 vets are reporting a total of 1264 impacted annimals. These 17% of the 36% were confident of the link, so that is about 47% of those who believe they've seen an animal impacted, this translates to a total of 594 pets, or 447 sick and 147 dead. (where the vets were confident of the link). Or the range would be 447-951 sick pets, and 147 -313 dead ones. Now, if we had total number of vets in the US, and we felt these numbers were representative we could extrapolate to total number of US pets impacted. To get the numbers consistent with the Banfield numbers, we'd need 46000 (practicing) vets in the US. And Banfield has weighed in: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/20...anfield-says-3 9000-pets-may-have-been-affected/ Pet food contaminated with an industrial chemical may have sickened or killed 39,000 cats and dogs nationwide, based on an extrapolation from data released Monday by one of the nation's largest chains of veterinary hospitals. Banfield, The Pet Hospital, said an analysis of its database, compiled from records collected by its more than 615 veterinary hospitals, suggests that three out of every 10,000 cats and dogs that ate the pet food contaminated with melamine developed kidney failure. Those numbers are actually pretty comforting. 3/10000 cats/dogs ***that ate the contaminated food*** developed kidney failure. This would explain the low incidence that we actually see of problems. How many clients does a typical small practice have (I'm asking here... I've seen the shelves with files, but don't want to hazard a guess)? Assuming all of them ate the contaminated food (which is not a good assumption), how many would have developed kidney failure? ...........sort of freaking unreal. Looks like the petconx database is way below the actual numbers. I wonder though if this extrapolation took into account the there may have been more contaminated food coming out of one plant than the other. I like Dr. Pion's (of VIN) insistence on stating a range rather than a number. You're not comparing apples to apples here, I've tried to clarify things a bit above. The VIN numbers are only number of impacted over the surveyed vets. Banfield is extrapolating nation wide. Dale |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the pet food recall | Julia Altshuler | Dog behavior | 6 | March 20th 07 06:23 PM |
pet food recall | Lydia | Dog health | 0 | October 27th 03 08:10 PM |
pet food recall | Lydia | Dog health | 0 | October 27th 03 08:10 PM |
Go! Natural Pet food recall | [email protected] | Dog health | 0 | October 24th 03 03:41 PM |
Go! Natural Pet food recall | [email protected] | Dog behavior | 0 | October 24th 03 03:41 PM |