Those numbers are comparing different things: https://briefingsforbrexit.com/fact-checking-the-bbc-fact-ch...

> Unfortunately Morris is making the statistical rookie error of comparing two statistics measuring completely different things. For the US, he reports estimates of total illnesses whilst for the UK he uses recorded lab reports. The actual number of illnesses in any country are unknown as many will not be diagnosed or reported. We do know for sure that the number will be far higher than lab reports of known, reported cases.

> And in fact, the lab report data are available for both countries and could have made a valid comparison. The US reported 46,623 salmonella lab cases in 2016, a rate of 14.5 per 100,000 people and a similar rate for Campylobacter. The latest UK figures (reported on the Reality Check article) are 10,089 for Salmonella (around 17 per 100,000 people) and 63,946 for Campylobacter (over 100 per 100,000 people). It might justifiably be queried whether lab reports are collected on the same basis in the US and UK but on the basis of what we have, rates are actually higher in the UK than the US.

This is a great misuse of data and not relevant as presented.

Perhaps the US has a significantly higher per capita consumption of Salmonella infection vectors. Perhaps people in the US are less clean in ways that increase infections. Perhaps EU cases are under reported.

Most cases of salmonella I've read are down to salads and not been overlooked by health service: https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/bagged-salads-pose-sal...

Maybe USA eats more salads - but agreed, pushing out this data without a breakdown going X % was due to chicken and outlying the data without that context to induce a perception that all is due to such chicken is a bit off-key.

This is an estimate vs reported cases. Not exactly good numbers to compare.

If we look at hospitalizations or deaths the difference is still significant.

> Outbreaks due to Salmonella are on the rise, with S. Enteritidis causing one in six food-borne disease outbreaks in 2016. Salmonella bacteria were the most common cause of food-borne outbreaks (22.3%), an increase of 11.5% compared to 2015. They caused the highest burden in terms of numbers of hospitalisations (1,766; 45.6% of all hospitalised cases) and of deaths (10; 50% of all deaths among outbreak cases).

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/salmonella-cases-n...

Genuinely interested in good numbers to compare then, any chance to elaborate?

Actual reported numbers from both ends. But this is a tricky case because our culture, healthcare and governments are different.

I'm definitely not an expert on the matter but comparing an estimate vs a reported value is silly.

I've heard that people in the US are discouraged from eating raw eggs. That makes it sound like the EU would be at greater risk, but if we the US doesn't do proper measurements we can pretend that it makes it impossible to even attempt to compare.

Eggs are a funny one, as the regulation is very different between US and EU.

In the US all commercial eggs must be washed, which destroys the cuticle and is why eggs are stored in a fridge to keep fresh. In the EU commercial eggs cannot be washed, and are typically stored outside the fridge (and vaccinated against salmonella, iirc).

There is a lot of contention about the effect on bacterial culturing, but research I've seen suggests it's a bit of a wash (e.g. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090987)

Turkey does best of all those, in regards to eggs: We have proper vaccination of chickens, eggs are not washed and eggs are always kept cold in stores (usually also at home).

Maybe, certainly prudent approach and many I know in the UK also store their eggs in the fridge, though can't say it's common to see them stored in a fridge in stores.

Be nice to see some stats comparing that, though different countries have different ways of measuring stats and then culture of accessing such services. UK, it's free so people wont hesitate, USA - not free, be cases that ppl ride it out themselves, or not and only then would be a statistic. Turkey - no idea and not easy to find such stats in western language as "Turkey health stats" won't end well in the likes of google and as it in effect, flips you the bird :groan:.

> Turkey health stats

Your keyword is TÜİK; the statistics institute of Turkey.

This is a genuinely hard problem between jurisdictions, because reporting tends to be done in terms of statistics only, with differing (and often unreported) data methods, etc.

Maybe, but it's not going to be wrong by several orders of magnitude like this.

Well, it is though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis_in_the_United_St...

142,000 cases were reported annually several years ago. Not 1.3 million. So it is indeed an order of magnitude off.

Imagine comparing estimated flu infections vs people that go to the doctor for flu and you'd get similarly ridiculous results.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The 142000 number is from chicken, alone. The 1.3 (or 1.2 at the top of the same wiki page you cite) is for all sources.

There is a epidemiological problem here, of a) reported vs. estmated and b) the basis of both those things. But it isn't the one you thought it was.

The context of this thread is chicken, but thanks for noting that. But the point stands -- estimated infections cannot be compared with reported cases.

If you can find actual reported cases in the US from all sources, that would be great to compare -- otherwise we shouldn't make the comparison at all.

Yes, we are pointing out the same epidemiological problem - I'm just noting your numbers don't support it compared that way.

The estimates of people infected by coronavirus in China are orders of magnitude larger than the reported cases. It’s very possible in epidemiology.

Coronavirus in China is a very early and fluid situation. The CDC is able to make estimates based on many years of data and research.

I'm not sure that that's the reason, actually. The reason is that not everyone who suffers from disease X necessarily goes to get treatment for disease X which would be the only way in which that case of disease X could be reported.

So, for example, if it's the case that only 1/100 people who get salmonella have symptoms severe enough to cause them to go for treatment, then the _estimates_ of salmonella will be 2 orders of magnitude _higher_ than the _reported_ cases.

I am not an expert and haven’t looked at those links. I’ve learned to be skeptical of US vs EU stats ever since I learned about the difference in definitions and data methods that lead to difference in infant mortality statistics.

For one thing, those two quotes are talking about different stats: “cases reported” vs “estimates”. How many cases are reported in the US? What is the EU’s estimate of the actual total?

Eastern Europe under-reports these cases for sure.

Why would they?