I don't think that interpretation is plausible really. The author mentioned nothing about logistics, scale, time-to-results. I don't see how you can claim that the "amazing" is supposed to refer to something the author didn't mention.
> so short a time
Twelve years?
> no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies"
Indeed.
> no need to have an OT comment thread
I just made the comment, not the thread. No-one's baying for blood. I'm just saying it's very sloppy and potentially dangerous phrasing.
"Deadly [to rabbits] disease kills rabbits. It's completely expected, not amazing at all."
And yet, rabbits have regained a significant foothold in Australia, despite myx absolutely decimating the population in the 50s. It's not just about micro-scale effectiveness, it's about effective timing and implementation. Same goes for AIDs meds in Africa, or forest fires.
Granted this is probably one of those disagreements that falls under "the issues of least importance cause the greatest divides".
I thought it referred more to the logistics of getting hundreds of producers coordinated and hundreds of thousands of chickens vaccinated in so short a time. Actually, if they have the data, it would make for fascinating study about epidemiology in vaccinated populations. Some chickens were probably missed, but once the vaccination rate reaches some critical level, the disease doesn't spread the same way.
So, no need to assume the writer is one of the "crazies" and no need to have an OT comment thread about it.