Bad Eggs Blamed For 26 S.F. Salmonella Cases -- But Yearly Tally Same as in 2009

• is there any other numbers to be concerned with

• Thank you very much. :) I realize "semantics" sounds persnickety, but if you think about it, salmonella cases were apparently *down* from last year, until this egg situation came along. And in the same period in '09, we had the "Great Peanut Recall," which may have affected rates here during that time last year. Who's for an egg and peanut omelette? Anyone?

• VerbalCupcake -- I think you get it. Yes, it appears virtually all of this year's cases of salmonella are due to the tainted eggs. But there has not been an explosion of salmonella in San Francisco -- this is a normal number of cases at this point in the year. If you want to discuss semantics, yes there was a "spike" in cases for May and June. There has not been a spike in Year 2010. I'll see if I can come up with a more straightforward headline. Best, JE

• I'm confused--the title says the eggs "*didn't* cause salmonella spike" in SF, but the article itself says that the cases of salmonella reported between May 30 and June 30 "were all of the same strain." From the article: "Department of Public Health spokeswoman Eileen Shields notes that the city has recorded 26 cases of salmonella this year. Of those, 25 came between May 30 and June 30, and just one has occurred since -- on July 15. "While this is not an unusual number of cases, what is unusual is that they were all of the same strain -- indicating the origin is likely the tainted products from Wright County Egg of Galt, Iowa. The timing also indicates that the bad eggs were sent to San Francisco in May and June -- and the worst of it may be over on this side of the Bay." I guess the article title is trying to emphasize that there wasn't "a spike" in salmonella cases, but its wording makes it sound like bad eggs didn't harm San Franciscans, when in fact the eggs are the likely source of sickness. Also, though the "tally" for the year might not be higher than this time last year, 25 of the 26 cases (in other words, practically ALL of the cases) for the year happened between the end of May and the end of June, whereas last year that total number of cases may have been spread out over 6 months. This sounds like a "spike" to me in that SF experienced the bulk of this year's salmonella cases in a short period of time, and those cases all appear to be the work of the same culprit. Or am I missing something?

TotalComments: 4