> 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.
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.
Wiping things out full-stop is difficult - look at myxomatosis application in Australia.
"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.
While it feels ridiculous to have an extended discussion about a mostly irrelevant adjective, I too interpret "amazing" as referring to the logistical effort.
Granted this is probably one of those disagreements that falls under "the issues of least importance cause the greatest divides".
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.