This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
My wife is filling is as the "camp" nurse for my son's cub scout camp this week.
If a person has a simple cut, she can not clean the wound. She can just put a bandaid on it.
Dr. Mark Crislip did podcast recently discussing the ugly nature of infection. Basically no matter what you do, you get infected. Clean a wound and there is a good chance you end up forcing some of the bacteria into the bloodstream. Don't clean the wound and there is also a chance you will get bacteria into the bloodstream. Which way is worse...
In our bending authors "post modern age" of science, it is hard to decipher the correct course of action. Trying to discern the difference between good practice and lawyer backed "don't do anything because then you can't be sued" advice is challenging.
Just do what grandma's did "if it doesn't sting, it ain't healing" and pour a bunch of alcohol or peroxide on it.
But I agree with you, things are getting just stupid and out of hand.
Whomever said statistics are math, doesn't know that math is nature, statistics are just a human invention. That is why only very few qualified people exist that really understand statistics (I ain't one of them) and should be licensed to utilize them, specially for policy creation.
Yeah, but if you had licensing it'd be down to the politicians to see that those who disagreed with their policies didn't get licenses.
I don't know much about microbes and infection, but it seems to be common sense that the longer the wound is exposed to dirt, the greater the chance of infection.