AgentFlagHorse32
I only need help with the bolded answers’ with grammar errors,…
I only need help with the bolded answers’ with grammar errors, sentence fragments, and word choices.
Please calculate the totals for each column and row and their corresponding percentages to try to determine if there are any important differences by age or by gender. Such a task is carried out to investigate if there are any high-risk groups and if the age and gender distribution can give some clues about the source of the outbreak. Interpret your findings.
As working on the data, the highest percentage of cases is found in the 6-10 age group, with over 87% of the cases. This indicates that this age group is the most vulnerable to the outbreak, likely due to their dietary habits or exposure to a contaminated food source. Conversely, the low percentage of cases in the 0-5 age group may suggest that this group has less exposure to the contaminated food source. In contrast, the age group 11 and older may have developed some immunity to the pathogen. · Regarding gender, there is no notable disparity in the number of cases between males and females. Both genders have similar percentages of patients, with females having a slightly higher case (56.48%) than males (43.52%). · These findings suggest that the outbreak is likely foodborne, and the age group 6-10 is the most affected. However,further investigation is needed to identify the specific food source and other factors contributing to the outbreak.
Please calculate the attack rates (multiply your answer by 100 to get the AR%) by place to try to determine where the contaminated meal was served. For each place compare attack rates (AR) for those who attended with attack rates for those who did not, by using the relative risk (i.e., RR = AR in attendees/AR in nonattendees). Round all answers to the hundredths (i.e, 2.23 vs 2.2). Relative Risk is not a percentage, so only use % to denote ARs. Interpret your findings. (Hint: see explanation in textbook on how to interpret RRs).
In calculating the attack rate, the elementary school cafeteria recorded the highest attack rate, 34.06 %, followed by the local cafeteria, 3.94%. Considerably, the school cafeteria was the source of the outbreak. The Lions Club is the least likely source of the outbreak, given its meager 2.45%. A positive correlation between eating at the elementary school cafeteria and the disease outbreak appears. The 8.30 relative risk implies that those that ate from the cafeteria were eight times more likely to contract the disease.
Important note: None of the kitchen personnel were ill. The names of the kitchen personnel and
their participation in the food preparation are as follows: Manuel prepared the beef burritos and the potatoes, John prepared the salad and the fruit, Sally served all dishes except the ice cream, and Jane prepared the cheeseburgers and served the ice cream. The ice cream was a commercial brand and was bought at a nearby supermarket.
Please calculate the attack rates per 100 (noted as a percentage) by food item to try to deter- mine the one that was probably contaminated. Compare attack rates (AR) for those who ate the food item with attack rates for those who did not eat the food item, by using the relative risk
(i.e., RR = AR in those who ate the food/AR in those who did not eat the food). Round your answers to the hundredths (i.e, 2.23 vs 2.2). Relative Risk is not a percentage, so only use % to denote ARs. Interpret your findings.
After working on the data, the fruit cocktail and tossed salad had height attack rates of 61.17% and 63.64%. Also, ice cream was the 3rd on the list, with an attack rate of 6.52%. The implication of these outcomes was that consumed cocktail and salad foods were 13.46 and 15.48 times more likely to fall sick.
Given that the epidemic team worked fast enough and the implicated meal(s) was (were)
identified before all food leftovers were discarded, food samples from some meal leftovers were taken to the laboratory. In addition, stool samples were taken from the kitchen personnel who prepared or handled each different food item. The laboratory confirmed that Salmonella toxin
was present in some of the food samples and that one of the kitchen personnel of that place
had the same Salmonella species. Furthermore, the Salmonella species found in the food and the kitchen worker was the same species found in stool samples of the patients. Please discuss these findings and identify the kitchen worker possibly responsible for the outbreak.
I can interpret those findings and determine the kitchen worker possibly responsible for the outbreak that salad and cocktail foods indicated the highest attack rate and relative risk values meaning they were the most likely causes of the outbreak in which those meals were prepared (John, who organized the salad and mostly likely sparked the episode). It can be analyzed that this is most likely from John because the stool sample from the kitchen staff was positive for Salmonella. Salmonella was a confirmed pathogen, indicating that the kitchen staff was not ill. It can be concluded that John did not wash his hands, leading to contamination. Personal hygiene and s are essential to health, especially for those who cook.
Complete the table. There were two menus’ people could choose from (each with a meat and a vegetable). From the RRs, list the two food items included in each of the two menus served.
Menu 1 Menu 2
Meatloaf Baked Chicken
Mashed potatoes Green beans
In the scenario above, the data indicates that two menus consisting of meat and a vegetable were served. The relative risk (RR) values for the four foods were also supplied, with meatloaf and mashed potatoes having the lowest RR values of 0.07 and 0.18, respectively, and baked chicken and green beans having much higher RR values 6.96 and 6.50, respectively.
According to the supplied RR values, it is evident that the meatloaf and mashed potatoes were associated with a significantly reduced risk of adverse health outcomes than the baked chicken and green beans. This shows that the meatloaf and mashed potatoes were prepared and served in a way that minimized the danger of contamination or other hazards, whereas the chicken and green beans were not.
It is also likely that variances in the ingredients or preparation procedures employed for the various menu items led to disparities in risk. For instance, the meatloaf may have been produced with fresh, high-quality components and cooked to a safe temperature. In contrast, the baked chicken may have been prepared with older, lower-quality meat and inadequately cooked.
Overall, the data indicate that meatloaf and mashed potatoes were offered as one menu option, while baked chicken and green beans were offered as alternatives. Although the reasons for the differences in relative risk are unknown, the data provides valuable insights into the safety and quality of the various menu items and can help shape future food preparation and safety policies.
2. To determine which food item(s) are responsible, is it enough to just calculate the ARs for those who ate the food items? Why or why not? (Give a thorough response)
I would say no because calculating the ARS for those who ate the food items is insufficient to determine which food item(s) are responsible for the food-borne outbreak. This is because the ARS (morbidity rate) measures the proportion of people who become ill after exposure to a particular food and does not consider other factors, such as the timing of eating and other potential contaminants.
3. From the RRs, identify the food item you believe is most responsible for the outbreak.
I believe the baked chicken was responsible for the outbreak compared to the other food items. It has the highest relative risk, close to 7. Those who ate chicken were seven times more likely to get sick. Green beans have a relative risk of 6.5, which is close to the RR of the chicken; however, these two items were served in conjunction, and therefore those who ate the green beans were expected to eat the chicken as well.
