(a) Increase (or decrease if negative) in Number and Percentage of Premises Quarantined since last report.

* Includes those awaiting depopulation - a combined number is given when a report has no breakdown.

CDFA total premised infected do not always agree with APHIS reports of the premises depopulated plus premises waiting. For that reason, we have used the APHIS numbers above in cases of discrepancy.

Any delay in Reporting Statistics is totally beyond our control. We can only report same when we receive them! This table is based upon the UC End List, the CDFA releases, the USDA reports received via ProMed and the figures released to the media by representatives of one of the above.

(1) - Per UC END Release
(2) - Per CDFA Updates
(3) - Per CDFA/APHIS Updates
(P) - Per ProMed (USDA) Report
(U) - Per APHIS/USDA Report
(D) - Premises Depopulated
(W) - Premises Waiting Depopulation

As of the Jan 8, 2003 report, APHIS/USDA (ProMed) has stopped breaking out the number of premises tested and those considered as "direct contacts." There is no way we can provide stats in regard to the percentage of tested vs. non-tested premises. Make your own assumptions as to why this was changed!

As of the January 11, 2003 report, the USDA/APHIS has resumed breaking down this information! Hoever, they are now calling them "dangerous" contacts instead of "direct" contacts which opens up a much broader, yet undefined, area. We have not changed the labels on our tables.

Is depopulation being performed on sites which have been TESTED and only those which have had direct contact with POSITIVE birds? That is the purpose behind this table. It includes the actual number of sites on a cumulative basis which have actually been TESTED positive. It also includes the actual number of direct contacts with those positive sites on a cumulative basis. This information wa only available from OIE (See Links to their reports on our Main Newcastle Page). There is a delay in their reports being published. The ProMed report also has this information and their information is coming directly from the USDA, so we feel it is reliable (Links on Main Newcastle Page). Figures below come from OIE unless denoted (P).

The Jan 2, 2003 appears about a week behind, thus some figures are also behind.

From these statisics, we have two good questions. First, why aren't isn't more testing being done, especially considering the premises depopulated in the first table above? Second, what has the definition of direct contact come to mean in the eyes of those doing the killing? When a 1 km square area was wiped out, was this construed to be direct contact by the powers that be? Something looks very wrong here. See Table 3.

Table 3 is being presented to show the small percenatage of birds who are actually being tested. Since we only have that information from either the OIE reports (which are going to monthly reporting only) and the ProMed reports from the USDA, there is always a delay in our receipt of this information. Even trying to compare the same dates of Table 1 and Table 2 lead to descrepancies. The following table will show that the percentage of birds being tested alarmingly low compared to the total premises depopulated. Table 3 is based on figures from Table 2 and should be self-explanatory. Beginning with the December 2 report, there is a dramatic and frightening increase in killing without any testing!

TABLES NOTE: For example, the USDA report of Jan 23, 2003, says that 1307 premises are scheduled to be depopulated, which agrees with the CDFA report. However, when you add the numbers together of premises (396) and contacts (903), you get 1299. You must remove the 8 which are listed on the USDA report as "premises released" in order to understand this reporting. This differential has continued since Jan 14, 2003 when the "premises released" was first listed.

All artwork and graphics are the property of Ruger Design and are protected by copyright law. Any reproduction of these graphics without the written permission of Ruger Design is forbidden by law.