Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Herald)   Sewage in treatment plant has virus from 115,000 people compared to official count of 446 in service area. If we're ever going to beat this thing we need to stop going to the bathroom right now   (bostonherald.com) divider line
    More: Sick, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, Metropolitan area, Biobot Analytics, United States, Estimation, coronavirus cases  
•       •       •

4513 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Apr 2020 at 3:27 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



103 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-04-08 11:47:39 PM  
We are still in the beginning
 
2020-04-08 11:48:57 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/could have
//suggests
 
2020-04-08 11:51:50 PM  
How do they determine that....?

1....2...3....4...122,000...122,001...

Hey CARL...
WUT?
121,399
FARK...
I Hate you Dan.

1....2....3....4
 
2020-04-09 12:02:59 AM  
Boris Johnson said the same thing and he's as healthy as a...

oh...

wait a minute...

nevermind
 
2020-04-09 12:26:44 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-09 12:29:46 AM  
Well this explains the TP hoarding, maybe we can wipe out coronavirus?
 
2020-04-09 3:10:56 AM  
Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.
 
2020-04-09 3:13:29 AM  
💩
 
2020-04-09 3:30:31 AM  
So doesn't mean the R0 is less?
 
2020-04-09 3:31:50 AM  

Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.


California is wonder why their death rate is so much lower than NYC, they suspect that the Cohan's been in California since last fall and lots of people are now immune.

Comparing virus loads from the sewage might shed light on the conundrum.
 
2020-04-09 3:33:36 AM  

Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.


Ya, no link to the actual results, hard to evaluate.  I'd bet it COULD be accurate, given that lots of folks are asymptomatic, but you'd also need a baseline of lots of "normal" virus samples to compare to...and CDC has shiat the bed by all accounts.
 
2020-04-09 3:34:12 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-09 3:35:12 AM  
That sounds like quite the viral load.
 
2020-04-09 3:41:48 AM  
Disease: COVID-19
Virus: SARS-CoV-2, commonly called "Coronavirus"

CFR
Case Fatality Rate = (Deaths / Total confirmed Cases)
DDR= Deaths / (Deaths+Recoveries)

yyyymmdd-   CFR   | DDR
2020-02-22*  3.13%| 9.60%
2020-02-23*  3.12%| 9.49%
2020-02-24*  3.37%| 8.94%
2020-02-25*  3.67%| 8.82%
2020-02-26*  3.41%| 7.85%
2020-02-27*  3.44%| 7.28%
2020-02-28*  3.42%| 6.88%
2020-02-29*  3.42%| 6.60%
2020-03-01*  3.43%| 6.32%
2020-03-02*  3.43%| 6.10%
2020-03-03*  3.43%| 5.94%
2020-03-04*  3.45%| 5.81%
2020-03-05*  3.44%| 5.76%
2020-03-06*  3.42%| 5.73%
2020-03-07*  3.38%| 5.65%
2020-03-08*  3.48%| 5.81%
2020-03-09*  3.53%| 5.93%
2020-03-10*  3.60%| 6.12%
2020-03-11*  3.67%| 6.44%
2020-03-12*  3.68%| 6.46%
2020-03-13^  3.72%| 7.10%
2020-03-14^  3.73%| 7.14%
2020-03-15^  3.84%| 7.73%
2020-03-16^  3.93%| 8.24%
2020-03-17^  4.03%| 8.80%
2020-03-18^  4.09%| 9.47%
2020-03-19^  4.08%| 10.20%
2020-03-20^  4.13%| 11.04%
2020-03-21^  4.24%| 12.00%
2020-03-22^  4.34%| 12.92%
2020-03-23^  4.34%| 13.92%
2020-03-24^  4.47%| 14.77%
2020-03-25^  4.52%| 15.66%
2020-03-26^  4.49%| 16.24%
2020-03-27^  4.58%| 17.03%
2020-03-28^  4.65%| 17.84%
2020-03-29^  4.70%| 18.29%
2020-03-30^  4.81%| 18.59%
2020-03-31^  4.91%| 19.14%
2020-04-01^  5.05%| 19.54%
2020-04-02^  5.24%| 19.99%
2020-04-03^  5.39%| 20.54%
2020-04-04^  5.38%| 20.78%
2020-04-05^  5.45%| 20.78%
2020-04-06^  5.54%| 20.69%
2020-04-07^  5.73%| 21.34%
2020-04-08^  5.83%| 21.11%

*Calculations represent totals at 20:00 CST posted on gisanddata map website, which is approWinnie The Poohmately after the bulk new figure postings each day.

^Calculations represent totals at approx. 23:00 CST posted on worldometers website.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronav​i​rus/

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-09 3:49:47 AM  
Can't stop now. This is bat country
 
2020-04-09 3:51:44 AM  
On the other, insidious, dirty, dirty hand - this means the mortality rate just keeps going down and down...
 
2020-04-09 3:52:04 AM  
COVID-19: on average only 6% of actual SARS-CoV-2 infections detected worldwide
07 Apr 2020 | Source: Universität Göttingen
Actual number of infections may already have reached several tens of millions
The number of confirmed cases for the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 officially issued by countries and widely commented on by national and international media outlets dramatically understates the true number of infections, a recent report from the University of Göttingen suggests. 

Full article:

https://neurosciencenews.com/covid-19​-​6-percent-infection-detection-16086/
 
2020-04-09 3:52:50 AM  
 
2020-04-09 3:55:48 AM  

mcreadyblue: Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.

California is wonder why their death rate is so much lower than NYC, they suspect that the Cohan's been in California since last fall and lots of people are now immune.

Comparing virus loads from the sewage might shed light on the conundrum.


There's a NY Times article that discusses the mutations and genome sequences of viruses on both coasts.  The article doesn't mention the California virus specifically, but it does denote the difference between the NYC and Washington State viruses.
 
2020-04-09 3:58:16 AM  

Brosephus: On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.


Strangely, I have a near opposite interpretation of the implications if their estimates are decent. Let's pretend that the service area is all of the Boston metro area(which it isn't because the official numbers for Boston FTA are 5x higher). That would mean 1/40 people in the metro area would have the virus. If we aren't at the point of corpses in the street with that level of concurrent infection, then a lot of people are actually staving it off naturally pretty well. If there is any sort of extended immunity from antibodies, that would mean that the potential future hosts for the virus is shrinking pretty rapidly.

Now it would mean that pretty much every vulnerable person would be expected to be exposed to the virus. That of course would be really bad. However, if we're talking society threatening pandemics, a significantly higher spread(I mean it already is one of the most infectious things in history) with a significantly lower death rate would make it a lot less scary.
 
2020-04-09 3:59:32 AM  
Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.
 
2020-04-09 4:02:21 AM  

BafflerMeal: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/07/n​e​w-research-wastewater-community-spread​-covid-19/


The Statnews article says the sewage data indicate that "between 2,300 people and 115,000 were infected." Holy error bars, batman.
 
2020-04-09 4:05:34 AM  

WalkingSedgwick: BafflerMeal: https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/07/ne​w-research-wastewater-community-spread​-covid-19/

The Statnews article says the sewage data indicate that "between 2,300 people and 115,000 were infected." Holy error bars, batman.


It appears the Boston Hearld decided to omit the minimum number of the range and simply publish the maximum. Sensational reporting anybody?
 
2020-04-09 4:05:36 AM  

Im wearing the shirt of the band Im going to see: Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.


Or it merely suggests that the official numbers simply mean we're not testing enough people.
 
2020-04-09 4:09:24 AM  

Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.


I share your dissatisfaction at the lack of any described methodology.

And lol at the pile of shiat reference.  You made a solid one, there.
 
2020-04-09 4:12:53 AM  
Up to 7.8 billion people could end up dying from this virus!
 
2020-04-09 4:12:58 AM  

Im wearing the shirt of the band Im going to see: Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.


I see you and i were on the same wave length typing the same idea simultaneously.

bughunter: Im wearing the shirt of the band Im going to see: Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.

Or it merely suggests that the official numbers simply mean we're not testing enough people.


We know that we aren't testing enough people. I think we'd know if 100k in a metro were anywhere near ICU levels of sick though.
 
2020-04-09 4:17:26 AM  
Neat Idea, if they can tell the average shiat rate, and virus concentration, they using test points up stream to keep checking at each branching. Yeah they might be on to something. Now go to each waste water plant in the state and roll out another test lab, flush, wash, and repeat The data should be solid.

/ It seems they are checking massachusetts as a test bed to roll out to the rest of the US.
// If this is even accurate w/ in 70% the US will be able to get a better handle on the disease, and wipe it out.
/// This data also would flush trump's presidency down the drain, they have been authorized to do this coast to coast. And trump has relied on misinformation to hide his failure.
//// It isn't the crime that gets them in the 'end', it's the coverup. (said the cat in the guava orchard)
 
2020-04-09 4:17:37 AM  

mcreadyblue: California is wonder why their death rate is so much lower than NYC, they suspect that the Cohan's been in California since last fall and lots of people are now immune.


Unlikely. COV-SARS-2 tends to make its presence very rapidly known by filling hospitals with the severely ill and filling the morgues with the severely dead. If COVID-19 had been in CA last fall, there would have been unmistakable evidence of it.

The CDC will be moving on random serology testing over the summer, which should conclusively settle the possibility of early exposure.

The most likely reason for the difference in outcomes in California and NYC is that CA instituted a shelter-in-place order much sooner (relative to their respective number of infections) than NYC did. Shutting down even a few days earlier makes a huge difference.
 
2020-04-09 4:18:26 AM  

bughunter: Im wearing the shirt of the band Im going to see: Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.

Or it merely suggests that the official numbers simply mean we're not testing enough people.


The scientific/medical community already hypothesizes both of those to be true: that most cases are mild or asymptomatic and that not testing enough people has yielded higher statistical Case Fatality Ratios. So far, about 1 in 166 people in the U.S. have been tested. For comparison, Norway and Switzerland have tested 1 in 50, Austria, Italy, Hong Kong, and Portugal have tested about 1 in 76, and Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, and South Korea have tested about 1 in 100. Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands, and Russia also approximate our per capita testing.
 
2020-04-09 4:20:46 AM  
So, detecting one in 258 cases, the 400,000 known US cases means really something over 100 million infected and shedding the virus in sewage now

Either that is off or the census
 
2020-04-09 4:21:25 AM  

mcreadyblue: Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.

California is wonder why their death rate is so much lower than NYC, they suspect that the Cohan's been in California since last fall and lots of people are now immune.

Comparing virus loads from the sewage might shed light on the conundrum.


Who suspects? Who is they? If that's the case, given what we know about SARS-CoV-2's virulence, why didn't we see California's hospitals slammed last year? Where were the supply problems?
 
2020-04-09 4:22:02 AM  
That's really great news (if accurate)! It means nearly everyone gets the disease with little or no symptoms. We are then building herd immunity much faster than anyone though and subsequent waves might be avoided.

I wouldn't count on it though, at least not yet.
 
2020-04-09 4:25:28 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-04-09 4:28:54 AM  
Remember that "mild" cases mean "didn't end up in the hospital". Even so people who presume they have had it but didn't go to the hospital are reporting being the sickest they've been in their lives for two or three weeks.

Those are the mild cases.
 
2020-04-09 4:29:07 AM  
Let me echo others saying this could be a good thing
 
2020-04-09 4:29:30 AM  

Lord Rust: That's really great news (if accurate)! It means nearly everyone gets the disease with little or no symptoms. We are then building herd immunity much faster than anyone though and subsequent waves might be avoided.

I wouldn't count on it though, at least not yet.


I'd say faster than what mainstream media would feel comfortable reporting without more rigorous scientific evidence. Dr. John Campbell, for instance, has been saying for months (based on data) that as many as 8-10 times more are likely infected than have been confirmed. If he saw it coming, I don't doubt that others in the field reached that conclusion.

It's mostly good news if you're hearing it for the first time, though. Aside from the fact that asymptomatic people are wonderful vectors of transmission.
 
2020-04-09 4:34:35 AM  
Here's the actual paper (preprint), no paywall:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11​0​1/2020.04.05.20051540v1.full.pdf

They're actually measuring virus concentration per liter of sewage, and use that to estimate the number of people contributing virus to the wastewater.   That's not an easy estimate to make - there's going to be lots of variability in how much virus an infected person sheds, how much wastewater an average person uses in any paritcular town, etc.  To make it even harder, much of Massachusetts has very old sewage systems that take in a lot of rainwater when and if it rains.

So any estimates are going to be very, very rough, at least at first, but you can still get some basic trends, and of course the transition from "virus-free" to "virus found" doesn't need any kind of calibration at all.  (This proved very useful in detecting a polio outbreak by this method.)  So it's a promising approach.

For now, though, the headline is overblown.  It was lifted directly from Biobot's press release, so for once it's not a case of media digging in for scary numbers they can take out of context, it's  a case of the media being handed scary numbers on a platter with the context hidden in footnotes. But anyway, the actual paper's abstract says this:

Viral titers observed were significantly higher than expected based on clinically confirmed cases in Massachusetts as of March 25. The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear, and until further experiments are complete, these data do not necessarily indicate that clinical estimates are incorrect.


The scary headline came from applying some simple algebra to one published finding of the number of viruses per stool: if there's only a few virus per stool, then after it's diluted in sewage, you get very very low virus per liter, unless there are lots and lots of sick people.  Using a wildly different virus-per-stool number from a different medical study, they  calculate a much less scary conclusion (but still higher than official counts).
 
2020-04-09 4:35:00 AM  
Reading the published study (https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.05.2​00​51540, which has a link to a free PDF preprint), the methodology measuring the titers of CoV-SARS-2 in sewage seems reasonable from my layperson armchair, but the interpretation (i.e. estimating the number of infected people from that measurement) extrapolates from extremely uncertain data. (See their Discussion section). They cite two estimates of viral load per stool of infected people, both from very limited sampling, and the estimates differ by a factor of 50. You can guess which multiplier the media are running with to come up with 115,000 cases.

If you used the lower viral load per stool estimate, 1/50th of 115,000 would be 2,300, which is in the ballpark of what experts have been saying for a confirmed case count like 446: that actual case counts are probably a few times confirmed case counts right now, because most asymptomatic cases comprising 25%-50% of cases have never been tested, many symptomatic and even fatal cases aren't tested, and it usually takes several days for presentation of symptoms.

The authors of the paper are careful to point out all the uncertainty, and the need for additional research. It's an interesting technique, and seems like it could be useful. It's unfortunate that it's fueling alarmist media spin, which will fuel minimizing media spin attacking alarmist spin.
 
2020-04-09 4:36:56 AM  

JerryHeisenberg: It's mostly good news if you're hearing it for the first time, though. Aside from the fact that asymptomatic people are wonderful vectors of transmission.


According to local news here in Europe, an Italian doctor -- I do not know if it was based on an acutal study -- estamated a 100:1 ratio for detected to true cases of infection. Obviously the true number of cases is significantly higher than the detected number, but the degree is still known only with astronomical accuracy*

* to within 3-4 orders of magnitude

/ former astrophysicist
// loves astronomical accuracy as an expression
//// could be worse, could be mathematical accuracy -- within 10^(10^10) of the goal :D
 
2020-04-09 4:43:40 AM  

waxbeans: So doesn't mean the R0 is less?


Consistent with it being much higher.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaell​e/2020/04/07/the-covid19-coronavirus-d​isease-may-be-twice-as-contagious-as-w​e-thought/#60b05f0529a6

Difficult to confirm because R0 is predicated on normal behavior. Not everyone being locked in and masked up.

A higher vaccination rate, and vaccine effectiveness, are needed to obtain herd immunity. R0=2 means 50% need to be immune in order to get growth to stop. R0=5.7 means 82.5% need immunity. Less than that and we'll see major flare ups.

It also means whatever moderation is provided by summer will be insufficient to call off strong mitigation.
 
2020-04-09 4:45:26 AM  

bughunter: Im wearing the shirt of the band Im going to see: Could this be a good sign? Maybe it suggests the majority of infections are mild to asymptomatic and therefore not as deadly as we first thought. This might also suggest that herd immunity might set in sooner.

Or it merely suggests that the official numbers simply mean we're not testing enough people.


Maybe. But lets assume a mortality rate of 4%. An area indicated 115K infections 2 weeks ago.  This isnt the entire state, just a county or city or something. That would mean 4600 people in that area should have already started to die off. This is 10x the recorded deaths for the entire state to date. So if 4% is true, state wide..... yikes.....
 
2020-04-09 4:46:27 AM  

ShowStop: It appears the Boston Hearld decided to omit the minimum number of the range and simply publish the maximum. Sensational reporting anybody?


What kills me is that the newspapers expect us to pay for this dumbassery.
 
2020-04-09 4:47:55 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: Brosephus: On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.

Strangely, I have a near opposite interpretation of the implications if their estimates are decent. Let's pretend that the service area is all of the Boston metro area(which it isn't because the official numbers for Boston FTA are 5x higher). That would mean 1/40 people in the metro area would have the virus. If we aren't at the point of corpses in the street with that level of concurrent infection, then a lot of people are actually staving it off naturally pretty well. If there is any sort of extended immunity from antibodies, that would mean that the potential future hosts for the virus is shrinking pretty rapidly.

Now it would mean that pretty much every vulnerable person would be expected to be exposed to the virus. That of course would be really bad. However, if we're talking society threatening pandemics, a significantly higher spread(I mean it already is one of the most infectious things in history) with a significantly lower death rate would make it a lot less scary.


Excellent observation.  One caveat is that I've read that people can be positive and shedding virus in a pre-symptomatic stage.  If Massachusetts sees a major increase in cases or hospitalizations, then the shiat in the sewer could literally be the proverbial canary in the coal mine.
 
2020-04-09 4:54:43 AM  

Lord Rust: JerryHeisenberg: It's mostly good news if you're hearing it for the first time, though. Aside from the fact that asymptomatic people are wonderful vectors of transmission.

According to local news here in Europe, an Italian doctor -- I do not know if it was based on an acutal study -- estamated a 100:1 ratio for detected to true cases of infection. Obviously the true number of cases is significantly higher than the detected number, but the degree is still known only with astronomical accuracy*

* to within 3-4 orders of magnitude

/ former astrophysicist
// loves astronomical accuracy as an expression
//// could be worse, could be mathematical accuracy -- within 10^(10^10) of the goal :D


Is there such a thing as a "former" astrophysicist? That's some addicting stuff even at a recreational level.
 
2020-04-09 4:55:20 AM  

mcreadyblue: Brosephus: Without empirical evidence, this story sounds like a huge pile of shiat.  On the other hand, if their estimates are remotely within the ballpark, there's a lot of fans in that area that are about to get hit with flying fecal matter.

California is wonder why their death rate is so much lower than NYC, they suspect that the Cohan's been in California since last fall and lots of people are now immune.

Comparing virus loads from the sewage might shed light on the conundrum.


I think it's highly unlikely that the virus spread heavily through California without being detected, because if it did, where were the deaths?  The coronavirus in New York has killed over 6000 people in less than a month.  If we go with the best-case scenario and assume that New York hit the peak today, then it means their final death toll will be roughly 12,000, or double what it is now.  New York's population is only half that of California's though, so if covid-19 has already ran through California, undetected, then we have to assume that in the five months from November 2019 until now there were roughly 5000 coronavirus related deaths in California per month that went undetected, i.e., they were chalked up to other causes.  That seems next to impossible though, since that's about 10 times the rate of normal pneumonia related deaths per month in California.  (For reference, the number one killer in California, heart disease, only kills a little over 5000 people per month on average.)

I think a better explanation for why the death toll from covid-19 is so much lower in California than in New York is because California got a handle on things earlier.  Also, keep in mind that the majority of deaths in New York are coming from New York City.  The raw number of people living in the high population density environment of New York City dwarfs anything in California.  In NYC over 8 million people live at a population density above 27,000 people per square mile.  In Los Angeles less than 50,000 people live at a population density above 20,000 people per square mile.
 
2020-04-09 4:58:22 AM  
Look, folks, I know it's nice to think you might already be immune, but please give up the idea that COVID-19 has been running rampant but undetected in the US for many months.

We know roughly how easily the virus is transmitted in a normal social climate (schools open, workplaces open, etc etc):  on average, the number of cases doubles every two days.

So let's pretend there was an undetected, asymptomatic outbreak of COVID-19, somewhere in the US, one year ago.  Let's say that as of April 7, 2019, thirty-two people were infected.  Let's run some numbers:

date                 #infected
2019 april 9       64
2019 april 11     128
...
2019 June 1     1,073,741,824

Oops, that's already about three times higher than the US population.   We should all have been immune months ago.
 
2020-04-09 5:11:08 AM  

fredbox: Remember that "mild" cases mean "didn't end up in the hospital". Even so people who presume they have had it but didn't go to the hospital are reporting being the sickest they've been in their lives for two or three weeks.

Those are the mild cases.


No, the mild cases are just that, mild.  A significant number of people infected show no or mild symptoms that do not even keep them from going to work / shopping / etc which is why this thing is spreading like crazy.

If even the mild cases were the "sickest they've been in their lives for two or three weeks" this thing would burn itself out faster.
 
2020-04-09 5:13:34 AM  
Oh good, people will stop using toilet paper
 
2020-04-09 5:13:35 AM  
When the article first started loading I didn't realise that the picture was of a statue. I thought it was one of the scientists who had been swimming around in the sewage and that accounted for their odd colouring.

Fark user imageView Full Size


I need moar coffee...
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.