Bishop exposes churchgoers to hepatitus

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrayRosary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cojuanco said:
Not misleading at all. It’s not saying it’s his fault, merely what happened. It’s a risk one takes when working for a large international organization.
Click to expand...
I can see a “discrepancy” between the headline, “ND bishop exposes churchgoers” and this line of text in the body of the article “State health officials say they are not sure exactly how many churchgoers might have been exposed.”

So a more accurate headline written without bias would say “State officials believe ND bishop MAY NOT HAVE EXPOSED churchgoers to Hepatitis A”, emphasis added.
 
tstrong728 said:
I can see a “discrepancy” between the headline, “ND bishop exposes churchgoers” and this line of text in the body of the article “State health officials say they are not sure exactly how many churchgoers might have been exposed.”

So a more accurate headline written without bias would say “State officials believe ND bishop MAY NOT HAVE EXPOSED churchgoers to Hepatitis A”, emphasis added.
Click to expand...
“Symptoms can take 15 to 50 days to appear.” This is from the article. Him being sick did expose churchgoers. They just don’t know how many will get sick since it takes a while for symptoms to appear. They were exposed, they just aren’t showing signs of infection.
 
tstrong728 said:
I can see a “discrepancy” between the headline, “ND bishop exposes churchgoers” and this line of text in the body of the article “State health officials say they are not sure exactly how many churchgoers might have been exposed.”

So a more accurate headline written without bias would say “State officials believe ND bishop MAY NOT HAVE EXPOSED churchgoers to Hepatitis A”, emphasis added.
Click to expand...
No.

They were exposed to the risk.

What isn’t clear yet is how many, if any, parishioners will get sick as a result of that exposure.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Exposure has an actual definition, biologically one can’t be exposed to risk - there is a risk of exposure when <>.

Being in a room with an infected person is a risk… the risk is that one MAY be exposed, i.e. one RISKS exposure but might not BE exposed by simply being in a room with an infected person.

So, to reiterate, the Bishop MAY NOT have exposed anyone to Hepatitis.

My point is that until somebody gets sick (has symptoms) we won’t know that they were exposed. The newspaper could have been accurate in its wording but chose not to.
 
tstrong728 said:
Exposure has an actual definition, biologically one can’t be exposed to risk - there is a risk of exposure when <>.
Click to expand...
In English, one can be exposed to a risk, hence the phrase, “risk exposure.” That is the only exposure that happened here (that we know of).
 
pnewton said:
In English, one can be exposed to a risk, hence the phrase, “risk exposure.” That is the only exposure that happened here (that we know of).
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct - thus the difference when studying infectious disease,like Hepatitis, between Risk Assessment and Exposure Assessment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top