sophie_paris said:

If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.

Coming at sophie_paris’s question from a different direction. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Following on from sophie_paris — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

stefan_berlin said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

I read this differently from stefan_berlin, on substance rather than tone. Pushing back on the anecdote-stacking. Twenty people reporting the same thing is twenty samples from the same self-selected pool, not twenty independent confirmations.

stefan_berlin said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.