low levels of cryptosporidium¶

I have questions for @BMore_Healthy and @BaltimoreDPW:

1: Define "low levels of cryptosporidium." The ID50 for cryptosporidium is astonishingly low, and according to the initial DPW report, it was detected at 0.09 oocysts/liter. At that level, infection seems entirely possible. https://t.co/VaXrsvPADV 2. What epidemiological surveillance is employed to track the incidence of cryptosporidiosis? Have healthcare facilities in the region been given testing and reporting guidelines? Is there active monitoring of the public health situation, used to inform ongoing policy decisions? 3. Why is the public health guidance being presented in such a way as to suggest that "healthy" individuals don't need to worry, when even a "mild" case of cryptosporidiosis causes painful and disruptive gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea, lasting for weeks? 4. What treatment protocols are used in the city's wastewater system, and is treated water recycled into the drinking supply? Given the difficulty of cryptosporidium decontamination via chlorination, and the presence of infectious cysts in feces, recycling may be hazardous. 5. In light of both this and last year's contamination incident, which itself lead to a boil water advisory, what steps are being taken to prevent future contamination in our water supply, and why have they not been implemented in the last year? 6. Considering the demonstrable fragility of our water system, why is testing and reporting not conducted on a more consistent and comprehensive basis? Why are residents expected to consistently peruse government websites to have a chance of discovering emerging health hazards?