Sheesh... I'm getting math challenged too... you were referring to the total number of scans, approximately 10 per computer, right?
put the decimal back... .59%
Ah- we cross posted.
The only number that's interesting is the % of infected computers, which was 2%, according to the made up numbers in the article. The number of scans doesn't tell us anything, except how some people ran the scan more than once. Who cares about that.
I'm curious what the author's point was. It's not a big number. It doesn't indicate a problem of great magnitude. But the author seems to think it's a big problem. What's the problem?