Regarding Banfield's window of stats, if you can find the earliest-dated quotation of their extrapolated numbers, you'll see how soon it came out after the recall was announced. I'm too tired to look for it, but if I remember correctly, it was within a few days, maybe a week of the recall announcement. And I don't believe they gave much detail on their stats, so I don't know that you will find anything meaty to work with. I'm just going by their verbal statement which is summarized in this article: "The hospital chain saw 1 million dogs and cats during the three months when the more than 100 brands of now-recalled contaminated pet food were sold."
Like you said, it would be nice to see the raw data and/or their full statistical report, rather than whatever tidbits some ignorant reporter thinks should be reported (or mis-reported).
And I've never read anything that adjusts for the lag time between manufacture and distribution/consumption. But keep in mind that the recall was recently expanded to include some products made back in November, so I would put more stock in the validity of the spike in Vet cases than I would in the moving-target-recall-dates-of-manufacture. For example, if increased ARF cases started spiking in their database back in September, then it would obviously indicate we don't know the whole story yet... as opposed to saying "the spike in ARF cases started before the recalled food was even made, so clearly it doesn't have anything to do with the recalled food." (Which may also be true!) So I would love to review both Banfield and VIN stats.
You believe the VIN numbers to be intrinsically more accurate than the Banfield numbers. So let's use VIN's numbers for a little exercise. Again, I'm tired and I'm doing much of this by memory, so please forgive (and correct) any errors: But I believe VIN stated their estimate of deaths is 2,000 - 7,000. Using existing data for the relative number of dead vs. sick, Menu Foods' taste test resulted in 18% dead (9 out of 50) and another ~30-35% sick (can't remember the exact number), and Oregon's State Vet's data shows ~37% of all sick cases resulted in death (41 dead out of 111 total cases sick/dead).
So we could say:
Using Menu Foods numbers: If 2000-7000 = 18%, then another 3,300 - 13,600 would be expected to be sickened. That yields a total sick/dead of between 5,300 - 20,600.
Using Oregon's numbers: If 2000-7000 = 37% of the total affected number dead, then another 5,400 - 18,900 would be expected to be sickened. That yields a total sick/dead of between 7,400 - 25,900.
Again, these are huge extrapolations from very small samples (50 animals in the Menu Foods taste test, and 111 animals in Oregon's data), but they are a starting point. But it sure would be nice to see all of the hard data for both Banfield and VIN.
I also don't think anyone has given any valid evidence to support the claim that cats are affected at a higher rate than dogs. For starters, cats eat wet food at a higher rate than dogs: how many 100-pound dogs do you know who eat cans or pouches of "cuts and gravy" type foods? Not many. Most dogs eat dry food. Whereas lots of cats eat wet food. So unless you compare apples to apples (compare dogs under 20 pounds to cats), or better yet, compare the exact same number of dogs under 20 pounds who eat the food with the same number of cats who eat the food... then it's not a statistically valid statement.
It may be true that cats are affected at a higher rate than dogs, I just don't believe they've supported it with any valid statistical evidence. On the other hand, perhaps the Vets are seeing clinical evidence to support that statement, but of course the media doesn't know what questions to ask, nor how to report on such potential clinical evidence. So maybe it's true, but in the statistics that have been released publicly, I haven't seen a valid case for it.
As an aside: I tried to report to FDA on the blood in my dog's urine. She was eating Iams dry food. At the beginning of the call, I specifically stated "this doesn't have anything to do with the Menu Foods recall because she is only eating dry food." After interviewing me, she stated "I'm confident this doesn't have anything to do with the Menu Foods recall." I said "I KNOW! I'm trying to report this because I know of several other dogs who have the same symptoms on Iams dry food, and I know you need to have a certain threshold number of complaints with similar symptoms before you will launch a formal investigation, so I'm just trying to get on the record so you will have sufficient numbers to launch such an investigation!" She blew me off because she was soooo focused on the Menu Foods recall.
So unless the Lily-eating cats are ALSO eating recalled food, I doubt anyone at FDA will include them in the recall stats because she was really focused on what food my dog was eating and whether it was on the CURRENT recall list. Nevermind that the food may have been on the recall list a week after she interviewed me, since the list is evolving.
That's the sort of side of effect of this hysteria that makes me think it's worthwhile spending some time trying to inject reason and perspective. If al-Qaeda decided to take advantage of the hyperfocused hysteria to slip something really awful into the human food supply, the time frame for detection and effective response would be tremendously slower than usual (and it's not clear the usual speed is anywhere near good enough).
FWIW, a veterinary researcher/professor who specializes in kidney issues is a consultant to an online group for feline renal failure that I participate in, and she put in her two cents worth yesterday. Her recommendation is to avoid all foods containing wheat gluten for now. She believes Menu Foods has been forthright and timely throughout this crisis. And she feels the most important thing to focus on is the safety of the food supply as a whole (i.e. humans are at risk too), and the risks associated with products and ingredients being imported form poorly regulated places like China.