No, the range included hours.

It's plausible that might skew things a bit. But the level of isolation reported is an order of magnitude higher than anyone would expect.

I think the claim that the mean length of isolation was over a day rules that out as the main problem.

I will follow up in part 2. But it's not the sample that's the issue. It's relying on the accounts of such a small proportion of the sample + some flaws in the question.