>>”BTW, you did your calculations based on non-real numbers, so they really don’t mean a lot.”<<
Well, when reporting on the CDC page, I still think it’s a good idea to do the math correctly (and I’ve asked this question at two sites, and I’ve yet to have anyone either vouch for my computation or disagree with it).
As for non-real numbers, the numbers at sites like Worldmeter may be real (allowing for some misreporting, of course), but when it’s known that not all cases are being reported (”not-all” being an understatement), I don’t think they can be said to give a “real” picture of the situation. That’s especially true of the fatality rate, which needs to include both treated and untreated cases of the virus, else it will be too high.
I think that’s comparable to walking into a room with a camera and taking a high resolution photo of one part of the room, then reporting to the world, “Here’s our picture of the room.” You don’t have to be a scientist or expert mathematician to see what’s wrong with that.
The numbers at Worldometer, Johns Hopkins, the WHO, various state reporting agencies, etc., may miss a small number of cases just because it takes time to conduct lab tests and send in the results. This is the case with all reportable disease tracking. That does not mean, however, that millions of cases are being missed or that the reported numbers are significantly different than the real number of cases. This applies to all data elements relative to the pandemic: new cases, deaths, and recovered cases. The significance of this is that there is uncertainty for the last 7 days of reporting at any time, but the cumulative case data preceding the last 7 days is fairly accurate.