The problem I have with that statement is that it doesn't make logical or mathematical sense.
If 89 cases are confirmed, they're no longer suspected. You certainly don't get to add that total onto the suspected cases to come with a new total.
This whole thing is frustrating. The data sucks. The reporting sucks. Much of the problem may come from cultural issues and translation errors.
I dunno, but we're sitting here analyzing garbage date trying to determine a threat assessment. It's not really possible to do so with any assurance that it has any validity.
garbage DATA, although I suspect you all recognized the typo.
I agree with every sentence you made.
I think we are relegated to considering orders of magnitude only. So, for the current data set:
89 ~= 175 ~= 264 >> 20
And that assumes that this report is correct.
I actually suspect that someone was told to use this exact language, knowing that it was confusing. I also am certain that there are 175 cases, and an additional 89 confirmed cases. This would be consistent with +/-526 cases where there was direct contact with a victim or a corpse, being surveilled, which is what was stated about those under surveillance.
You make extremely valid points.
You citing the possible cultural issues and translations errors most likely accounts for much of the lack of concrete information, but I would like to add another possibility - the reluctance of organizations such as WHO to admit to making a mistake, even honest mistakes.
I'm not trying to sound tinfoilish or even accuse them of nefarious plots or political reasons - just that there is the possibility they made a mistake in some earlier pronouncements and are limiting information now instead of owning up to a mistake, correcting it, and getting on with their work.
Just a theory of mine and not based on any scientific knowlege, background or even inside info.