Replies

There are so many reliable sources of better, less interpreted SARS information, it really is not worth the time to check the validity of vanity sites. Refer to my post above. Dr. Preiser is one of the key researchers, and he is in the immediate loop.

Thanks for the link, TaxRelief, I am off to do just that.

But, I wish you would give me your informed opinion the validity of his understanding about how the US is calculating the cases given on that site. I do not think it would take you all that long. And you seem to be pretty thoughtful on this issue.

Thanks for that link! I had no idea how much information was available there. Is there an update available? It seems to stop at around May 7th.

I skipped to the section on Categorization and found nothing there that contradicted my doubts about the accuracy and validity of US Reporting. But, that could be my inadequacy, as I am not skilled in any of these areas.

The comments made by the author of "vanity" site still bother me, and I realize your time is valuable, so I will post the most troublesome paragraph there to save you the time. I have no idea whether these comments are more up-to-date than the PDF document in your link...

"The US numbers are difficult to clearly interpret. Results of PCR testing for the coronavirus are not used to confirm cases - instead, cases are suspect and probable based on clinical presentation and history. California (having gateways to Asia and large Asian populations) has the largest number of probable cases.

Source: WHO, CDC (CDC and WHO are often 1 day out of sync, CDC and WA Department of Health figures (higher) are also out of sync often).

CDC issues reports irregularly and several states have unusual reporting patterns (i.e. announcing "probable cases" only after the individual has recovered);

There is the prospect of business influence on the reported numbers. The past non-conformity with the WHO definition makes US statistics difficult to compare."