Agree with other commenters... this article is criminally stupid. Author... Stop writing articles in an effort to appease your ego. You are contributing to the

Agree with other commenters... this article is criminally stupid. Author... Stop writing articles in an effort to appease your ego. You are contributing to the problem. I have a PhD in chemical engineering and worked in biotechnology off and on for several years: aseptic filling, clean room design, microbiology contamination mitigation, bio-processing design) and I come from a family with a lot of medical doctors. Even though I have a fairly good grasp of our situation, you won't see me writing any articles about the pandemic because I'm not an expert. Among many errors in the article, you can't blindly apply statistics from China or other parts of the world. It is a question of "data sample size" relative to the "actual population"; as a statistician, the Author should know that. The sample size, relative to population, is very small and highly skewed (mostly testing people who are sick). The question is: how many people came in contact with the virus vs. how many people got sick vs. how many people got really sick? This we don't know... China would have needed to randomly test a large percentage of the otherwise healthy population in Wuhan to figure this out BUT both PCR and immune antibody tests would need to be used (to my knowledge, these didn't exist in bulk a month ago)... and then there is difficult to know uncertainties in the percentage of false positives and false negatives. As an extreme example, what if 3-5 million people in Wuhan had contacted the virus but only a small portion (~100-300k) became ill enough to seek medical care and get tested and about 3-4k died? That would complete change the statistics around the severity of the virus. Given the contagious nature of the virus and delay between community transmission starting and 'the recognition that there was a problem", the virus was almost certainly more widespread in Wuhan than a mere 100-300k people.... the question is 'how widespread'. We don't know the answer. But the more widespread it was, the less severe the severity/mortality rate would look. Also, any comparison of statistical sample sets between countries should take into consideration other factors not included in the sample set: population density, severity of air pollution, percentage of people who smoke and how much, and other factors which negatively contribute to respiratory and immune system health (e.g. low-level heavy metal poisoning?, vitamin deficiencies?, etc.)