There are an amazing number of inaccuracies packed in to this article. The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start of Februa

There are an amazing number of inaccuracies packed in to this article. The prediction this professor made about the number of deaths was not at start of February, like claimed in the article. It was three weeks later, when China was way past the peak. The claim that the PFR has converged to the same number everywhere seems totally unfounded, though it's hard to say for sure given how vague he is about which regions he is comparing. But e.g. London and NYC are very similar in size, NYC has more deaths by a large factor. He claims that the virus will peter out after inflicting one month's worth of excess deaths. NYC has already had 4-5 months worth of excess mortality, and are not yet through it. Is he just uninformed or intentionally lying? Hard to tell. He claims that R0 is meaningless without also including a measure of how long a person remains infectious. That makes no sense. The definition of R0 already includes all the infections over the whole period of infectivity.