It may be "contested", although I'd agree with you and characterise it as, simply, "varying", in both space and time. Mainstream science and journalism seem to

It may be "contested", although I'd agree with you and characterise it as, simply, "varying", in both space and time. Mainstream science and journalism seem to agree, which is why they either qualify any single number with the time, place, and other caveats, or give you all the data[1] (CFR, in that case). Here's the New York Times from January, clearly acknowledging the uncertainty, and somehow still managing to draw a box where that 1.15 % in high-income countries is just about dead centre: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996/china-coronavirus-contain-promo-1580431440996-mediumSquareAt3X-v4.png https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/01/30/us/china-coronavi... The only "war" in sight is of the cultural variety, with interested parties seeing that graph in January, optimistically (mis)interpreting it as showing an equivalence with the flu, and studiously avoiding any contact with new data since. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-14..latest&country=OWID_WRL~USA~ITA~BRA~ESP~SWE~DEU~IND~IRN~KOR~NZL~BRN~BEN~ARM~AFG~AND~ESH~TUR~GBR~URY~ARG~BGD~Asia~AZE~BOL~BEL~COG&region=World&cfrMetric=true&interval=total&aligned=true&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToS...