Yes I made the table, but which part of this table is misinformation? All data is valid. Twitter is not a good format to present a bunch of data, hence the convoluted link to a link to a link...
However, for your information, the 56% case fatality ratio is calculated according to an epidemiological method known to produce a good estimate. See https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408..., section Simple Estimators, specifically this formula:
e₂(s)=D(s)/{D(s)+R(s)} which is: deaths/(deaths+recoveries)
And the paper concludes: "The second simple estimate based on the ratio of deaths of those for whom the outcome is known, e₂, is reasonable at most points in the epidemic" ie. produces a good estimate of the eventual observed case fatality rate.
That's a non-answer. My data is valid. I challenge you to point out specific errors.
My data comes from two sources:
1) Initially I replicated the chart by Dr. Melvin Sanicas, a vaccinologist and public health physician, that he posted on twitter (here: https://twitter.com/Vaccinologist/status/1220469109378502658). He had no citations for his numbers. So I performed light fact-checking but didn't bother documenting citations for each number because (a) he is a doctor and (b) his chart got massive reviews on twitter and no one pointed out significant errors.
2) For the rest of the number, I plugged them in myself WHILE adding proper citations to either peer-reviewed papers or to the best estimates available today.
As to empty cells, they are empty when the data is not yet researched, or not known, or because it is irrelevant (eg. for most older diseases that have vaccines available I didn't bother researching if asymptomatic transmission is possible because it is irrelevant: most people in developed countries are vaccinated as such such diseases are no longer prevalent.)
Okay here's an answer: the whole thing is misinformation. Mashing together incomplete data sets to make a point is… nothing. That's not a thing. That's not science or data. That's garbage.
If you're not a troll you should take a step back and actually THINK about what you are doing. You are creating misinformation, posting it, then reposting it elsewhere and citing yourself.
Stop it. Stop being a garbage human trying to scare people with nonsense. Be better. No "what ifs" or "whatabouts". Delete your comments, delete your tweets and try to be a better person.
Another non-answer. It is perfectly valid to compare various epidemiological characteristics like I did, and like Dr. Melvin Sanicas did (are you going to criticize him too?) A lot of us on HN are sufficiently educated to have decent discussions about topics we are not experts in. If you have constructive criticism, give it to me instead of your non-answers.
Q: “Yes I made the table, but which part of this table is misinformation?”
A: The entire table is misinformation.
It is not valid to do what you did. You are wrong. You are misleading people. The “question” is whether you are doing it intentionally or not. I don’t have that answer, only you do.
However, for your information, the 56% case fatality ratio is calculated according to an epidemiological method known to produce a good estimate. See https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ebf2/48c9fc0a1a23d1778b9408..., section Simple Estimators, specifically this formula:
e₂(s)=D(s)/{D(s)+R(s)} which is: deaths/(deaths+recoveries)
And the paper concludes: "The second simple estimate based on the ratio of deaths of those for whom the outcome is known, e₂, is reasonable at most points in the epidemic" ie. produces a good estimate of the eventual observed case fatality rate.