ɪᴀɴ ᴍ. ᴍᴀᴄᴋᴀʏ, ᴘʜᴅ  🦠 🤧 🧬 🥼 🦟 🧻 🧙‍♂️Verified account

Helpful addition, if you can manage the clutter: At each date point put the official case/death count. We can already see wild diversions from reality -- and it will be worse as time goes on

When you get up tomorrow, maybe you can add dates of the @WHO #PHEIC meetings and new imported #nCoV2019 case in #Singapore https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/singapore-confirms-first-case-of-wuhan-virus …

i'm a wuhan resident, the number of infection people are far more less than the reality. Wuhan don't have enough nucleic acid testing box，so people who can not test by the box are all attributed to virus pneumonia. The actual number is at least 3 times of the published number.

our latest media say the testing box is extremely scarce，only the highly suspected patient can use it. When hospital confirm the sample is positive，they can not release but send it to hubei province to verify. one people in jiangsu are confirmed at 1.10 but published at 1.22

China CDC assay look very good but labs will be pretty overwhelmed with testing I suspect. Getting the sample, extracting nucleic acids and reporting & collating the results all take time. Moreso than the actual testing part.

Perhaps now as reporting cases beyond the city changing the figure title to nCoV2019, can still clearly mark where the cases originated though. There is a drive to move away from place as name designation of pathogens.

I won't use that dumb initialism unless it is recognised as its name by viral taxonomists