Did you mean "nuanced"?
Bit sloppy leaving a typo in a post where you have a dig at other people for their grammar and spelling.
Still glass houses and stone throwing is another trait of the man you seem to look up to.
Fair point. Although Swede, I would say, managed to produce a far less coherent post immediately before my typo.
Actually yes, English it is not my Mother Tongue, satisfied ? Not quiet sure what it has to do with this conversation though, since speculations and facts means the same thing in Swedish as in English.
Its relevant to understanding what the official reports actually say and what other people have actually said,
in English, especially when other people have sought to deliberately misconstrue Trump... who was talking about known under detection of infections by saying that some people infected with Coronavirus will have symptoms mild enough that they still go to work and not see a doctor with Trump recommending this as a course of action for those who suspect they may be infected!
Alright, show me evidence that "
we can definitely know that the figure for actual infections is quite a lot higher than the confirmed figures currently recorded" ??
You had the link in my last post try reading it....
Figure 1: Spectrum of cases for 2019-nCoV, illustrating imputed sensitivity of surveillance in mainland China and in travellers arriving in other countries or territories from mainland China.
Finally, the bottom of the pyramid represents the likely largest population of those infected with either mild, non-specific symptoms or who are asymptomatic
with the figure showing a typical range of cases actually detected
Its demonstrable that the figures for confirmed infections of a flu type virus, where a lot of people will only have milder symptoms, will be much lower than the actual numbers for those infected whilst conversely the amount of deaths and hospitalisations linked to the virus will be known to a far higher degree of accuracy with few if any cases missed unlike the other scenario of those infected who don't die or require official medical intervention.
Therefore the percentage of deaths provided by use of these figures will be misleading if presented as if it was the percentage of people who would die, if infected, in the general populace.
The CMO provided valuable context, in his statements, about the 3.4% figure and why the press and public need to understand what it actually represents.
Which is not that circa 3.4 - 3.74% of people who contact the virus will die as a result based on what was known at the time.
I maintain that you would not be quibbling this if it wasn't for the fact that Trump made similar observations about the use of the 3.4% figure and that this is a result of you suffering under a collective form of mania that obstructs normal rational assessment of statements made by political figures.
I find it advisable now to avoid watching him at all costs. 
