These numbers were collected in different places. The flu numbers are gathered from the US, while the majority of wuflu data is from China, so they aren't comparable. The growth rate of disease is different there because of public spitting, snotting, garbage everywhere, lack of hand washing, mishandling of food, and weakened immune system due chemical exposure from gutter oil and respiratory strain from pollution.
Let's compare the rate of growth for wuflu in the US. It has spread twice from a population of now 80, over a two month period. So obviously it wasn't a population of 80 over the period considered, because we've imported a lot of people over time with it, so we will doubly round down and call it a population of 20 producing two transfers over 2 months.
The growth rate of disease is different there because of public spitting, snotting, garbage everywhere, lack of hand washing, mishandling of food, and weakened immune system due chemical exposure from gutter oil and respiratory strain from pollution
Not to mention population density.
Excellent rundown.
I mean, let's face it, no one should expect much veracity to be contained within a graphic that features the designer's painful lack of ability to proofread.
(post is archived)