There is a lot of negativity in this thread about USAfacts misleadingly claiming to be the first.
I don't particularly care who was the first, but when I started modeling the virus there were not of easily accessible data. I see this thread lists quite a few, but I still thank USAFacts for being another detailed data source. Whether it be the first or not.
So in that regard, thank you USAFacts for providing data. My only question is that why is there such a huge swing between your data and other sources? Some claim almost 15% at times.
g3n3s1s69-9 karma
There is a lot of negativity in this thread about USAfacts misleadingly claiming to be the first.
I don't particularly care who was the first, but when I started modeling the virus there were not of easily accessible data. I see this thread lists quite a few, but I still thank USAFacts for being another detailed data source. Whether it be the first or not.
So in that regard, thank you USAFacts for providing data. My only question is that why is there such a huge swing between your data and other sources? Some claim almost 15% at times.
View HistoryShare Link