I don’t think that is actually what the 2% means. According to the CDCs report on information from the Chinese government:
That is only 2% if you assume that all the people currently sick will get better. For a new rapidly spreading infection that is more of a lower bound. Also, given that it sounds like the hospitals in Wuhan are pretty overloaded, the outcomes there will probably be worse than you might expect in an area with a lower density of cases.
Most of youngster who follow Wechat only told to remember 2009.
According to CCP, China started in 1970, nothing before matter except the bad Japanese killing them in Nanjing.
And Tienanmen is even an “event from last century”
But, yes, I’m agree with you; CCP propaganda fell short when you have knowledge
Reports saying the ACE-2 receptor in pulmonary tissue is the target for the virus, and smoking dramatically increases the density of ACE-2 receptors. In China 48% of males smoke. Could be a reason for the seemingly worse outcomes in China vs. cases from outside of China. Most likely multifactorial, as most of these things are, but certainly a reasonable hypothesis.
Can’t answer that. Would make sense, generalizing from the smoking data, but that kind of extended reasoning is frequently wrong and sometimes ridiculously of track. Things that damage lungs make them more vulnerable to further damage, though. So it certainly does no good for them.
Spain wasn’t at war and didn’t have the wartime censorship provisions that applied to the countries hit first. Who used their censors to play down the epidemic because they feared for public morale, i.e. their citizens reaching some sort of breaking point. And maybe start revolting or something.