The use for it seems to be to extrapolate out a ridiculous and improbable growth curve. It's bad because a) it can't be compared apples to apples against other, similar viral respiratory diseases (like I said, no infection rate for the flu is there?); b) little effort is made to evaluate the claim that there is a big C and little c corona (aka, a virus that is present in many regular flu cases). Metrics/data are useless if you aren't able to evaluate them rationally. You claim there is a big C corona that is distinct from the corona present in many flu cases. You claim that this big C corona is more infectious than the flu and thus is a greater danger. Where are these claims coming from? How would they be proven or disproven? When you draw conclusions you should ask yourself whether there is a way to prove them false. If not, or if you refuse to evaluate the data, how can you claim your belief in them is anything other than blind faith? Consider too who it is you're trusting. I can see you're getting a little upset so I'll just stop here. But none of these questions I'm asking you are meant to be personal attacks.