Yeah your right but Politfact ??/. Come on. For a start , without getting into the sleight of hand of the original using snapshot data (3 weeks) and the fact checkers comparing those data points with overall (cumulative) data for the basis of the number being incorrect (well of course it is - comparing apples to oranges), they object to the veracity bc the numbers in question are 'unadjusted' for population and are simply saying the numbers should be 'adjusted'. Total semantics and twisting statistics, yet again. Point is, both can be true depending on what parameters are used. Just more silly reporting to conflate/confuse and contain those who already don't understand the tricks the Establishment uses when presenting statistics to the uneducated public to either prove or disprove a thing - when neither may be the case. EDIT: I wouldn't even bother chasing down the 'vercity of the numbers' , bc it is simply part of the nonsense mix that is designed to weigh one down in the absurdity of the holocough ...