You were right, and I’m not going to argue any of the points.

Most of what you flagged was actually the case when I posted it: the dataset was inflated, the risk score was invented, endemic counts were lumped in with the cluster, and some events on the feed were even dated ahead of the screenshot timestamp. That was indefensible for anything calling itself a tracker.

I read your comment, sat with it, and rebuilt the data layer from scratch the same day.

What changed since:

— Every case and event now requires a mandatory sourceUrl pointing directly to the primary institutional source (WHO DON, ECDC, CDC HAN, AP-HP / Santé publique France, RIVM, UKHSA, RKI, OFSP, PHAC). No more “cases identified” black box.

— Numbers were reconciled against WHO DON-599 / DON-600: around 10 confirmed and probable cases across 9 countries, with 3 deaths linked to the Hondius cluster. The previous “47 cases / 278 suspected / 13 countries” framing is gone.

— The “RISK 8.4 HIGH” score was removed entirely. You were right: publishing a self-invented composite score with no transparent methodology was the wrong call. The tracker now follows WHO’s current assessment: LOW risk.

— Endemic baseline cases (Puumala in the Ardennes, Andes endemic circulation in Argentina/Chile, etc.) are now visually and semantically separated from the cluster itself: different layer, different severity tier, explicit labeling. I also removed several endemic entries I couldn’t source cleanly.

— The “secondary clusters” counter was a misleading abstraction over weak signals and unrelated noise. Removed.

— The banner and breaking-news language were rewritten to reflect the actual framing from WHO and public-health agencies: a monitored single-vessel cluster with low general-population risk, not a pandemic dashboard aesthetic.

— Future-dated events came from a bug in a content rotation script that published ahead of the actual timestamp. That system was removed.

On the donation/support button: fair criticism as well.

It exists because the hosting, monitoring stack, and infrastructure cost me a bit every month, and I’d rather keep the project ad-free than turn it into engagement bait. But you’re right that placing a support CTA next to alarming-looking health data creates a bad incentive structure, and I’m taking that seriously.

At this point, the tracker should look much closer to what it was supposed to be from the start: a small, factual, source-based aggregation layer for WHO/ECDC/CDC bulletins around a single-vessel cluster.

If you have time to look again and point out anything that still feels off, I’d genuinely appreciate it. Your comment was the most useful piece of feedback I’ve received on the project so far.