Appreciate you pointing out that disparity. I searched for the worldometers link quickly when @lerkfriend pointed out the problem with the first graph I posted. So the mistake was mine and I have adjusted the post accordingly. And I wonder how (if this is what has happened) someone could exaggerate the numbers so dramatically and post this graph out into the world? For what purpose would they do this??? No matter how hard I try I simply can't get to the source, so I must assume it is fake.
As for viruses I believe they are a non contagious natural seasonal event and nothing at all to fear. The media can make anything look scary by focusing on it in a particular light for long enough. Also, I don't believe the PCR test is an accurate tool to measure its existence. The creator of the test made this very clear before his death. Results can be rigged to favour positive or negative depending on the number of cycles used so in the end it's all pantomime to me. And a very entertaining one at that ;)
Just sorry I rushed my research on this one. Lesson learned and I will be more thorough to scrutinise sources next time.
Accuracy is relative I guess but my understanding is that the cycle counts used most commonly thus far for COVID-19 (30-40 with a possible lowering to 28), there would not be very many false positives. A test in the 35-40 count range would be more likely to pick up early infections and especially recent recoveries than a lower cycle count though.
I read an article somewhere that mentioned how it was desirable to use a higher cycle count among those hospitalized with symptoms as a positive result would not likely be because of a false positive, a recent recovery or early infection in that case. False negatives are actually far more common that false positives and you don't want to get a false negative with someone who has severe symptoms. On the other hand, you want to try to avoid detecting recent recoveries as much as possible (which apparently is more commonly detected than early infections) in the wild so you would want to use a cycle count on the lower end.
I think there is plenty of reason to fear viruses. At least certain ones. I wouldn't want to try my luck with Ebola for instance. Of course, COVID-19 is no Ebola. But there are plenty of nasty, dangerous viruses that can do bad things to you. Fortunately, most of them don't spread too easily or are otherwise not too difficult to avoid.
As for the numbers an graph for Cambodia, most likely somebody's honest mistake somewhere. At least I can't imagine why somebody would want to fudge the numbers for Cambodia. But as Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics". Statistics are great but you have to know the details about what was measured and how the data was collected to draw real conclusions.