I will try to increase the number of updates :)
This is not at all the same thing as the earlier mentioned "confirmed".
I made this infographic since I was not able to quickly understand the number on the official website. I would take it as a 'general' website, and I think that people know that they should check the official website in order to have something 100% reliable.
Also, the line at the end is a simple suggestion that any government is trying to say to the population to avoid overcrowding of hospitals. But I will edit the phrase to be lighter and less 'instructive'.
No, I know enough people that don't. Look into the low educated part of your family (if you have that part). In my family the low educated people will believe anything that says Stanford or Harvard without any source other than just typing it. Heck, they would almost see this comment as reputable.
In your visualization, the data for The Netherlands is wrong by a few days. It's not 804, it's 1135. I remember it to be 950+ yesterday. My source is the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [1]. Apparently your source is John Hopkins? I'm not entirely sure, I quickly skimmed it. But I don't want old information on HN.
It has a nice design though. But because of its exponential nature and my knowledge of humans being terrible on it, I'm on edge. I don't want misinformation or stale data.
I was really surprised by that email, but it was enough to make me understand.
If you linked to your sources, show prominently the last time the data was updated, don't give any advice and clearly state that it's just for interest only, I think this would be less risky.
But whatever you do, there will be someone, somewhere, using your page for a reason you didn't expect.
Clearly state you are a programmer and why you've made the page. Then it is cool. Nice visuals... WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
This is NL: https://www.rivm.nl/coronavirus-kaart-van-nederland
This is correct advice: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/business/stay-home-when-sick.htm
And it could change at a moment's notice.
[1] My sources (but please do your own research):
1. WHO
2. RIVD (Dutch)
3. Dr. Mike on YouTube (and then verify the sources -- mostly medical journals -- he uses)
But generally this is good advice - not add to the noise already there on the internet, even though OP's intentions are likely honest and they are just trying to help.
Some years ago, when I lived in a boat, I wanted better presentation of the river conditions (which you would look at if you wanted to go out for a cruise). I put something similar together. It scraped the UK's Environment Agency website and showed the status of various stretches of the River Thames on a Google Map. Just for fun.
I got an angry email when the scraper broke and the data got out of date. "You're putting lives at risk". I took his point, and took the site down.
The odds are much higher in this case. It might seem like a nice portfolio piece, but could be dangerous.