>>11827486i have simply explained to you why nobody will answer your question. it requires putting in effort disproportionately to the amount of effort you put in asking the question, doubly so when they risk doing it all for nothing (because it's vague enough for you to pretend you meant something else)
if you want a low effort answer, it is simple enough to point out that you have not restricted the pool of articles by placing any restrictions whatsoever on what the number in the title is a number of. it can be a number of total sick, number of currently sick(so it goes up and down), number of newly dead(happens at different rates), number of newly infected between date x and date y in z age group, and so on. trivially, we can find articles containing any number in the title, for an even greater range of numbers than three digit numbers, by including articles that report on all sorts of statistics. there has been no shortage of those, during the coronavirus news cycle.
more importantly perhaps, if an article for a number we are interested in does not exist, we can create one ourselves. this is because the physical processes exist, such that they generate facts in the world, that we can measure and then report (write an article about) without any difficulty, while still restricting ourselves to facts about coronavirus.
this is my suspicion anyway. you may now tell me why this is strawmanning you. you see, even this was a waste of my effort. i only write this because of my enormous work ethic :^)
