It could also be presented as 10.3 TWh of renewables vs 7 TWh of fossil vs 7.8 TWh of nuclear.
Or another way could be 7 TWh of fossil vs 18.1 of not fossil.
Or 7.8 of nuclear vs 17.3 of non nuclear.
So your point is that these people don't follow your advices (even if you are the top expert in epidemiology) and this as lead to a disastrous situation in the US
You mean the same experts who gave the OK for Amber Vinson to fly knowing she was exposed and had a fever?
How many people have been infected by contact with Amber Vinson?
Or the doctor who returned from Guinea who admitted he wasn't feeling good but decided to ride the subway multiple times, go bowling and eat out?
How many people have been infected by contact with this doctor?
The "gravity constant" that you are describing is the gravity acceleration at the earth surface due to the earth (where you may or may not have subtracted the centripetal acceleration due to the earth rotation) which changes with the position on earth mainly due to the fact that the distance from the surface to the center of the earth is changing (due to flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator). So this is more a change with location than a change with time. The ESA studies is more about the measurement of the earth gravitation from "outside" the earth, to create a model for orbit evolution with time. (Jn parameters, with n>= 2) And they study this evolution in time, for all location. So it's not exactly the same.
(Anyway, the g that you talk about can be seen as an evaluation of the Jx modelisation at earth surface so this is of course related. Bu the study is more about time change than space change)
I think the elephant in the room is that most women have babies.
The share of women having babies in the women population is very close to the share of men having babies in the men population.