My main concern is the accuracy of this data. There is so much garbage that goes into reported numbers of cases, especially given more or less prevalent testing in each jurisdiction, making for awkward comparisons. Further, the United States is distinct in that she borders the Third World (Mexico), which naturally leaves her more exposed. That is in stark contrast to Australia, for example, which is surrounded by ocean.
I am aware of the statistical problems of this data since it only counts confirmed Covid cases and each country measures them differently. However, by now we also have excess mortality statistics coming through. We can count the people who died this year and compare it to the number of people who typically die at this time of year. Thus method does not rely on testing or methodology of how to classify a patient. And the excess mortality data shows a very similar picture.
You have not relied on the mortality numbers, which come with their own problems.
This entire article is extremely lopsided and confused. You note "contradictory goals," which presumably refers to the way lockdowns hurt the economy, delay other medical treatments, and generate countless secondary problems (suicide, divorce, abuse, dislodged education, etc). Then you judge nations exclusively by Covid cases per million citizens, which you acknowledge are disparate in measurement.
What about the economic cost? The cases per million are trivial in comparison to the enormous economic distress, which you have ignored entirely. You also make an assertion about female politicos on the basis of just three examples, and without understanding the New Zealand context. With so many brazen (and anti-male) assertions, you might want to at least include links/sources.
We can easily disagree and I admit the post is (intentionally) provocative. But blog posts are opinion pieces, not policy statements. And I have no problem if people disagree with my opinions :-)
In the last graph plans and czhechia seem to have strange lines not matching the ones in the second last one. Can you check which is correct?
Good spot. I’ll check in a minute and correct it on the website
The chart is now updated and corrected. Thanks to everyone who pointed that out.
My main concern is the accuracy of this data. There is so much garbage that goes into reported numbers of cases, especially given more or less prevalent testing in each jurisdiction, making for awkward comparisons. Further, the United States is distinct in that she borders the Third World (Mexico), which naturally leaves her more exposed. That is in stark contrast to Australia, for example, which is surrounded by ocean.
I am aware of the statistical problems of this data since it only counts confirmed Covid cases and each country measures them differently. However, by now we also have excess mortality statistics coming through. We can count the people who died this year and compare it to the number of people who typically die at this time of year. Thus method does not rely on testing or methodology of how to classify a patient. And the excess mortality data shows a very similar picture.
You have not relied on the mortality numbers, which come with their own problems.
This entire article is extremely lopsided and confused. You note "contradictory goals," which presumably refers to the way lockdowns hurt the economy, delay other medical treatments, and generate countless secondary problems (suicide, divorce, abuse, dislodged education, etc). Then you judge nations exclusively by Covid cases per million citizens, which you acknowledge are disparate in measurement.
What about the economic cost? The cases per million are trivial in comparison to the enormous economic distress, which you have ignored entirely. You also make an assertion about female politicos on the basis of just three examples, and without understanding the New Zealand context. With so many brazen (and anti-male) assertions, you might want to at least include links/sources.
Well, maybe this helps: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/the-optimal-way-out-of-lockdown
We can easily disagree and I admit the post is (intentionally) provocative. But blog posts are opinion pieces, not policy statements. And I have no problem if people disagree with my opinions :-)