The idea is that if your country/region doesn't have excess total deaths, then whatever pandemic restrictions and policy you've implemented is good enough. To

The idea is that if your country/region doesn't have excess total deaths, then whatever pandemic restrictions and policy you've implemented is good enough. To make an absurd example: Duterte in the Philippines has allegedly ordered the military to shoot at people who violate curfew. That helps bring corona-related deaths down drastically, but if your population is dying because you're shooting them or they're starving to death because they can't leave their homes, that's obviously not a good whole-society policy. And that's why staring at only the corona-related numbers is wrong. I'm also following the debate in Sweden, which has less restrictions de jure than its neighbours, but people are de facto self-isolating and keeping their distance to almost the same degree. There are lots of people in Sweden screaming that government absolutely must impose a stricter lockdown because the corona-related numbers are worse than in Denmark and Norway, who have stricter lockdowns, therefore Sweden should also follow suit. But if Sweden doesn't have excess mortality, if Sweden's total mortality rate is the same as Denmark and Norway, while Sweden's economy is less restricted, then I would argue that Sweden is doing the right thing. Or at least not doing the wrong thing. :-)