3 ms·

Sort by total deaths. It is true. The parent comment did not specify the metric, every death counts and total deaths is a metric that should not to be disregard

Sort by total deaths. It is true. The parent comment did not specify the metric, every death counts and total deaths is a metric that should not to be disregarded. You are disregarding total deaths, like a robot that only looks at percentages and ratios. These are real people. If you remove micro-states, if you filter by this, if you only consider that, if you spin this enough, if you consider that this metric is invalid, if you this, if you that... then what do we have for such a vague claim such as "-> more people dying"?

ric2b 6y ago
Total deaths are an awful way of comparing countries, it's heavily correlated with population size.
vinay427 6y ago
You yourself just said, in this thread: > A fair comparison would be the data of today in EU with the data from 1 or 2 months ago in those countries (per capita). Using absolute counts, Switzerland handled the virus better than Germany on many metrics despite losing a larger percentage of its people just because it's smaller. Alternatively, the UK handled it better than the EU if we ignore populations, while India supposedly handled it worse than the EU. It's silly to do so because the country's handling of the pandemic through policies and societal responses have an impact on the people in that country (or multinational union). They should be measured based on how well they managed to protect their people. I don't really know how to relate to the logic that a less populous country or bloc deserves less criticism even if they hypothetically lose half of their population to a virus, just because they had fewer absolute deaths than a country with a far larger population.