Death as a percentage of population? How is that meaningful, you don't know how many will be infected.
True, increasing infection in each country will increase those percentages, but when used as acomparison after 6 months of this pandemic being declared they are a useful indicator, particularly as they encompass a variety of different countries, with different heath systems, political beliefs, etc. They aren't cherry-picked "western countries" etc.
Not everyone followed the advices though.
Nope that's true! Look at Sweden, #26 in terms of total deaths, and now they're getting one, maybe two deaths a day, which comes out at 0.058%
These numbers are both incorrect and completely misleading as it total deaths / total population, therefore countries that have done well minimizing infections look very good, yet at the same time you are saying "let it rip".
Which is why I used two different data sets to show the 'worst case scenarios', the first being the top 20 countries in terms of infections, the second being the top 20 countries in terms of deaths.
Granted you could use San Merino as a poor example, a tiny country with several deaths is going to skew the percentages, but to what end? They are intended to be used as a guide, to show different countries will tend to have a similar figure.
Sweden, which did, essentially, SFA except tell their citizens to use their noggin, scores 0.058%, and in a population size 40% of ours is getting 1-2 deaths per day now and it has trended downwards almost continuously since it peaked. From what i understand of their approach, there was no curfew, no internal border closures, no significant restrictions on gatherings indoors.
Ignoring the minor states of San Marino and Andorra, Sweeden is the 11th worst in deaths per 1m of the population at 578. The country;s above them include, Equador, Chile, Peru, Boliva and Brazil. Countries that are significantly poorer and with large native populations.
I'm sure the leaders of Sweden feel elated that their medical system response is being compared with developing nations of Latin America.
Other countries above Sweden include, USA, Spain, Italy and UK. All of which are only slightly worse off and likely due to the kissy kissy culture of Italy and Spain which helped spread it and older populations and others struggling with democracy and anti freedom push back. Also note Sweden has more people in detached houses than UK.
So yes, Sweden now has few deaths, well after killing off 600/1m of the population many at risk are now dead, for Australia this number is equivalent to about 15,000 people. So far we are around 800 (31/1M of population) and before the Victorian experiment it was 100. So, when discussing following Sweden you need to drag another 14,000 people out of their homes to be killed by executive order. Remember prior to the Victorian experiment that was 100 dead with no warning of the bug, established medical treatment procedures flattening of the curve, benefit of getting support from other states etc.
Why is Sweden death rate so low now? Its amazing what will happen when people are scared $hitless.
Sweden now has a new case infections of about 200/day with about 2-3 people per day dying. So the death rate is still 1-2% with systems in place to protect certain at risk groups. Again the Victorian experiment showed we failed with this as the retirement homes are a significant source of the dead.
As for the so called "herd immunity". The published target number required to make this work is 60 - 85% of the population (depending on the source of number), tests done in Spain show the number of people with Anti-bodies immediately after the peak was less than 5%. Note the anti-bodies are expected to have a life of less than 3 months.
Similar cultured Norway and Denmark are 50 and 100 deaths/million and note Denmark is far more concentrated population.
We need to reopen the economy, but I don't think the Sweden experiment is going to be worth culling another 14,000 of the population under a executive order, there has to be other ways.