I think it has much more to do with the number of people tested and the criteria they're using for doing the test. It's not fair to compare on this basis, just as it's not fair to compare nations on the number of confirmed cases.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You still can't compare them and attribute it to the quality of their healthcare with any confidence. You would need to compare the ultimate outcomes (recovered vs died) to eliminate much more significant noise factors like the country's current position in the infection curve.
Early in an epidemic, the average time since an infection was discovered is longer, which means than more of those infections have reached their conclusion. In the middle, the average "age" of an infection is much less, which means that fewer have "concluded" (often in death).
-
-
And when a healthcare system hits its limit, the mortality rate can be dramatically affected, regardless of how good it is. If you assume that public policy (not the healthcare system) is responsible for "minimizing the peak", then that shouldn't reflect on the healthcare system.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.