About?
Solskjaer.
One thing I hate is how numbers are passed on to the public without the ability to compare. That isolates local effects, and maybe that's what people want. 40,000 new cases in England tell a story if you are in England and follow these numbers, but it does not put the entire picture in context. To me, the entire world-wide picture is more relevant. Why not give the number per million, so that one can compare country to country? Than it would be easier to see "hot spots", poor social policies, etc. And even the number of total cases per million means jack squat. It depends how testing is implemented. The most relevant number (IMHO) is deaths per 1M. Take Peru, for example. 91st in cases per 1M, 1st by far in deaths per 1M - 5,976. Then Bulgaria - 53rd in cases per million, 2nd in deaths per million with (3,953). Third in deaths per 1M is Bosnia (3,757), but it's only 73rd in cases per 1M. Etc, etc. Why would anyone even look at the cases per 1M unless testing is done the same way? The UK is 30th in deaths per 1M. It's not too dire in comparison to the world, or even Europe, but not too good when you consider only West European countries; only Italy posts worse numbers. And Sweden, whose policies were denounced by all West European countries, are ranked 55th in deaths per 1M with only a handful of European countries doing better. The US is 20th, ranking amongst the Eastern European countries and some South American ones. That's dire for an "advanced" economic power.
