On: Show HN: Log-Scale Covid-19 Plots

[m0zg]

All of these need to be normalized per capita. Otherwise you don't see the true extent of the problem. Also from looking at the stats recently, here's what I find more useful than the raw number of "cases":

- Number of deaths per capita

- Number of "severe" cases per capita (good indicator of the future number of deaths)

- Number of tests per capita (good indicator for whether or not "number of cases" means anything at all)

[dragonwriter → m0zg]

> All of these need to be normalized per capita. Otherwise you don't see the true extent of the problem.

Normalizing per capita replaces the true extent of the problem with the true relative local impact of the problem; both are significant.

[m0zg → dragonwriter]

But relative local impact _is_ the extent. If you live in a village of 100 people and 10 die that's pretty bad. If you live in NYC and 10 die - that's statistical noise that nobody will even notice.

[dragonwriter → m0zg]

> But relative local impact _is_ the extent.

No, absolute scale is the extent, that's pretty much what “extent” means.

Relative local impact is the...well, relative local impact.

Both are important, though which is more important depends on what you are doing with the measure.