I don't know why. I don't have an answer to this. But it's still pretty darn high. And there were countries like Italy and the UK which were overwhelmed pretty early and were not prepared - they didn't even know to do basics like be socially distant back then. Initially the UK did not lockdown either.
What I find more interesting is why countries like Iran and China are so much lower down on the list. I believe they are lying about the numbers. China had only 3 deaths per million? That puts them as one of the best in the world even though it started there before they even knew what it was. I highly doubt that.
This is a great link DRM, thank you. I've been searching for something like this for a long time. But it seems to counter your own argument. If you click on the "Deaths/1 Million Population," to sort by that specific criteria, Sweden, though not the highest, is ranked very very high at #8. Even higher than the US which is at $10
Yes Ayelet, it seems depending on what site you go to, the data means something else. Sadly, everyone has an agenda these days. But to clarify,i it's not quite accurate to say that Sweden did nothing. They did ask all citizens to social distance and practice proper hygiene, and they did ban gatherings over 50. I would say even in countries where such practices were mandated by law, a high percentage of the population ignored the mandate.
@[Angry Old Lady](user:7657), you are correct if that's the case. But I'm not sure if that's what the author meant. @[Elliott Morss](user:5654), can you clarify if you meant that it will only be able to correctly identify half the people as infected? Or does that also mean they will only be able to correctly identify the negatives?
In other words, is the failure rate 50% for both positives and negatives? Or only positives?
Latest Comments
GRIL For Americans Demanding Healthier Fast Food Options: The Evolving Restaurant Landscape Amid The COVID-19 Pandemic
You have some excellent articles!
Google, Netflix, Nvidia And Organovo Technical Analysis
Agreed, I wish more of these authors at least included transcripts for their videos. I can read far more quickly than I can listen.
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
I don't know why. I don't have an answer to this. But it's still pretty darn high. And there were countries like Italy and the UK which were overwhelmed pretty early and were not prepared - they didn't even know to do basics like be socially distant back then. Initially the UK did not lockdown either.
What I find more interesting is why countries like Iran and China are so much lower down on the list. I believe they are lying about the numbers. China had only 3 deaths per million? That puts them as one of the best in the world even though it started there before they even knew what it was. I highly doubt that.
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
This is a great link DRM, thank you. I've been searching for something like this for a long time. But it seems to counter your own argument. If you click on the "Deaths/1 Million Population," to sort by that specific criteria, Sweden, though not the highest, is ranked very very high at #8. Even higher than the US which is at $10
Death, Economics And Coronavirus
Yes Ayelet, it seems depending on what site you go to, the data means something else. Sadly, everyone has an agenda these days. But to clarify,i it's not quite accurate to say that Sweden did nothing. They did ask all citizens to social distance and practice proper hygiene, and they did ban gatherings over 50. I would say even in countries where such practices were mandated by law, a high percentage of the population ignored the mandate.
Lowe's - A Russell 3000 Star
What about $HD? How's Home Depot performing by comparison?
TalkMarkets Tuesday Talk: Ever Higher And Retail Redux
Good read. And thanks for linking to @[PennyWiser](user:84653)'s article. I enjoyed what he had to say.
The Decade Long Path Ahead To Economic Recovery – Depression
Good points.
Warren Buffett Buys Barrick Gold
I think you have a typo there. What do you mean a company that mines gold but not gold??
The US Virus Problem Is Going From Bad To Worse: But There Is One Bright Ray Of Hope - Testing
@[Angry Old Lady](user:7657), you are correct if that's the case. But I'm not sure if that's what the author meant. @[Elliott Morss](user:5654), can you clarify if you meant that it will only be able to correctly identify half the people as infected? Or does that also mean they will only be able to correctly identify the negatives?
In other words, is the failure rate 50% for both positives and negatives? Or only positives?