Quote (Thor123422 @ May 15 2020 01:52pm)
We can exclude places where it's obvious that the results aren't meaningful, like the Vatican where all the citizens are employees of the church.
Basically, we aren't seeing a wide spread in our country because we are doing the most testing ("we have the most cases because we are doing the most testing"), we are actually doing less testing per capita than other countries and still show a high spread, and we only have a need to do so much testing now because we allowed a spread by not having sufficient testing capacity earlier (in contrast to South Korea, which has done much less testing than us because they needed to do less testing).
Based on the referenced comments it seems like Trump would have preferred a wild spread rate, immediate herd immunity, and zero testing so he could save face by hiding behind very few confirmed cases.
test numbers per capita are important to evaluate testing.
total number of tests are important to evaluate how we're doing on number of cases compared to the rest of the world as well tho.
and if a reporter asks "we see reports now that the USA has more positive cases than any other country, what are your thoughts on that Mr Trump?", "part of the reason we have the most positive cases is because we're testing the most of any country" is a valid partial answer. it's not complete to evaluate why we have more cases per capita than other first world countries, but it's a valid answer for why we have more positive case results than more populous countries such as China, India, Russia, Indonesia, etc.
this entire topic sprung from that very question, paraphrased of course but that was basically the context Trump was asked in. he's half right, and avoiding why we're worse than South Korea or Japan, but he's not entirely wrong as the OP seemed to suggest. nor is total number of tests done a useless metric. its basically half of the useful metrics we have.
This post was edited by thesnipa on May 15 2020 01:03pm