
1M cases of Covid, 1 pixel = 1 case - Francescoto
https://covidgraph.com/1-million-pixels-covid-cases-by-country/
======
greendestiny_re
In Bosnia&Herzegovina, 200 previously reported COVID-19 cases were yesterday
noted as false positives due to no certified labs in the region that reported
the cases. The logic for reporting false positives is that a COVID-19 epidemic
qualifies B&H for emergency IMF funds, which the local politicians are already
smacking their lips for.

I have yet to hear any global news outlets discuss the matter of false
positives, let alone launch the investigation into how the numbers are
tallied. All it matters is that the numbers go up, no matter how. It's tragic
how low the media has sunk.

------
unstatusthequo
Does anyone actually believe China’s reported numbers?

~~~
sneak
Does anyone actually believe the US'? This is not a nationalistic thing, don't
make it such.

~~~
rumanator
> Does anyone actually believe the US'?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

More importantly, the US isn't pretending to be a poster child of successful
epidemic containment, nor did it caused the pandemic by systematically lying
about how easily the virus spread between humans. The Chinese government is
the sole responsible for this whole mess due to the extensive lying and
disinformation campaign it mounted around the epidemic, turning it into a
historical disaster.

~~~
claudiawerner
I don't have much to say on the topic, but it's wrong to call any questioning
back "whataboutism". Whataboutism applies to cases in which criticism is
_deflected_ by a replying with criticism in turn. It does _not_ apply when the
criticism can be accepted _and_ new criticism is offered. In other words,
reading support or acceptance of Chinese statistics into GP's reply
effectively fabricates "whataboutism". The point, in a charitable reading, is
"Sure, Chinese numbers can't be trusted. But can the U.S.'s numbers be
trusted?" \- this interpretation does not lend any support to China, and
merely points out that we need to be skeptical of both. The origin of the
concept whataboutism lies with the USSR deflecting criticism by saying what
the US was doing is worse. It was not an admission and then mutual criticism.
That's the key difference.

Case 1 (whataboutism):

A: China can't be trusted to give out accurate numbers.

B: Oh really? What about the US? The US is doing worse!

Case 2 ( _not_ whataboutism):

A: China can't be trusted to give out accurate numbers.

B: Maybe that's true - but can the US' numbers be trusted either?

~~~
sneak
Indeed, my comment is to point out that _no_ large country seems to be
handling this very well or transparently. There is a lot of face-saving going
on by everyone as leaders scramble to preserve reputation in every place on
Earth, to varying degrees.

Smaller countries seem to be doing less of it. I'm not sure if that's due to
some inherent trait, or simply correlated with size. Large countries are all
operating IMO shamefully, lying blatantly in predictable ways through the
ascent phases. It seems to me inaccurate to pick out any single one.

------
gus_massa
It would be nice if y axis in the graph of cases starts at 0K instead of 10K.
For other graph where the y range is smaller than the offset, it is better to
cut the unused part, but in this case sadly the range is much bigger than 10K.
(Also, cutting the axes makes the graph difficult to read by non technical
people.)

~~~
CraftThatBlock
Starting at 10K makes the most sense because getting from 0-10K may be short
or long, but after it should reflect the rate of infection more relatively

~~~
zck
The graph can have an y-axis starting at 0, and still have all the data points
start at 10k.

~~~
CraftThatBlock
Oh my bad, I thought you meant the x-axis

