Complete opposite. Arguably better would be to look at local population density, but even that is just a proxy for how easily the virus should spread.
Total number is much better than per-capita, because the point is to see how quickly the disease spreads, which it does from a single point. No country is even close to majority infected so weighting by the size of the arbitrary borders enclosing the outbreak is only misleading.
What useful information would it convey, when moving the US 4x farther up the line than China? Or Italy? The point is to show how quickly the virus spreads through a population, which it does with great consistency. Per capita doesn't even tell you anything about how effective the response was been, it only tells you how big the country is. Per-capita would de-normalize this data!
Total number is much better than per-capita, because the point is to see how quickly the disease spreads, which it does from a single point. No country is even close to majority infected so weighting by the size of the arbitrary borders enclosing the outbreak is only misleading.
What useful information would it convey, when moving the US 4x farther up the line than China? Or Italy? The point is to show how quickly the virus spreads through a population, which it does with great consistency. Per capita doesn't even tell you anything about how effective the response was been, it only tells you how big the country is. Per-capita would de-normalize this data!