Cases per million is useful in determining how far through the entire event a country is.
To my mind, the distressing metrics are active cases and rate of growth.
Agree! But location is important too. I have been watching for hospitalizations and deaths more than cases here (OC, Calif.) for over two months now.
Why? Because the virus has been around and in multiple adjoining counties since mid-January with many many travelers from China coming through. Testing has been so little that was is basically a statistical Zero just until this past week.
The hospitalizations and deaths have not increased like other areas. Not even close.
Orange County, land of 3+ million and home of super-packed tourist Disneyland and all the nearby resorts has so far reported one death (and it isnt known if that was a traveler).
So it is important to me to pay attention to "why is that?". All things being equal, some places are having less severe cases.
I think it is clear that areas with higher UV exposure hours get milder cases because this degrades the viral load. So we very likely have many thousands infected here but because people are, on average, catching less load of the virus, their bodies have more time to make the antibodies and symptoms are milder- maybe none at all.
Places where the virus can live longer and stronger will have infections with a higher viral load, less time for the body to fight replication, and more deaths. ie. Underground metros and subways operating in cool cloudy climates are very risky environments, as are ski resorts.
To track it, you need to look at the environmental conditions in a place at the time of infection, not when it is tested, reported, or when they needed the hospital, or died.
If the antibody test becomes widely available, the difference in location will be clearer.
era: This is all IMO and I reserve the right to alter it when more data becomes available.
