Global numbers are so tough to compare with different countries testing differently, reporting differently, and of course demographic differences.
2. Bigger death numbers allow medical professionals to go to their government, and demand for more stringent quarantine measures.
Compared with testing a healthy young person who is asymptomatic, it's better to test the dead one.
Edit: but healthy people with some suspect symptoms should of course remain isolated.
You can:
- assume it was coronavirus, test the remaining 20 people - cost: 20 tests
- or, test the dead person, then only test the remaining 20 people if that test comes back positive - cost: 1 test or 21 tests, expected cost 1 + 20 * % chance the person was infected tests.
Unless you believe there's a 95% chance they were infected, the tests are better spent elsewhere.
(This assumes you are also going to isolate them until the results are in regardless, which has further cost and dangers especially in high-risk groups. And that you are either already testing or not testing anyone outside the living group possibly exposed. Public health is a wicked problem.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-...
I just found it weird that people seem to be focusing on all sorts of factors like family structure, median income, winter holidays, Fasching/Karneval celebrations etc (which of course also play a role) while completely ignoring that higher population density facilitates the spread of a novel virus.
Physical distance is a major determinant, as people naturally in times of crisis tend to stick together or even visit their parents more often.
Before people downvote me for being kooky conspiracy theory, read:
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2012/0924/Euro-crisis...
and:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/09/11/the-euro...