Nice, but such comparisons are kind of useless since the testing and reporting varies widely by country, so there's nothing you can compare when you look down into details.
But also, since the virus is growing exponentially, differences in countries is by 10-100x, while the differences in the number of tests performed seems to be closer to 2-10x.
Heck, it is tricky to remain anonymous even over the Tor Browser.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)#Weak...
Edited to add: The daily statistic by population ratio is very spiky, and gets spikier the smaller the country is, which makes it hilariously useless. A rolling average would improve that a bit, but remember that some countries might be off with a factor of 2x or 3x when it comes to reported deaths, which is an insane level of uncertainty.
You can also make some indications if a country is doing unusually well or bad: If the ratio of cases/population or deaths/population were significantly different from most other countries, this would warrant a closer look.
Also, how did we get from reporting differences to "garbage data"? What kind of data would you classify as non-garbage?
I'm not arguing for looking more closely - on the contrary, I'm saying that the large-scale trends are meaningful - say, how growth rate or mortality/population develops over time.