That doesn't seem like a good measure. At the extreme, enforcing a stay-at-home order would make this number 0, but a lot of people would argue this wasn't "good performance."
Australia was a clear success case.
Number of deaths per capita should absolutely be the primary metric we are using to judge pandemic success.
I'm not sure what you are saying, doses of vaccines?
Number of deaths per capita don't take QoL into account over the period you analyze and the response's effect in the future.
I'm curious, what QoL increase makes up for 400k additional deaths over Canada's number?
I have not claimed doses of vaccine to be a good metric.
>I'm curious, what QoL increase makes up for 400k additional deaths over Canada's number?
Who has 400k more?
You also have to take into account that policy differences do not solely explain the difference in death toll. Saying 400k more death over canada = canada good response is a reductionist view when there are other factors in play.
> Who has 400k more?
If we had Canada's per capita rate, 400k fewer people would have died.
>I certainly don't think it is only policy diffferences.
And I agree with you, which is why I think using death toll as a single metric is a bad idea.
EDIT:
>If we had Canada's per capita rate, 400k fewer people would have died.
Even with the same policy as Canada, it is unlikely that the death toll would just transpose (it's a bad assumption, because policy doesn't define the death toll - it affects it)
But I'll cede to you that YLL is also a good metric. When comparing two developed nations like Canada and US, most of the difference there will probably be explained by per capita deaths though.
Source?
I also saw a US specific article but can't find it off the top of my head.
The metric can still be used in extensive studies (that take nuance into account), but using it as a metric on its own is fallacious imo.