These color coded maps of the US showing trend of deaths are ridiculous. Today's map on CNN shows..

[George II]

....Connecticut as dark red, the highest increase range (over 50%) compared to the same day last week.

Last week we had ZERO deaths, yesterday we had three. So that "qualifies" CT for the highest increase rate!! We're the same as Florida, Texas, Georgia, etc.

It's ridiculously misleading. No mention that the number of people in the hospital is at an all-time low, only 42 state-wide.

[jpak]

1. I agree Maine deaths have been rare recently

But we did have a super spreader event this week.

Wedding reception

Ugh

[Squinch]

2. Connecticut really is doing fabulously. Well done.

[Mike Nelson]

3. I think...

... also, those maps are great at showing which states have higher populations. CA was always redder than AZ, even when AZ was worse, percentage-wise. Why do we need maps to show us the states with the highest populations have the most cases?

[Mike 03]

4. CNN, after a couple of months of doing well, is backsliding

to intellectual dishonesty. One example: Last night Erin Burnett was doing both-siderism on the USPS, talking about how it had "lost money" and asking querulously, "Isn't there some truth to what Trump is saying about how badly the USPS is being operated?"

It's not a corporation; it's a public service! How many of our institutions are not "profitable"!??

[Sunsky]

7. I agree

"CNN, after a couple of months of doing well, is backsliding"
A few months ago I started watching CNN again after many years and actually found substantive and engaging programs. Over the past week that have changed, like the flick of a switch they're back to bothsidesism and polls showing a horse race.

[nolabear]

5. Yes. They misrepresent WA too.

I have dealt with us still being in the “high rate of cases” category because we were Ground Zero and so the numbers are high in relation to those peaking now. But we had around 250 cases yesterday, and the decrease is steady. Our efforts are paying off, even in agriculture country where it got bad for a while, and I think people should see that!

[Silver1]

6. I think the maps should reflect cases within the population density of the state.

In other words, number of cases per 1,000 or 100,000, etc. It would be a much more accurate assessment.

[tinrobot]

8. The only metric that matters is new cases per captia over the past week

Or something similar. You have to show what proportion of the population is currently getting sick.

I don't like the maps that simply show total number of cases. California almost twice as many people as the next biggest states. Of course we'll have more cases than Iowa.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. I frequently look at

this site: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Each of the columns can be sorted, which is very useful. If you click on the USA, for instance, you get the states, already sorted by number of cases.

I tend to think that the deaths per million of population is far and away the most useful number. Also, keep an eye on India. If their deaths per million rises to 100, they'll have well over a million deaths there. However, I suspect their numbers are vastly, vastly, underreported. Which is probably also true of a lot of countries.

[George II]

11. That's a good site, thanks!

[Ms. Toad]

10. There were 9 deaths last week (depending on when you cut the week)

But when there is a low number of deaths, small changes create dramatic changes. It would be better to use change in deaths to cases or change in deaths to population - something which gives some context.