Australia counts 0.1% of the population as infected while the US counts 2.4% of the population as infected. Where in the study did they control for that when looking at the mortality (which is counted per population and not per infected)?
EDIT: My point is that the epidemic is not over yet and countries with a low immunity could be hit harder later on. It's just too early to compare mortality numbers.
Why would you want to do that? At the end of the day, successful pandemic response is a question of how well you prevent deaths overall, not how likely infected people are to die.
Yes. Once the epidemic is over. It's not over yet.
Having low numbers now could mean that the following outbreaks are more severe. Having lockdowns now could mean that there is no more money for a second, third or fourth lockdown to keep the following outbreaks under control. It could be but it does not have to be. We have to wait until the pandemic is finally under control to really count numbers.
Well, if you believe that government interventions are useless in influencing infection rates, then it would make sense to compare case fatality rates instead of total excess mortality.
Well, it replaces one set of variables (those influencing infection rates) with another set of variables (those influencing percentage of infections detected as cases). If you believe that policy has no effect on infection rates, and you believe you can better control for the latter set of variables, then CFRs make a better metric for judging policy effectiveness.
I should point out this is all predicated on a statement I believe to be false. (I suspect policy does meaningfully affect infection rates.)
EDIT: My point is that the epidemic is not over yet and countries with a low immunity could be hit harder later on. It's just too early to compare mortality numbers.