The COVID-19 crisis has been accompanied by an extensive use of indicators, such as those related to COVID infections and deaths, but also a good number of COVID policy indicators. This paper discusses these indicators from the perspective of a legal scholar with an interest (and some expertise) in comparative law and empirical legal studies. This means that this paper does not engage in the details concerning epidemiological and medical issues of COVID infections and deaths. Rather, it focuses on two main issues: first, it develops and maps a general causal scheme of indicators and their underlying real-world phenomena in the COVID crisis; second, it shows how such a causal scheme has been, and can be, applied in comparative empirical legal research. Yet, it also notes the difficulties of proving causal relationships and some attempts to overcome them.

Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are defined as operationally quantifiable management tools that provide a means for measuring effectiveness, outcome, and performance. No clear MOEs exist for determining success or failure of the management of a bioterrorism response. This is especially critical because management requires a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary decision-making and evaluation process. It is suggested that the minimum MOEs required to operationally measure outcome must contain a measuring response capacity for: (1) real-time public health surveillance system; (2) full coverage health information system; (3) capacity to measure variance across management timelines; (4) demonstrated decline in mortality and morbidity; (5) control of transmission rates of communicable agents; and (6) resource distribution across the entire population.