Graphing the economic crisis of Covid-19

My friend Ray Vella at The Conference Board has a few charts up on their coronavirus website. TCB is a trusted advisor and consultant to large businesses and thus is a good place to learn how the business community is thinking about this crisis.

I particularly like the following chart:

This puts the turmoil in the stock market in perspective. We are roughly tracking the decline of the Great Recession of the late 2000s. It's interesting that 9/11 caused very mild gyrations in the S&P index compared to any of the other events. 

The chart uses an index with value 100 at Day 0. Day 0 is defined by the trigger event for each crisis. About three weeks into the current crisis, the S&P has lost over 30% of its value.

The device of a gray background for the bottom half of the chart is surprisingly effective.

***

Here is a chart showing the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on different sectors.

So the full-service restaurant industry is a huge employer. Restaurants employ 7-8 times more people than airlines. Airlines employ about the same numbers of people as "beverage bars" (which I suppose is the same as "bars" which apparently is different from "drinking places"). Bars employ 7 times more people than "Cafeterias, etc.".

The chart describes where the jobs are, and which sectors they believe will be most impacted. It's not clear yet how deeply these will be impacted. Being in NYC, the complete shutdown is going to impact 100% of these jobs in certain sectors like bars, restaurants and coffee shops.

Proportions and rates: we are no dupes

Reader Lucia G. sent me this chart, from Ars Technica's FAQ about the coronavirus:

She notices something wrong with the axis.

The designer took the advice not to make a dual axis, but didn't realize that the two metrics are not measured on the same scale even though both are expressed as percentages.

The blue bars, labeled "cases", is a distribution of cases by age group. The sum of the blue bars should be 100 percent.

The orange bars show fatality rates by age group. Each orange bar's rate is based on the number of cases in that age group. The sum of the orange bars will not add to 100 percent.

In general, the rates will have much lower values than the proportions. At least that should be the case for viruses that are not extremely fatal.

This is what the 80 and over section looks like.

It is true that fatality rate (orange) is particularly high for the elderly while this age group accounts for less than 5 percent of total cases (blue). However, the cases that are fatal, which inhabit the orange bar, must be a subset of the total cases for 80 and over, which are shown in the blue bar. Conceptually, the orange bar should be contained inside the blue bar. So, it's counter-intuitive that the blue bar is so much shorter than the orange bar.

The following chart fixes this issue. It reveals the structure of the data, Total cases are separated by age group, then within each age group, a proportion of the cases are fatal.

This chart also shows that most patients recover in every age group. (This is only approximately true as some of the cases may not have been discharged yet.)

***

This confusion of rates and proportions reminds me of something about exit polls I just wrote about the other day on the sister blog.

When the media make statements about trends in voter turnout rate in the primary elections, e.g. when they assert that youth turnout has not increased, their evidence is from exit polls, which can measure only the distribution of voters by age group. Exit polls do not and cannot measure the turnout rate, which is the proportion of registered (or eligible) voters in the specific age group who voted.

Like the coronavirus data, the scales of these two metrics are different even though they are both percentages: the turnout rate is typically a number between 30 and 70 percent, and summing the rates across all age groups will exceed 100 percent many times over. Summing the proportions of voters across all age groups should be 100 percent, and no more.

Changes in the proportion of voters aged 18-29 and changes in the turnout rate of people aged 18-29 are not the same thing. The former is affected by the turnout of all age groups while the latter is a clean metric affected only by 18 to 29-years-old.

Basically, ignore pundits who use exit polls to comment on turnout trends. No matter how many times they repeat their nonsense, proportions and rates are not to be confused. Which means, ignore comments on turnout trends because the only data they've got come from exit polls which don't measure rates.

 

P.S. Here is some further explanation of my chart, as a response to a question from Enrico B. on Twitter.

The chart can be thought of as two distributions, one for cases (gray) and one for deaths (red). Like this:

The side-by-side version removes the direct visualization of the fatality rate within each age group. To understand fatality rate requires someone to do math in their head. Readers can qualitatively assess that for the 80 and over, they accounted for 3 percent of cases but also about 21 percent of deaths. People aged 70 to 79 however accounted for 9 percent of cases but 30 percent of deaths, etc.

What I did was to scale the distribution of deaths so that they can be compared to the cases. It's like fitting the red distribution inside the gray distribution. Within each age group, the proportion of red against the length of the bar is the fatality rate.

For every 100 cases regardless of age, 3 cases are for people aged 80 and over within which 0.5 are fatal (red).

So, the axis labels are correct. The values are proportions of total cases, although as the designer of the chart, I hope people are paying attention more to the proportion of red, as opposed to the units.

What might strike people as odd is that the biggest red bar does not appear against 80 and above. We might believe it's deadlier the older you are. That's because on an absolute scale, more people aged 70-79 died than those 80 and above. The absolute deaths is the product of the proportion of cases and the fatality rate. That's really a different story from the usual plot of fatality rates by age group. In those charts, we "control" for the prevalence of cases. If every age group were infected in the same frequency, then COVID-19 does kill more 80 and over.

 

 

 

Comparing chance of death of coronavirus and flu

The COVID-19 charts are proving one thing. When the topic of a dataviz is timely and impactful, readers will study the graphics and ask questions. I've been sent some of these charts lately, and will be featuring them here.

A former student saw this chart from Business Insider (link) and didn't like it.

My initial reaction was generally positive. It's clear the chart addresses a comparison between death rates of the flu and COVID19, an important current question. The side-by-side panel is effective at allowing such a comparison. The column charts look decent, and there aren't excessive gridlines.

Sure, one sees a few simple design fixes, like removing the vertical axis altogether (since the entire dataset has already been printed). I'd also un-slant the age labels.

***

I'd like to discuss some subtler improvements.

A primary challenge is dealing with the different definitions of age groups across the two datasets. While the side-by-side column charts prompt readers to go left-right, right-left in comparing death rates, it's not easy to identify which column to compare to which. This is not fixable in the datasets because the organizations that compile them define their own age groups.

Also, I prefer to superimpose the death rates on the same chart, using something like a dot plot rather than a column chart. This makes the comparison even easier.

Here is a revised visualization:

The contents of this chart raise several challenges to public health officials. Clearly, hospital resources should be preferentially offered to older patients. But young people could be spreading the virus among the community.

Caution is advised as the data for COVID19 suffers from many types of inaccuracies, as outlined here.

It's impossible to understand Super Tuesday, this chart says

Twitter people are talking about this chart, from NPR (link):

This was published on Wednesday after Super Tuesday, the day on which multiple states held their primary elections. On the Democratic side, something like a third of the delegates were up for grabs (although as the data below this chart shows, a big chunk of the delegates, mostly from California and Texas, have yet to be assigned to a candidate as they were still counting votes.)

Here, I hovered over the Biden line, trying to decipher the secret code in these lines:

I have to say I failed. Biden won 6 delegates on Feb 3, 9 on Feb 22, 39 on Feb 29, and 512 on Mar 3. I have no idea how those numbers led to this line!

***

Here is what happened so far in the Democratic primary:

The key tradeoff the designer has to make here is the relative importance of the timeline and the total count. In this chart, it's easiest to compare the total count across candidates as of the Wednesday morning, then to see how each candidate accumulates the delegates over the first five contest days. It takes a little more effort to see who's ahead after each contest day. And it is almost impossible to see the spacing of the contest days over the calendar.

I don't use stacked bar charts often but this chart form makes clear the cumulative counts over time so it's appropriate here.

Also, the as-yet-unassigned delegates is a big part of the story and needs to be visualized.

 

P.S. See comment below. There was a bug in the code and they fixed the line chart.

So, some of the undecided delegates have been awarded and comparing the two charts, it appears that the gap went down from 105 to 76. Still over 150 delegates not assigned.

 

Bad data leave chart hanging by the thread

IGNITE National put out a press release saying that Gen Z white men are different from all other race-gender groups because they are more likely to be or lean Republican. The evidence is in this chart:

Or is it?

Following our Trifecta Checkup framework (link), let's first look at the data. White men is the bottom left group. Democratic = 42%, Independent = 28%, Republican = 48%. That's a total of 118%. Unfortunately, this chart construction error erases the message. We don't know which of the three columns were incorrectly sized, or perhaps the data were incorrectly weighted so that the error is spread out between the three columns.

But the story of the graphic is hanging by the thread - the gap between Democratic and Republican lean amongst white men is 6 percent, which is smaller than the data error of 10 percent. I sent them a tweet asking for a correction. Will post the corrected version if they respond.

Update: The thread didn't break. They replied quickly and issued the following corrected chart:

Now, the data for white men are: Democratic = 35%, Independent = 22%; Republican = 40%. Roughly 7% shift for each party affilitation so they may have just started the baseline at the wrong level when inverting the columns.

***

The Visual design also has some problems. I am not a fan of inverting columns. In fact, column inversion may be the root of the error above.

Let me zoom in on the white men columns. (see right)

Without looking at the legend, can you guess which color is Democratic, Independent or Republican? Go ahead and take your best guess.

For me, I think red is Republican (by convention), then white is Independent (a neutral color) which means yellow is Democratic.

Here is the legend:

So I got the yellow and white reversed. And that is another problem with the visual design. For a chart that shows two-party politics in the U.S., there is really no good reason to deviate from the red-blue convention. The color for Independents doesn't matter since it would be understood that the third color would represent them.

If the red-blue convention were followed, readers do not need to consult the legend.

***

In my Long Read article at DataJournalism.com, I included an "unspoken rule" about color selection: use the natural color mapping whenever possible. Go here to read about this and other rules.

The chart breaks another one of the unspoken conventions. When making a legend, place it near the top of the chart. Readers need to know the color mapping before they can understand the chart.

In addition, you want the reader's eyes to read the legend in the same way they read the columns. The columns goes left to right from Democratic to Independent to Republican. The legend should do the same!

***

Here is a quick re-do that fixes the visual issues (except the data error). It's an Excel chart but it doesn't have to be bad.

 

Too many colors on a chart is bad, but why?

The following chart is bad, but how so?

The chart is annoying because of the misuse of colors.

What is the purpose of the multiple colors used in this chart? It's not encoding any data. Colors are used here to differentiate one bar from its two neighbors. Or perhaps to make the chart more "appealing".

The reason why the coloring scheme backfires is that readers may look for meaning in the colors. What's common between Iceland, United States and Germany for them to be assigned green? What about Japan, New Zealand, Spain and France, all of which shown yellow?

The readers' instinct is driven by a set of unspoken rules that govern the production of data visualization. Specifically, the rule here is: color differences reflect data differences. When such a rule is violated, the reader is misled and confused.

***

For more about this rule, other rules related to making bar charts, and other other rules for making data graphics, please read my Long Read article, here.

 

Food coma and self-sufficiency in dataviz

The Hustle wrote a strong analysis of the business of buffets. If you've read my analysis of Groupon's business model in Numbersense (link), you'll find some similarities. A key is to not think of every customer as an average customer; there are segments of customers who behave differently, and creating a proper mix of different types of customers is the management's challenge. I will make further comments on the statistics in a future post on the sister blog.

At Junk Charts, we'll focus on visualizing and communciating data. The article in The Hustle comes with the following dataviz:

This dataviz fails my self-sufficiency test. Recall: self-sufficiency is a basic requirement of visualizing data - that the graphical elements should be sufficient to convey the gist of the data. Otherwise, there is no point in augmenting the data with graphical elements.

The self-sufficiency test is to remove the dataset from the dataviz, and ask whether the graphic can stand on its own. So here:

The entire set of ingredient costs appears on the original graphic. When these numbers are removed, the reader gets the wrong message - that the cost is equally split between these five ingredients.

This chart reminds me of the pizza chart that everyone thought was a pie chart except its designer! I wrote about it here. Food coma is a thing.

The original chart may be regarded as an illustration rather than data visualization. If so, it's just a few steps from becoming a dataviz. Like this:

P.S. A preview of what I'll be talking about at the sister blog. The above diagram illustrates the average case - for the average buffet diner. Underneath these costs is an assumption about the relative amounts of each food that is eaten. But eaten by whom?

Also, if you have Numbersense (link), the chapter on measuring the inflation rate is relevant here. Any inflation metric must assume a basket of goods, but then the goods within the basket have to be weighted by the amount of expenditure. It's much harder to get the ratio of expenditures correct compared to getting price data.

 

 

Taking small steps to bring out the message

Happy new year! Good luck and best wishes!

***

We'll start 2020 with something lighter. On a recent flight, I saw a chart in The Economist that shows the proportion of operating income derived from overseas markets by major grocery chains - the headline said that some of these chains are withdrawing from international markets.

The designer used one color for each grocery chain, and two shades within each color. The legend describes the shades as "total" and "of which: overseas". As with all stacked bar charts, it's a bit confusing where to find the data. The "total" is actually the entire bar, not just the darker shaded part. The darker shaded part is better labeled "home market" as shown below:

The designer's instinct to bring out the importance of international markets to each company's income is well placed. A second small edit helps: plot the international income amounts first, so they line up with the vertical zero axis. Like this:

This is essentially the same chart. The order of international and home market is reversed. I also reversed the shading, so that the international share of income is displayed darker. This shading draws the readers' attention to the key message of the chart.

A stacked bar chart of the absolute dollar amounts is not ideal for showing proportions, because each bar is a different length. Sometimes, plotting relative values summing to 100% for each company may work better.

As it stands, the chart above calls attention to a different message: that Walmart dwarfs the other three global chains. Just the international income of Walmart is larger than the total income of Costco.

***

Please comment below or write me directly if you have ideas for this blog as we enter a new decade. What do you want to see more of? less of?

This Excel chart looks standard but gets everything wrong

The following CNBC chart (link) shows the trend of global car sales by region (or so we think).

This type of chart is quite common in finance/business circles, and has the fingerprint of Excel. After examining it, I nominate it for the Hall of Shame.

***

The chart has three major components vying for our attention: (1) the stacked columns, (2) the yellow line, and (3) the big red dashed arrow.

The easiest to interpret is the yellow line, which is labeled "Total" in the legend. It displays the annual growth rate of car sales around the globe. The data consist of annual percentage changes in car sales, so the slope of the yellow line represents a change of change, which is not particularly useful.

The big red arrow is making the point that the projected decline in global car sales in 2019 will return the world to the slowdown of 2008-9 after almost a decade of growth.

The stacked columns appear to provide a breakdown of the global growth rate by region. Looked at carefully, you'll soon learn that the visual form has hopelessly mangled the data.

What is the growth rate for Chinese car sales in 2006? Is it 2.5%, the top edge of China's part of the column? Between 1.5% and 2.5%, the extant of China's section? The answer is neither. Because of the stacking, China's growth rate is actually the height of the relevant section, that is to say, 1 percent. So the labels on the vertical axis are not directly useful to learning regional growth rates for most sections of the chart.

Can we read the vertical axis as global growth rate? That's not proper either. The different markets are not equal in size so growth rates cannot be aggregated by simple summing - they must be weighted by relative size.

The negative growth rates present another problem. Even if we agree to sum growth rates ignoring relative market sizes, we still can't get directly to the global growth rate. We would have to take the total of the positive rates and subtract the total of the negative rates.  

***

At this point, you may begin to question everything you thought you knew about this chart. Remember the yellow line, which we thought measures the global growth rate. Take a look at the 2006 column again.

The global growth rate is depicted as 2 percent. And yet every region experienced growth rates below 2 percent! No matter how you aggregate the regions, it's not possible for the world average to be larger than the value of each region.

For 2006, the regional growth rates are: China, 1%; Rest of the World, 1%; Western Europe, 0.1%; United States, -0.25%. A simple sum of those four rates yields 2%, which is shown on the yellow line.

But this number must be divided by four. If we give the four regions equal weight, each is worth a quarter of the total. So the overall average is the sum of each growth rate weighted by 1/4, which is 0.5%. [In reality, the weights of each region should be scaled to reflect its market size.]

***

tldr; The stacked column chart with a line overlay not only fails to communicate the contents of the car sales data but it also leads to misinterpretation.

I discussed several serious problems of this chart form: 

• stacking the columns make it hard to learn the regional data
  
  
• the trend by region takes a super effort to decipher
  
  
• column stacking promotes reading meaning into the height of the column but the total height is meaningless (because of the negative section) while the net height (positive minus negative) also misleads due to presumptive equal weighting
  
  
• the yellow line shows the sum of the regional data, which is four times the global growth rate that it purports to represent

 

***

PS. [12/4/2019: New post up with a different visualization.]

How to read this cost-benefit chart, and why it is so confusing

Long-time reader Antonio R. found today's chart hard to follow, and he isn't alone. It took two of us multiple emails and some Web searching before we think we "got it".

 

Antonio first encountered the chart in a book review (link) of Hal Harvey et. al, Designing Climate Solutions. It addresses the general topic of costs and benefits of various programs to abate CO2 emissions. The reviewer praised the "wealth of graphics [in the book] which present complex information in visually effective formats." He presented the above chart as evidence, and described its function as:

policy-makers can focus on the areas which make the most difference in emissions, while also being mindful of the cost issues that can be so important in getting political buy-in.

(This description is much more informative than the original chart title, which states "The policy cost curve shows the cost-effectiveness and emission reduction potential of different policies.")

Spend a little time with the chart now before you read the discussion below.

Warning: this is a long read but well worth it.

 

***

 

If your experience is anything like ours, scraps of information flew at you from different parts of the chart, and you had a hard time piecing together a story.

What are the reasons why this data graphic is so confusing?

Everyone recognizes that this is a column chart. For a column chart, we interpret the heights of the columns so we look first at the vertical axis. The axis title informs us that the height represents "cost effectiveness" measured in dollars per million metric tons of CO2. In a cost-benefit sense, that appears to mean the cost to society of obtaining the benefit of reducing CO2 by a given amount.

That's how far I went before hitting the first roadblock.

For environmental policies, opponents frequently object to the high price of implementation. For example, we can't have higher fuel efficiency in cars because it would raise the price of gasoline too much. Asking about cost-effectiveness makes sense: a cost-benefit trade-off analysis encapsulates the something-for-something principle. What doesn't follow is that the vertical scale sinks far into the negative. The chart depicts the majority of the emissions abatement programs as having negative cost effectiveness.

What does it mean to be negatively cost-effective? Does it mean society saves money (makes a profit) while also reducing CO2 emissions? Wouldn't those policies - more than half of the programs shown - be slam dunks? Who can object to programs that improve the environment at no cost?

I tabled that thought, and proceeded to the horizontal axis.

I noticed that this isn't a standard column chart, in which the width of the columns is fixed and uneventful. Here, the widths of the columns are varying.

***

In the meantime, my eyes are distracted by the constellation of text labels. The viewing area of this column chart is occupied - at least 50% - by text. These labels tell me that each column represents a program to reduce CO2 emissions.

The dominance of text labels is a feature of this design. For a conventional column chart, the labels are situated below each column. Since the width does not usually carry any data, we tend to keep the columns narrow - Tufte, ever the minimalist, has even advocated reducing columns to vertical lines. That leaves insufficient room for long labels. Have you noticed that government programs hold long titles? It's tough to capture even the outline of a program with fewer than three big words, e.g. "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (what?).

The design solution here is to let the column labels run horizontally. So the graphical element for each program is a vertical column coupled with a horizontal label that invades the territories of the next few programs. Like this:

The horror of this design constraint is fully realized in the following chart, a similar design produced for the state of Oregon (lifted from the Plan Washington webpage listed as a resource below):

In a re-design, horizontal labeling should be a priority.

 

***

Realizing that I've been distracted by the text labels, back to the horizontal axis I went.

This is where I encountered the next roadblock.

The axis title says "Average Annual Emissions Abatement" measured in millions metric tons. The unit matches the second part of the vertical scale, which is comforting. But how does one reconcile the widths of columns with a continuous scale? I was expecting each program to have a projected annual abatement benefit, and those would fall as dots on a line, like this:

Instead, we have line segments sitting on a line, like this:

Think of these bars as the bottom edges of the columns. These line segments can be better compared to each other if structured as a bar chart:

Instead, the design arranges these lines end-to-end.

To unravel this mystery, we go back to the objective of the chart, as announced by the book reviewer. Here it is again:

policy-makers can focus on the areas which make the most difference in emissions, while also being mindful of the cost issues that can be so important in getting political buy-in.

The primary goal of the chart is a decision-making tool for policy-makers who are evaluating programs. Each program has a cost and also a benefit. The cost is shown on the vertical axis and the benefit is shown on the horizontal. The decision-maker will select some subset of these programs based on the cost-benefit analysis. That subset of programs will have a projected total expected benefit (CO2 abatement) and a projected total cost.

By stacking the line segments end to end on top of the horizontal axis, the chart designer elevates the task of computing the total benefits of a subset of programs, relative to the task of learning the benefits of any individual program. Thus, the horizontal axis is better labeled "Cumulative annual emissions abatement".

 

Look at that axis again. Imagine you are required to learn the specific benefit of program titled "Fuel Economy Standards: Cars & SUVs".  

This is impossible to do without pulling out a ruler and a calculator. What the axis labels do tell us is that if all the programs to the left of Fuel Economy Standards: Cars & SUVs were adopted, the cumulative benefits would be 285 million metric tons of CO2 per year. And if Fuel Economy Standards: Cars & SUVs were also implemented, the cumulative benefits would rise to 375 million metric tons.

***

At long last, we have arrived at a reasonable interpretation of the cost-benefit chart.

Policy-makers are considering throwing their support behind specific programs aimed at abating CO2 emissions. Different organizations have come up with different ways to achieve this goal. This goal may even have specific benchmarks; the government may have committed to an international agreement, for example, to reduce emissions by some set amount by 2030. Each candidate abatement program is evaluated on both cost and benefit dimensions. Benefit is given by the amount of CO2 abated. Cost is measured as a "marginal cost," the amount of dollars required to achieve each million metric ton of abatement.

This "marginal abatement cost curve" aids the decision-making. It lines up the programs from the most cost-effective to the least cost-effective. The decision-maker is presumed to prefer a more cost-effective program than a less cost-effective program. The chart answers the following question: for any given subset of programs (so long as we select them left to right contiguously), we can read off the cumulative amount of CO2 abated.

***

There are still more limitations of the chart design.

• We can't directly read off the cumulative cost of the selected subset of programs because the vertical axis is not cumulative. The cumulative cost turns out to be the total area of all the columns that correspond to the selected programs. (Area is height x width, which is cost per benefit multiplied by benefit, which leaves us with the cost.) Unfortunately, it takes rulers and calculators to compute this total area.
  
  
• We have presumed that policy-makers will make the Go-No-go decision based on cost effectiveness alone. This point of view has already been contradicted. Remember the mystery around negatively cost-effective programs - their existence shows that some programs are stalled even when they reduce emissions in addition to making money!
  
  
• Since many, if not most, programs have negative cost-effectiveness (by the way they measured it), I'd flip the metric over and call it profitability (or return on investment). Doing so removes another barrier to our understanding. With the current cost-effectiveness metric, policy-makers are selecting the "negative" programs before the "positive" programs. It makes more sense to select the "positive" programs before the "negative" ones!

***

In a Trifecta Checkup (guide), I rate this chart Type V. The chart has a great purpose, and the design reveals a keen sense of the decision-making process. It's not a data dump for sure. In addition, an impressive amount of data gathering and analysis - and synthesis - went into preparing the two data series required to construct the chart. (Sure, for something so subjective and speculative, the analysis methodology will inevitably be challenged by wonks.) Those two data series are reasonable measures for the stated purpose of the chart.

The chart form, though, has various shortcomings, as shown here.  

***

In our email exchange, Antonio and I found the Plan Washington website useful. This is where we learned that this chart is called the marginal abatement cost curve.

Also, the consulting firm McKinsey is responsible for popularizing this chart form. They have published this long report that explains even more of the analysis behind constructing this chart, for those who want further details.