A German obstacle course

Tagesschau_originalA twitter user sent me this chart from Germany.

It came with a translation:

"Explanation: The chart says how many car drivers plan to purchase a new state-sponsored ticket for public transport. And of those who do, how many plan to use their car less often."

Because visual language should be universal, we shouldn't be deterred by not knowing German.

The structure of the data can be readily understood: we expect three values that add up to 100% from the pie chart. The largest category accounts for 58% of the data, followed by the blue category (40%). The last and smallest category therefore has 2% of the data.

The blue category is of the most interest, and the designer breaks that up into four sub-groups, three of which are roughly similarly popular.

The puzzle is the identities of these categories.

The sub-categories are directly labeled so these are easy for German speakers. From a handy online translator, these labels mean "definitely", "probably", "rather not", "definitely not". Well, that's not too helpful when we don't know what the survey question is.

According to our correspondent, the question should be "of those who plan to buy the new ticket, how many plan to use their car less often?"

I suppose the question is found above the column chart under the car icon. The translator dutifully outputs "Thus rarer (i.e. less) car use". There is no visual cue to let readers know we are supposed to read the right hand side as a single column. In fact, for this reader, I was reading horizontally from top to bottom.

Now, the two icons on the left and the middle of the top row should map to not buying and buying the ticket. The check mark and cross convey that message. But... what do these icons map to on the chart below? We get no clue.

In fact, the will-buy ticket group is the 40% blue category while the will-not group is the 58% light gray category.

What about the dark gray thin sector? Well, one needs to read the fine print. The footnote says "I don't know/ no response".

Since this group is small and uninformative, it's fine to push it into the footnote. However, the choice of a dark color, and placing it at the 12-o'clock angle of the pie chart run counter to de-emphasizing this category!

Another twitter user visually depicts the journey we take to understand this chart:

Tagesschau_reply

The structure of the data is revealed better with something like this:

Redo_tagesschau_newticket

The chart doesn't need this many colors but why not? It's summer.

 

 

 

 


Variance is a friend of dataviz

Seven years ago, I wrote a post about "invariance" in data visualization, which is something we should avoid (link). Yesterday, Business Insider published the following chart in an article about rising gas prices (link):

Businessinsider_gasprices_prices

The map shows the average prices at the pump in seven regions of the United States. 

This chart is succeeded by the following map:

Businessinsider_gasprices_pricechange

This second map shows the change in average gas prices in the same seven regions.

This design is invariant to the data! While the data change, the visualization looks identical. That's because the data are not encoded to any visual element - they are just printed as labels.

 


Superb tile map offering multiple avenues for exploration

Here's a beauty by WSJ Graphics:

Wsj_powerproduction

The article is here.

This data graphic illustrates the power of the visual medium. The underlying dataset is complex: power production by type of source by state by month by year. That's more than 90,000 numbers. They all reside on this graphic.

Readers amazingly make sense of all these numbers without much effort.

It starts with the summary chart on top.

Wsj_powerproduction_us_summary

The designer made decisions. The data are presented in relative terms, as proportion of total power production. Only the first and last years are labeled, thus drawing our attention to the long-term trend. The order of the color blocks is carefully selected so that the cleaner sources are listed at the top and the dirtier sources at the bottom. The order of the legend labels mirrors the color blocks in the area chart.

It takes only a few seconds to learn that U.S. power production has largely shifted away from coal with most of it substituted by natural gas. Other than wind, the green sources of power have not gained much ground during these years - in a relative sense.

This summary chart serves as a reading guide for the rest of the chart, which is a tile map of all fifty states. Embedded in the tile map is a small-multiples arrangement.

***

The map offers multiple avenues for exploration.

Some readers may look at specific states. For example, California.

Wsj_powerproduction_california

Currently, about half of the power production in California come from natural gas. Notably, there is no coal at all in any of these years. In addition to wind, solar energy has also gained. All of these insights come without the need for any labels or gridlines!

Wsj_powerproduction_westernstatesBrowsing around California, readers find different patterns in other Western states like Oregon and Washington.

Hydroelectric energy is the dominant source in those two states, with wind gradually taking share.

At this point, readers realize that the summary chart up top hides remarkable state-level variations.

***

There are other paths through the map.

Some readers may scan the whole map, seeking patterns that pop out.

One such pattern is the cluster of states that use coal. In most of these states, the proportion of coal has declined.

Yet another path exists for those interested in specific sources of power.

For example, the trend in nuclear power usage is easily followed by tracking the purple. South Carolina, Illinois and New Hampshire are three states that rely on nuclear for more than half of its power.

Wsj_powerproduction_vermontI wonder what happened in Vermont about 8 years ago.

The chart says they renounced nuclear energy. Here is some history. This one-time event caused a disruption in the time series, unique on the entire map.

***

This work is wonderful. Enjoy it!


Funnel is just for fun

This is part 2 of a review of a recent video released by NASA. Part 1 is here.

The NASA video that starts with the spiral chart showing changes in average global temperature takes a long time (about 1 minute) to run through 14 decades of data, and for those who are patient, the chart then undergoes a dramatic transformation.

With a sleight of hand, the chart went from a set of circles to a funnel. Here is a look:

Nasa_climatespiral_funnel

What happens is the reintroduction of a time dimension. Imagine pushing the center of the spiral down into the screen to create a third dimension.

Our question as always is - what does this chart tell readers?

***

The chart seems to say that the variability of temperature has increased over time (based on the width of the funnel). The red/blue color says the temperature is getting hotter especially in the last 20-40 years.

When the reader looks beneath the surface, the chart starts to lose sense.

The width of the funnel is really a diameter of the spiral chart in the given year. But, if you recall, the diameter of the spiral (polar) chart isn't the same between any pairs of months.

Nasa_climatespiral_fullperiod

In the particular rendering of this video, the width of the funnel is the diameter linking the April and October values.

Remember the polar gridlines behind the spiral:

Nasa_spiral_gridlines

Notice the hole in the middle. This hole has arbitrary diameter. It can be as big or as small as the designer makes it. Thus, the width of the funnel is as big or as small as the designer wants it. But the first thing that caught our attention is the width of the funnel.

***

The entire section between -1 and + 1 is, in fact, meaningless. In the following chart, I removed the core of the funnel, adding back the -1 degree line. Doing so exposes an incompatibility between the spiral and funnel views. The middle of the polar grid is negative infinity, a black hole.

Junkcharts_nasafunnel_arbitrarygap

For a moment, the two sides of the funnel look like they are mirror images. That's not correct, either. Each width of the funnel represents a year, and the extreme values represent April and October values. The line between those two values does not signify anything real.

Let's take a pair of values to see what I mean.

Junkcharts_nasafunnel_lines

I selected two values for October 2021 and October 1899 such that the first value appears as a line double the length of the second. The underlying values are +0.99C and -0.04C, roughly speaking, +1 and 0, so the first value is definitely not twice the size of the second.

The funnel chart can be interpreted, in an obtuse way, as a pair of dot plots. As shown below, if we take dot plots for Aprils and Octobers of every year, turn the chart around, and then connect the corresponding dots, we arrive at the funnel chart.

Junkcharts_nasafunnel_fromdotplots

***

This NASA effort illustrates a central problem in visual communications: attention (what Andrew Gelman calls "grabbiness") and information integrity. On the one hand, what's the point of an accurate chart when no one is paying attention? On the other hand, what's the point of a grabby chart when anyone who pays attention gets the wrong information? It's not easy to find that happy medium.


Dots, lines, and 2D histograms

Daniel Z. tweeted about my post from last week. In particular, he took a deeper look at the chart of energy demand that put all hourly data onto the same plot, originally published at the StackOverflow blog:

Stackoverflow_variabilitychart

I noted that this is not a great chart particularly since what catches our eyes are not the key features of the underlying data. Daniel made a clearly better chart:

Danielzvinca_densitychart

This is a dot plot, rather than a line chart. The dots are painted in light gray, pushed to the background, because readers should be looking at the orange line. (I'm not sure what is going on with the horizontal scale as I could not get the peaks to line up on the two charts.)

What is this orange line? It's supposed to prove the point that the apparent dark band seen in the line chart does not represent the most frequently occurring values, as one might presume.

Looking closer, we see that the gray dots do not show all the hourly data but binned values.

Danielzvinca_densitychart_inset
We see vertical columns of dots, each representing a bin of values. The size of the dots represents the frequency of values of each bin. The orange line connects the bins with the highest number of values.

Daniel commented that

"The visual aggregation doesn't in fact map to the most frequently occurring values. That is because the ink of almost vertical lines fills in all the space between start and end."

Xan Gregg investigated further, and made a gif to show this effect better. Here is a screenshot of it (see this tweet):

Xangregg_dots_vs_line

The top chart is a true dot plot so that the darker areas are denser as the dots overlap. The bottom chart is the line chart that has the see-saw pattern. As Xan noted, the values shown are strangely very well behaved (aggregated? modeled?) - with each day, it appears that the values sweep up and down consistently.  This means the values are somewhat evenly spaced on the underlying trendline, so I think this dataset is not the best one to illustrate Daniel's excellent point.

It's usually not a good idea to connect lots of dots with a single line.

 

[P.S. 3/21/2022: Daniel clarified what the orange line shows: "In the posted chart, the orange line encodes the daily demand average (the mean of the daily distribution), rounded, for displaying purposes, to the closed bin. Bin size = 1000. Orange could have encode the daily median as well."]

 


The envelope of one's data

This post is the second post in response to a blog post at StackOverflow (link) in which the author discusses the "harm" of "aggregating away the signal" in your dataset. The first post appears on my book blog earlier this week (link).

One stop in their exploratory data analysis journey was the following chart:

Stackoverflow_variabilitychart

This chart plots all the raw data, all 8,760 values of electricity consumption in California in 2020. Most analysts know this isn't a nice chart, and it's an abuse of ink. This chart is used as a contrast to the 4-week moving average, which was hoisted up as an example of "over-aggregation".

Why is the above chart bad (aside from the waste of ink)? Think about how you consume the information. For me, I notice these features in the following order:

  1. I see the upper "envelope" of the data, i.e. the top values at each hour of each day throughout the year. This gives me the seasonal pattern with a peak in the summer months.
  2. I see the lower "envelope" of the data
  3. I see the "height" of the data, which is, roughly speaking, the range of values within a day
  4. If I squint hard enough, I see a darker band within the band, which roughly maps to the most frequently occurring values (this feature becomes more prominent if we select a lighter shade of gray)

The chart may not be as bad as it looks. The "moving average" is sort of visible. The variability of consumption is visible. The primary problem is it draws attention to the outliers, rather than the more common values.

The envelope of any dataset is composed of extreme values, by definition. For most analysis objectives, extreme values are "noise". In the chart above, it's hard to tell how common the maximum values are relative to other possible values but it's the upper envelope that captures my attention - simply because it's the easiest trend to make out.

***

The same problem actually surfaces in the "improved" chart:

Stackoverflow_weekofyearchart

As explained in the preceding post, this chart rearranges the data. Instead of a single line, therea are now 52 overlapping lines, one for each week of the year. So each line is much less dense and we can make out the hour of day/day of week pattern.

Notice that the author draws attention to the upper envelope of this chart. They notice the line(s) near the top are from the summer, and this further guides their next analysis.

The reason for focusing on the envelope is the same as in the other chart. Where the lines are dense, it's not easy to make out the pattern.

Even the envelope is not as clear as it seems! There is no reason why the highlighted week (August 16 to 23) should have the highest consumption value each hour of each day of the week. It's possible that the line dips into the middle of the range at various points along the line. In the following chart, I highlight two time points in which lines may or may not have crossed:

Junkcharts_stackoverflow_confusingenvelope

In an interactive chart, each line can be highlighted to resolve the confusion.

Note that the lower envelope is much harder to decipher, given the density of lines.

***
The author then pursues a hypothesis that there are lines (weeks) with one intra-day peak and there are those with two peaks.

I'd propose that those are not discrete states but continuous. The base pattern can be one with two peaks, a higher peak in the evening, and a lower peak in the morning. Now, if you imagine pushing up the evening peak while holding the lower peak at its height, you'd gradually "erase" the lower peak but it's just receded into the background.

Possibly the underlying driver is the total demand for energy. The higher the demand, the more likely it's concentrated in the evening, which causes the lower peak to recede. The lower the demand, the more likely we see both peaks.

In either case, the prior chart drives the direction of the next analysis.

 

 

 

 

 


Speaking to the choir

A friend found the following chart about the "carbon cycle", and sent me an exasperated note, having given up on figuring it out. The chart came from a report, and was reprinted in Ars Technica (link).

Gcp_s09_2021_global_perturbation-800x371

The problem with the chart is that the designer is speaking to the choir. One must know a lot about the carbon cycle already to make sense of everything that's going on.

We see big and small arrows pointing up or down. Each arrow has a number attached to it, plus a range inside brackets. These numbers have no units, and it's not obvious what they are measuring.

The arrows come in a variety of colors. The colors are explained by labels but the labels dexcribe apparently unrelated concepts (e.g. fossil CO2 and land-use change).

Interspersed with the arrows is a singular dot. The dot also has a number attached to it. The number wears a plus sign, which signals it's being treated differently than the quantities with up arrows.

The singular dot is an outcast, ostracized from the community of dots in the bottom part of the chart. These dots have labels but no numbers. They come in different sizes but no scale is provided.

The background is divided into three parts, showing the atmosphere, the land mass, and the ocean. The placement of the arrows and dots suggests each measured quantity concerns one of these three parts. Well... except the dot labeled "surface sediments" that sit on the boundary of the land mass and the ocean.

The three-way classification is only one layer of the chart. A different classification is embedded in the color scheme. The gray, light green, and aquamarine arrows in the sky find their counterparts in the dots of the land mass, and the ocean.

What's more, the boundaries between land and sky, and between land and ocean are also painted with those colors. These boundary segments have been given different colors so that the lengths of these segments seem to contain data but we aren't sure what.

At this point, I noticed thin arrows which appear to depict back and forth flows. There may be two types of such exchanges, one indicated by a cycle, the other by two straight arrows in opposite directions. The cycles have no numbers while each pair of straight thin arrows gets two numbers, always identical.

At the bottom of the chart is a annotation in red: "Budget imbalance = -1.0". Presumably some formula ties the numbers shown above to this -1.0 result. We still don't know the units, and it's unclear if -1.0 is a bad number. A negative number shown in red typically indicates a bad number but how bad is it?

Finally, on the top right corner, I found a legend. It's not obvious at first because the legend symbols (arrows and dots) are shown in gray, a color not used elsewhere on the chart. It appears as if it represents another color category. The legend labels do little for me. What is an "anthropogenic flux"? What does the unit of "GtCO2" stand for? Other jargon includes "carbon cycling" and "stocks". The entire diagram is titled "carbon cycle" while the "carbon cycling" thin arrows are only a small part of the diagram.

The bottom line is I have no idea what this chart is saying to me, other than that the earth is a complex system, and that the designer has tried valiantly to impregnate the diagram with lots of information. If I am well read in environmental science, my experience is likely different.

 

 

 

 

 


A little stitch here, a great graphic is knitted

The Wall Street Journal used the following graphic to compare hurricanes Ida and Katrina (link to paywalled article).

Wsj_ida_katrina_hurricanes

This graphic illustrates the power of visual communications. Readers can learn a lot from it.

The paths of the storms can be compared. The geographical locations of the landfalls are shown. The strengthening of wind speeds as the hurricanes moved toward Louisiana is also displayed. Ida is clearly a lesser storm than Katrina: its wind speed never reached Category 5, and is generally lower at comparable time points.

The greatest feature of the WSJ graphic is how the designer stitches the two plots into one graphic. The anchors are two time points: when each storm attained enough wind speed to be classified as a hurricane (indicated by open dots), and when each storm made landfall in Louisiana. It is this little-noticed feature that makes it so easy to place each plot in context of the other.

Bravo!


Simple charts are the hardest to do right

The CDC website has a variety of data graphics about many topics, one of which is U.S. vaccinations. I was looking for information about Covid-19 data broken down by age groups, and that's when I landed on these charts (link).

Cdc_vaccinations_by_age_small

The left panel shows people with at least one dose, and the right panel shows those who are "fully vaccinated." This simple chart takes an unreasonable amount of time to comprehend.

***

The analyst introduces three metrics, all of which are described as "percentages". Upon reflection, they are proportions of the people in specific age ranges.

Readers are thus invited to compare these proportions. It's not clear, however, which comparisons are intended. The first item listed in the legend states "Percent among Persons who completed all recommended doses in last 14 days". For most readers, including me, this introduces an unexpected concept. The 14 days here do not refer to the (in)famous 14-day case-counting window but literally the most recent two weeks relative to when the chart was produced.

It would have been clearer if the concept of Proportions were introduced in the chart title or axis title, while the color legend explains the concept of the base population. From the lighter shade to the darker shade (of red and blue) to the gray color, the base population shifts from "Among Those Who Completed/Initiated Vaccinations Within Last 14 Days" to "Among Those Who Completed/Initiated Vaccinations Any Time" to "Among the U.S. Population (regardless of vaccination status)".

Also, a reverse order helps our comprehension. Each subsequent category is a subset of the one above. First, the whole population, then those who are fully vaccinated, and finally those who recently completed vaccinations.

The next hurdle concerns the Q corner of our Trifecta Checkup. The design leaves few hints as to what question(s) its creator intended to address. The age distribution of the U.S. population is useless unless it is compared to something.

One apparently informative comparison is the age distribution of those fully vaccinated versus the age distribution of all Americans. This is revealed by comparing the lengths of the dark blue bar and the gray bar. But is this comparison informative? It's telling me that people aged 50 to 64 account for ~25% of those who are fully vaccinated, and ~20% of all Americans. Because proportions necessarily add to 100%, this implies that other age groups have been less vaccinated. Duh! Isn't that the result of an age-based vaccination prioritization? During the first week of the vaccination campaign, one might expect close to 100% of all vaccinations to be in the highest age group while it was 0% for the other age groups.

This is a chart in search of a question. The 25% vs 20% comparison does not assist readers in making a judgement. Does this mean the vaccination campaign is working as expected, worse than expected or better than expected? The problem is the wrong baseline. The designer of this chart implies that the expected proportions should conform to the overall age distribution - but that clearly stands in the way of CDC's initial prioritization of higher-risk age groups.

***

In my version of the chart, I illustrate the proportion of people in each age group who have been fully vaccinated.

Junkcharts_cdcvaccinationsbyage_1

Among those fully vaccinated, some did it within the most recent two weeks:

Junkcharts_cdcvaccinationsbyage_2

***

Elsewhere on the CDC site, one learns that on these charts, "fully vaccinated" means one shot of J&J or 2 shots of Pfizer or Moderna, without dealing with the 14-day window or other complications. Why do we think different definitions are used in different analyses? Story-first thinking, as I have explained here. When it comes to telling the story about vaccinations, the story is about the number of shots in arms. They want as big a number as possible, and abandon any criterion that decreases the count. When it comes to reporting on vaccine effectiveness, they want as small a number of cases as possible.

 

 

 

 

 


Check your presumptions while you're reading this chart about Israel's vaccination campaign

On July 30, Israel began administering third doses of mRNA vaccines to targeted groups of people. This decision was controversial since there is no science to support it. The policymakers do have educated guesses by experts based on best-available information. By science, I mean actual evidence. Since no one has previously been given three shots, there can be no data on which anyone can root such a decision. Nevertheless, the pandemic does not always give us time to collect relevant data, and so speculative analysis has found its calling.

Dvir Aran, at Technion, has been diligently tracking the situation in Israel on his Twitter. Ten days after July 30, he posted the following chart, which immediately led many commentators to bounce out of their seats crowning the third shot as a magic bullet. Notably, Dvir himself did not endorse such a claim. (See here to learn how other hasty conclusions by experts have fared.)

When you look at Dvir's chart, what do we see?

Dvir_aran_chart

Possibly one of the following two things, depending on what concern you have in your head.

1) The red line sits far above the other two lines, showing that unvaccinated people are much more likely to get infected.

2) The blue line diverges from the green line almost immediately after the 3rd shots started getting into arms, showing that the 3rd shot is super effective.

If you take another moment to look, you might start asking questions, as many in Twitter world did. Dvir was startlingly efficient at answering these queries.

A) Does the green line represent people with 2 or 3 doses, or is it strictly 2 doses? Aron asked this question and got the answer (the former):

AronBrand_israelcases_twoorthreedoses

It's time to check our presumptions. When you read that chart, did you presume it's exactly 2 doses or did you presume it's 2 or 3 doses? Or did you immediately spot the ambiguity? As I said in this article, graphs attain efficiency at communication because the designer leverages unspoken rules - the chart conveys certain information without explicitly placing it on the chart. But this can backfire. In this case, I presumed the three lines to display three non-overlapping groups of people, and thus the green line indicates those with 2 doses but not 3. That presumption led me to misinterpret what's on the chart.

B) What is the denominator of the case rates? Is it literal - by that I mean, all unvaccinated people for the red line, and all people with 3 doses for the blue line? Or is the denominator the population of Israel, the same number for all three lines? Lukas asked this question, and got the answer (the former).

Lukas_denominator

C) Since third shots are recommended for 60 year olds and over who were vaccinated at least 5 months ago, and most unvaccinated Israelis are below 60, this answer opens the possibility that the lines compare apples and oranges. Joe. S. asked about this, and received an answer (all lines display only 60 year olds and over.)

Joescholar_basepopulationquestion

Jason P. asked, and learned that the 5-month-out criterion is immaterial since 90% of the vaccinated have already reached that time point.

JasonPogue_5monthsout

D) We have even more presumptions. Like me, did you presume that the red line represents the "unvaccinated," meaning people who have not had any vaccine shots? If so, we may both be wrong about this. It has become the norm by vaccine researchers to lump "partially vaccinated" people with "unvaccinated", and call this combined group "unvaccinated". Here is an excerpt from a recent report from Public Health Ontario (link to PDF), which clearly states this unintuitive counting rule:

Ontario_case_definition

Notice that in this definition, someone who got infected within 14 days of the first shot is classified as an "unvaccinated" case and not a "partially vaccinated case".

In the following tweet, Dvir gave a hint of what he plotted:

Dvir_group_definition

In a previous analysis, he averaged the rates of people with 0 doses and 1 dose, which is equivalent to combining them and calling them unvaccinated. It's unclear to me what he did to the 1-dose subgroup in our featured chart - did it just vanish from the chart? (How people and cases are classified into these groups is a major factor in all vaccine effectiveness calculations - a topic I covered here. Unfortunately, most published reports do a poor job explaining what the analysts did).

E) Did you presume that all three lines are equally important? That's far from true. Since Israel is the world champion in vaccination, the bulk of the 60+ population form the green line. I asked Dvir and he responded that only 7.5%, or roughly 100K are unvaccinated.

DvirAran_proportionofunvaccinated

That means 1.2 million people are part of the green line, 12 times higher. There are roughly 50 cases per day among unvaccinated, and 370 daily cases among those with 2 or 3 doses. In other words, vaccinated people account for almost 90% of all cases.

Yes, this is inevitable when over 90% of the age group have been vaccinated (but it is predictable on the first day someone blasted everywhere that real-world VE is proved by the fact that almost all new cases were in the unvaccinated.)

If your job is to minimize infections, you should be spending most of your time thinking about the 370 cases among vaccinated than the 50 cases among unvaccinated. If you halve the case rate, that would be a difference of 185 cases vs 25. In Israel, the vaccination campaign has already succeeded; it's time to look forward, which is exactly why they are re-focusing on the already vaccinated.

***

If what you worry about most is the effectiveness of the original two-dose regimen, Dvir's chart raises a puzzle. Ignore the blue line, and remember that the green line already includes everybody represented by the blue line.

In the following chart, I removed the blue line, and added reference lines in dashed purple that correspond to 25%, 50% and 75% vaccine effectiveness. The data plotted on this chart are unadjusted case rates. A 75% effective vaccine cuts case rate by three quarters.

Junkcharts_dviraran_israel_threeshotschart

This chart shows the 2-dose mRNA vaccine was nowhere near 90% effective. (As regular readers know, I don't endorse this simplistic calculation and have outlined the problems here, but this style of calculation keeps getting published and passed around. Those who use it to claim real-world studies confirm prior clinical trial outcomes can either (a) insist on using it and retract their earlier conclusions, or (b) admit that such a calculation was, and is, a bad take.)

Also observe how the vaccinated (green) line is moving away from the unvaccinated (red) line. The vaccine apparently is becoming more effective, which runs counter to the trend used by the Israeli government to justify third doses. This improvement also precedes the start of the third-shot campaign. When the analytical method is bad, it generates all sorts of spurious findings.

***

As Dvir said, it is premature to comment on the third doses based on 10 days of data. For one thing, the vaccine developers insist that their vaccines must be given 14 days to work. In a typical calculation, all of the cases in the blue line fall outside the case-counting window. The effective number of cases that would be attributed to the 3-dose group right now is zero, and the vaccine effectiveness using the standard methodology is 100%, even better than shown in the chart.

There is an alternative interpretation of this graph. Statisticians call this the selection effect. On July 30, the blue line split out of the green: some people were selected to receive the 3rd dose - this includes an official selection (the government makes certain subgroups eligible) as well as a self-selection (within the eligible subgroup, certain people decide to get the 3rd shot earlier.) If those who are less exposed to the virus, or more risk averse, get the shots first, then all that is happening may be that we have split off a high VE subgroup from the green line. Even if the third shot were useless, the selection effect itself could explain the gap.

Statistics is about grays. It's not either-or. It's usually some of each. If you feel like Groundhog Day, you're getting the picture. When they rolled out two doses, we lived through an optimistic period in which most experts rejoiced about 90-100% real-world effectiveness, and then as more people get vaccinated, the effect washed away. The selection effect gradually disappears when vaccination becomes widespread. Are we starting a new cycle of hope and despair? We'll find out soon enough.