Deaths as percent neither of cases nor of population. Deaths as percent of normal.

Yesterday, I posted a note about excess deaths on the book blog (link). The post was inspired by a nice data visualization by the New York Times (link). This is a great example of data journalism.

Nyt_excessdeaths_south

Excess deaths is a superior metric for measuring the effect of Covid-19 on public health. It's better than deaths as percent of cases. Also better than percent of the population.What excess deaths measure is deaths as a percent of normal. Normal is usually defined as the average deaths in the respective week in years past.

The red areas indicate how far the deaths in the Southern states are above normal. The highest peak, registered in Texas in late July, is 60 percent above the normal level.

***

The best way to appreciate the effort that went into this graphic is to imagine receiving the outputs from the model that computes excess deaths. A three-column spreadsheet with columns "state", "week number" and "estimated excess deaths".

The first issue is unequal population sizes. More populous states of course have higher death tolls. Transforming death tolls to an index pegged to the normal level solves this problem. To produce this index, we divide actual deaths by the normal level of deaths. So the spreadsheet must be augmented by two additional columns, showing the historical average deaths and actual deaths for each state for each week. Then, the excess death index can be computed.

The journalist builds a story around the migration of the coronavirus between different regions as it rages across different states  during different weeks. To this end, the designer first divides the dataset into four regions (South, West, Midwest and Northeast). Within each region, the states must be ordered. For each state, the week of peak excess deaths is identified, and the peak index is used to sort the states.

The graphic utilizes a small-multiples framework. Time occupies the horizontal axis, by convention. The vertical axis is compressed so that the states are not too distant. For the same reason, the component graphs are allowed to overlap vertically. The benefit of the tight arrangement is clearer for the Northeast as those peaks are particularly tall. The space-saving appearance reminds me of sparklines, championed by Ed Tufte.

There is one small tricky problem. In most of June, Texas suffered at least 50 percent more deaths than normal. The severity of this excess death toll is shortchanged by the low vertical height of each component graph. What forced such congestion is probably the data from the Northeast. For example, New York City:

Nyt_excessdeaths_northeast3

 

New York City's death toll was almost 8 times the normal level at the start of the epidemic in the U.S. If the same vertical scale is maintained across the four regions, then the Northeastern states dwarf all else.

***

One key takeaway from the graphic for the Southern states is the persistence of the red areas. In each state, for almost every week of the entire pandemic period, actual deaths have exceeded the normal level. This is strong indication that the coronavirus is not under control.

In fact, I'd like to see a second set of plots showing the cumulative excess deaths since March. The weekly graphic is better for identifying the ebb and flow while the cumulative graphic takes measure of the total impact of Covid-19.

***

The above description leaves out a huge chunk of work related to computing excess deaths. I assumed the designer receives these estimates from a data scientist. See the related post in which I explain how excess deaths are estimated from statistical models.

 


Everything in Texas is big, but not this BIG

Long-time reader John forwarded the following chart via Twitter.

Covidtracking_texassquare

The chart shows the recent explosive growth in deaths due to Covid-19 in Texas. John flagged this graphic as yet another example in which the data are encoded to the lengths of the squares, not their areas.

Fixing this chart just requires fixing the length of one side of the square. I also flipped it to make a conventional column chart.

Redo_texasdeathsquares_process

The final product:

Redo_texasdeaths_columns

An important qualification lurks in the footnote; it is directly applied to the label of July.

How much visual distortion is created when data are encoded to the lengths and not the areas? The following chart shows what readers see, assuming they correctly perceive the areas of those squares. The value for March is held the same as above while the other months show the death counts implied by the relative areas of the squares.

Redo_texasdeaths_distortion

Owing to squaring, the smaller counts are artificially compressed while the big numbers are massively exaggerated.


On data volume, reliability, uncertainty and confidence bands

This chart from the Economist caught my eye because of the unusual use of color-coded hexagonal tiles.

Economist_lifequalitywealth1

The basic design of the chart is easy to grasp: It relates people's "happiness" to national wealth. The thick black line shows that the average citizen of wealthier countries tends to rate their current life situation better.

For readers alert to graphical details, things can get a little confusing. The horizontal "wealth" axis is shown in log scale, which means that the data on the right side of the chart have been compressed while the data on the left side of the chart have been stretched out. In other words, the curve in linear scale is much flatter than depicted.

Redo_economistlifesatisfaction_linear

One thing you might notice is how poor the fit of the line is at both ends. Singapore and Afghanistan are clearly not explained by the fitted line. (That said, the line is based on many more dots than those eight we can see.) Moreover, because countries are widely spread out on the high end of the wealth axis, the fit is not impressive. Log scales tend to give a false impression of the tightness of fit, as I explained before when discussing coronavirus case curves.

***

The hexagonal tiles replace the more typical dot scatter or contour shading. The raw data consist of results from polls conducted in different countries in different years. For each poll, the analyst computes the average life satisfaction score for that country in that year. From national statistics, the analyst pulls out that country's GDP per capita in that year. Thus, each data point is a dot on the canvass. A few data points are shown as black dots. Those are for eight highlighted countries for the year 2018.

The black line is fitted to the underlying dot scatter and summarizes the correlation between average wealth and average life satisfaction. Instead of showing the scatter, this Economist design aggregates nearby dots into hexagons. The deepest red hexagon, sandwiched between Finland and the US, contains about 60-70 dots, according to the color legend.

These details are tough to take in. It's not clear which dots have been collected into that hexagon: are they all Finland or the U.S. in various years, or do they include other countries? Each country is represented by multiple dots, one for each poll year. It's also not clear how much variation there exists within a country across years.

***

The hexagonal tiles presumably serve the same role as a dot scatter or contour shading. They convey the amount of data supporting the fitted curve along its trajectory. More data confers more reliability.

For this chart, the hexagonal tiles do not add any value. The deepest red regions are those closest to the black line so nothing is actually lost by showing just the line and not the tiles.

Redo_economistlifesatisfaction_nohex

Using the line chart obviates the need for readers to figure out the hexagons, the polls, the aggregation, and the inevitable unanswered questions.

***

An alternative concept is to show the "confidence band" or "error bar" around the black line. These bars display the uncertainty of the data. The wider the band, the less certain the analyst is of the estimate. Typically, the band expands near the edges where we have less data.

Here is conceptually what we should see (I don't have the underlying dataset so can't compute the confidence band precisely)

Redo_economistlifesatisfaction_confband

The confidence band picture is the mirror image of the hexagonal tiles. Where the poll density is high, the confidence band narrows, and where poll density is low, the band expands.

A simple way to interpret the confidence band is to find the country's wealth on the horizontal axis, and look at the range of life satisfaction rating for that value of wealth. Now pick any number between the range, and imagine that you've just conducted a survey and computed the average rating. That number you picked is a possible survey result, and thus a valid value. (For those who know some probability, you should pick a number not at random within the range but in accordance with a Bell curve, meaning picking a number closer to the fitted line with much higher probability than a number at either edge.)

Visualizing data involves a series of choices. For this dataset, one such choice is displaying data density or uncertainty or neither.


Working with multiple dimensions, an example from Germany

An anonymous reader submitted this mirrored bar chart about violent acts by extremists in the 16 German states.

Germanextremists_bars

At first glance, this looks like a standard design. On a second look, you might notice what the reader discovered- the chart used two different scales, one for each side. The left side (red) depicting left-wing extremism is artificially compressed relative to the right side (blue). Not sure if this reflects the political bias of the publication - but in any case, this distortion means the only way to consume this chart is to read the numbers.

Even after fixing the scales, this design is challenging for the reader. It's unnatural to compare two years by looking first below then above. It's not simple to compare across states, and even harder to compare left- and right-wing extremism (due to mirroring).

The chart feels busy because the entire dataset is printed on it. I appreciate not including a redundant horizontal axis. (I wonder if the designer first removed the axis, then edited the scale on one side, not realizing the distortion.) Another nice touch, hidden in the legend, is the country totals.

I present two alternatives.

The first is a small-multiples "bumps chart".

Redo_junkcharts_germanextremists_sidebysidelines

Each plot presents the entire picture within a state. You can see the general level of violence, the level of left- and right-wing extremism, and their year-on-year change. States can be compared holistically.

Several German state names are rather long, so I explored a horizontal orientation. In this case, a connected dot plot may be more appropriate.

Redo_junkcharts_germanextremists_dots

The sign of a good multi-dimensional visual display is whether readers can easily learn complex relationships. Depending on the question of interest, the reader can mentally elevate parts of this chart. One can compare the set of blue arrows to the set of red arrows, or focus on just blue arrows pointing right, or red arrows pointing left, or all arrows for Berlin, etc.

 

[P.S. Anonymous reader said the original chart came from the Augsburger newspaper. This link in German contains more information.]


Cornell must remove the logs before it reopens the campus in the fall

Against all logic, Cornell announced last week it would re-open in the fall because a mathematical model under development by several faculty members and grad students predicts that a "full re-opening" would lead to 80 percent fewer infections than a scenario of full virtual instruction. That's what was reported by the media.

The model is complicated, with loads of assumptions, and the report is over 50 pages long. I will put up my notes on how they attained this counterintuitive result in the next few days. The bottom line is - and the research team would agree - it is misleading to describe the analysis as "full re-open" versus "no re-open". The so-called full re-open scenario assumes the entire community including students, faculty and staff submit to a full program of test-trace-isolate, including (mandatory) PCR diagnostic testing once every five days throughout the 16-week semester, and immediate quarantine and isolation of new positive cases, as well as those in contact with such persons, plus full compliance with this program. By contrast, it assumes students do not get tested in the online instruction scenario. In other words, the researchers expect Cornell to get done what the U.S. governments at all levels failed to do until now.

[7/8/2020: The post on the Cornell model is now up on the book blog. Here.]

The report takes us back to the good old days of best-base-worst-case analysis. There is no data for validating such predictions so they performed sensitivity analyses, defined as changing one factor at a time assuming all other factors are fixed at "nominal" (i.e. base case) values. In a large section of the report, they publish a series of charts of the following style:

Cornell_reopen_sensitivity

Each line here represents one of the best-base-worst cases (respectively, orange-blue-green). Every parameter except one is given the "nominal" value (which represents the base case). The parameter that is manpulated is shown on the horizontal axis, and for the above chart, the variable is the assumption of average number of daily contacts per person. The vertical axis shows the main outcome variable, which is the percentage of the community infected by the end of term.

This flatness of the lines in the above chart appears to say that the outcome is quite insensitive to the change in the average daily contact rate under all three scenarios - until the daily contact rises above 10 per person per day. It also appears to show that the blue line is roughly midway between the orange and the green so the percent infected is slightly less-than halved under the optimistic scenario, and a bit more than doubled under the pessimistic scenario, relative to the blue line.

Look again.

The vertical axis is presented in log scale, and only labeled at values 1% and 10%. About midway between 1 and 10 on the horizontal axis, the outcome value has already risen above 10%. Because of the log transformation, above 10%, each tick represents an increase of 10% in proportion. So, the top of the vertical axis indicates 80% of the community being infected! Nothing in the description or labeling of the vertical axis prepares the reader for this.

The report assumes a fixed value for average daily contacts of 8 (I rounded the number for discussion), which is invariable across all three scenarios. Drawing a vertical line about eight-tenths of the way towards 10 appears to signal that this baseline daily contact rate places the outcome in the relatively flat part of the curve.

Look again.

The horizontal axis too is presented in log scale. To birth one log-scale may be regarded as a misfortune; to birth two log scales looks like carelessness. 

Since there exists exactly one tick beyond 10 on the horizontal axis, the right-most value is 20. The model has been run for values of average daily contacts from 1 to 20, with unit increases. I can think of no defensible reason why such a set of numbers should be expressed in a log scale.

For the vertical axis, the outcome is a proportion, which is confined to within 0 percent and 100 percent. It's not a number that can explode.

***

Every log scale on a chart is birthed by its designer. I know of no software that automatically performs log transforms on data without the user's direction. (I write this line with trepidation wishing that I haven't planted a bad idea in some software developer's head.)

Here is what the shape of the original data looks like - without any transformation. All software (I'm using JMP here) produces something of this type:

Redo-cornellreopen-nolog

At the baseline daily contact rate value of 8, the model predicts that 3.5% of the Cornell community will get infected by the end of the semester (again, assuming strict test-trace-isolate fully implemented and complied).  Under the pessimistic scenario, the proportion jumps to 14%, which is 4 or 5 times higher than the base case. In this worst-case scenario, if the daily contact rate were about twice the assumed value (just over 16), half of the community would be infected in 16 weeks!

I actually do not understand how there could only be 8 contacts per person per day when the entire student body has returned to 100% in-person instruction. (In the report, they even say the 8 contacts could include multiple contacts with the same person.) I imagine an undergrad student in a single classroom with 50 students. This assumption says the average student in this class only comes into contact with at most 8 of those. That's one class. How about other classes? small tutorials? dining halls? dorms? extracurricular activities? sports? parties? bars?

Back to graphics. Something about the canonical chart irked the report writers so they decided to try a log scale. Here is the same chart with the vertical axis in log scale:

Redo-cornellreopen-logy

The log transform produces a visual distortion. On the right side, where the three lines are diverging rapidly, the log transform pulls them together. On the left side, where the three lines are close together, the log transform pulls them apart.

Recall that on the log scale, a straight line is exponential growth. Look at the green line (worst case). That line is approximately linear so in the pessimistic scenario, despite assuming full compliance to a strict test-trace-isolate regimen, the cases are projected to grow exponentially.

Something about that last chart still irked the report writers so they decided to birth a second log scale. Here is the chart they ultimately settled on:

Redo-cornellreopen-logylogx

As with the other axis, the effect of the log transform is to squeeze the larger values (on the right side) and spread out the smaller values (on the left side). After this cosmetic surgery, the left side looks relatively flat while the right side looks steep.

In the next version of the Cornell report, they should replace all these charts with ones using linear scales.

***

Upon discovering this graphical mischief, I wonder if the research team received a mandate that includes a desired outcome.

 

[P.S. 7/8/2020. For more on the Cornell model, see this post.]


Presented without comment

Weekend assignment - which of these tells the story better?

Ourworldindata_cases_log

Or:

Ourworldindata_cases_linear

The cop-out answer is to say both. If you must pick one, which one?

***

When designing a data visualization as a living product (not static), you'd want a design that adapts as the data change.


This exercise plan for your lock-down work-out is inspired by Venn

A twitter follower did not appreciate this chart from Nature showing the collection of flu-like symptoms that people reported they have to an UK tracking app. 

Nature tracking app venn diagram

It's a super-complicated Venn diagram. I have written about this type of chart before (see here); it appears to be somewhat popular in the medicine/biology field.

A Venn diagram is not a data visualization because it doesn't plot the data.

Notice that the different compartments of the Venn diagram do not have data encoded in the areas. 

The chart also fails the self-sufficiency test because if you remove the data from it, you end up with a data container - like a world map showing country boundaries and no data.

If you're new here: if a graphic requires the entire dataset to be printed on it for comprehension, then the visual elements of the graphic are not doing any work. The graphic cannot stand on its own.

When the Venn diagram gets complicated, teeming with many compartments, there will be quite a few empty compartments. If I have to make this chart, I'd be nervous about leaving out a number or two by accident. An empty cell can be truly empty or an oversight.

Another trap is that the total doesn't add up. The numbers on this graphic add to 1,764 whereas the study population in the preprint was 1,702. Interestingly, this diagram doesn't show up in the research paper. Given how they winnowed down the study population from all the app downloads, I'm sure there is an innocent explanation as to why those two numbers don't match.

***

The chart also strains the reader. Take the number 18, right in the middle. What combination of symptoms did these 18 people experience? You have to figure out the layers sitting beneath the number. You see dark blue, light blue, orange. If you blink, you might miss the gray at the bottom. Then you have to flip your eyes up to the legend to map these colors to diarrhoea, shortness of breath, anosmia, and fatigue. Oops, I missed the yellow, which is the cough. To be sure, you look at the remaining categories to see where they stand - I've named all of them except fever. The number 18 lies outside fever so this compartment represents everything except fever. 

What's even sadder is there is not much gain from having done it once. Try to interpret the number 50 now. Maybe I'm just slow but it doesn't get better the second or third time around. This graphic not only requires work but painstaking work!

Perhaps a more likely question is how many people who had a loss of smell also had fever. Now it's pretty easy to locate the part of the dark gray oval that overlaps with the orange oval. But now, I have to add all those numbers, 69+17+23+50+17+46 = 222. That's not enough. Next, I must find the total of all the numbers inside the orange oval, which is 222 plus what is inside the orange and outside the dark gray. That turns out to be 829. So among those who had lost smell, the proportion who also had fever is 222/(222+829) = 21 percent. 

How many people had three or more symptoms? I'll let you figure this one out!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Reviewing the charts in the Oxford Covid-19 study

On my sister (book) blog, I published a mega-post that examines the Oxford study that was cited two weeks ago as a counterpoint to the "doomsday" Imperial College model. These studies bring attention to the art of statistical modeling, and those six posts together are designed to give you a primer, and you don't need math to get a feel.

One aspect that didn't make it to the mega-post is the data visualization. Sad to say, the charts in the Oxford study (link) are uniformly terrible. Figure 3 is typical:

Oxford_covidmodel_fig3

There are numerous design decisions that frustrate readers.

a) The graphic contains two charts, one on top of the other. The left axis extends floor-to-ceiling, giving the false impression that it is relevant to both charts. In fact, the graphic uses dual axes. The bottom chart references the axis shown in the bottom right corner; the left axis is meaningless. The two charts should be drawn separately.

For those who have not read the mega-post about the Oxford models, let me give a brief description of what these charts are saying. The four colors refer to four different models - these models have the same structure but different settings. The top chart shows the proportion of the population that is still susceptible to infection by a certain date. In these models, no one can get re-infected, and so you see downward curves. The bottom chart displays the growth in deaths due to Covid-19. The first death in the UK was reported on March 5.  The black dots are the official fatalities.

b) The designer allocates two-thirds of the space to the top chart, which has a much simpler message. This causes the bottom chart to be compressed beyond cognition.

c) The top chart contains just five lines, smooth curves of the same shape but different slopes. The designer chose to use thick colored lines with black outlines. As a result, nothing precise can be read from the chart. When does the yellow line start dipping? When do the two orange lines start to separate?

d) The top chart should have included margins of error. These models are very imprecise due to the sparsity of data.

e) The bottom chart should be rejected by peer reviewers. We are supposed to judge how well each of the five models fits the cumulative death counts. But three design decisions conspire to prevent us from getting the answer: (i) the vertical axis is severely compressed by tucking this chart underneath the top chart (ii) the vertical axis uses a log scale which compresses large values and (iii) the larger-than-life dots.

As I demonstrated in this post also from the sister blog, many models especially those assuming an exponential growth rate has poor fits after the first few days. Charting in log scale hides the degree of error.

f) There is a third chart squeezed into the same canvass. Notice the four little overlapping hills located around Feb 1. These hills are probability distributions, which are presented without an appropriate vertical axis. Each hill represents a particular model's estimate of the date on which the novel coronavirus entered the UK. But that date is unknowable. So the model expresses this uncertainty using a probability distribution. The "peak" of the distribution is the most likely date. The spread of the hill gives the range of plausible dates, and the height at a given date indicates the chance that that is the date of introduction. The missing axis is a probability scale, which is neither the left nor the right axis.

***

The bottom chart shows up in a slightly different form as Figure 1(A).

Oxford_covidmodels_Fig1A

Here, the green, gray (blocked) and red thick lines correspond to the yellow/orange/red diamonds in Figure 3. The thin green and red lines show the margins of error I referred to above (these lines are not explicitly explained in the chart annotation.) The actual counts are shown as white rather than black diamonds.

Again, the thick lines and big diamonds conspire to swamp the gaps between model fit and actual data. Again, notice the use of a log scale. This means that the same amount of gap signifies much bigger errors as time moves to the right.

When using the log scale, we should label it using the original units. With a base 10 logarithm, the axis should have labels 1, 10, 100, 1000 instead of 0, 1, 2, 3. (This explains my previous point - why small gaps between a model line and a diamond can mean a big error as the counts go up.)

Also notice how the line of white diamonds makes it impossible to see what the models are doing prior to March 5, the date of the first reported death. The models apparently start showing fatalities prior to March 5. This is a key part of their conclusion - the Oxford team concluded that the coronavirus has been circulating in the U.K. even before the first infection was reported. The data visualization should therefore bring out the difference in timing.

I hope by the time the preprint is revised, the authors will have improved the data visualization.

 

 

 


The hidden bad assumption behind most dual-axis time-series charts

[Note: As of Monday afternoon, Typepad is having problems rendering images. Please try again later if the charts are not loading properly.]

DC sent me the following chart over Twitter. It supposedly showcases one sector that has bucked the economic collapse, and has conversely been boosted by the stay-at-home orders around the world.

Covid19-pornhubtraffic


At first glance, I was drawn to the yellow line and the axis title on the right side. I understood the line to depict the growth rate in traffic "vs a normal day". The trend is clear as day. Since March 10 or so, the website has become more popular by the week.

For a moment, I thought the thin black line was a trendline that fits the rather ragged traffic growth data. But looking at the last few data points, I was afraid it was a glove that didn't fit. That's when I realized this is a dual-axis chart. The black line shows the worldwide total Covid-19 cases, with the axis shown on the left side.

As with any dual-axis charts, you can modify the relationship between the two scales to paint a different picture.

This next chart says that the site traffic growth lagged Covid-19 growth until around March 14.

Junkcharts_ph_dualaxis1

This one gives an ambiguous picture. One can't really say there is a strong correlation between the two time series.

Junkcharts_ph_dualaxis2

***

Now, let's look at the chart from the DATA corner of the Trifecta Checkup (link). The analyst selected definitions that are as far apart as possible. So this chart gives a good case study of the intricacy of data definitions.

First, notice the smoothness of the line of Covid-19 cases. This data series is naturally "smoothed" because it is an aggregate of country-level counts, which themselves are aggregates of regional counts.

By contrast, the line of traffic growth rates has not been smoothed. That's why we see sharp ups and downs. This series should be smoothed as well.

Junkcharts_ph_smoothedtrafficgrowth

The seven-day moving average line indicates a steady growth in traffic. The day-to-day fluctuations represent noise that distracts us from seeing the trendline.

Second, the Covid-19 series is a cumulative count, which means it's constantly heading upward over time (on rare days, it may go flat but never decrease). The traffic series represents change, is not cumulative, and so it can go up or down over time. To bring the data closer together, the Covid-19 series can be converted into new cases so they are change values.

Junkcharts_ph_smoothedcovidnewcases

Third, the traffic series are growth rates as percentages while the Covid-19 series are counts. It is possible to turn Covid-19 counts into growth rates as well. Like this:

Junkcharts_ph_smoothedcovidcasegrowth

By standardizing the units of measurement, both time series can be plotted on the same axis. Here is the new plot:

Redo_junkcharts_ph_trafficgrowthcasegrowth

Third, the two growth rates have different reference levels. The Covid-19 growth rate I computed is day-on-day growth. This is appropriate since we don't presume there is a seasonal effect - something like new cases on Mondays are typically larger than new cases on Tuesday doesn't seem plausible.

Thanks to this helpful explainer (link), I learned what the data analyst meant by a "normal day". The growth rate of traffic is not day-on-day change. It is the change in traffic relative to the average traffic in the last four weeks on the same day of week. If it's a Monday, the change in traffic is relative to the average traffic of the last four Mondays.

This type of seasonal adjustment is used if there is a strong day-of-week effect. For example, if the website reliably gets higher traffic during weekends than weekdays, then the Saturday traffic may always exceed the Friday traffic; instead of comparing Saturday to the day before, we index Saturday to the previous Saturday, Friday to the previous Friday, and then compare those two values.

***

Let's consider the last chart above, the one where I got rid of the dual axes.

A major problem with trying to establish correlation of two time series is time lag. Most charts like this makes a critical and unspoken assumption - that the effect of X on Y is immediate. This chart assumes that the higher the number Covid-19 cases, the more people stays home that day, the more people swarms the site that day. Said that way, you might see it's ridiculous.

What is true of any correlations in the wild - there is always some amount of time lag. It usually is hard to know how much lag.

***

Finally, the chart omitted a huge factor driving the growth in traffic. At various times dependent on the country, the website rolled out a free premium service offer. This is the primary reason for the spike around mid March. How much of the traffic growth is due to the popular marketing campaign, and how much is due to stay-at-home orders - that's the real question.


Proportions and rates: we are no dupes

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

Arstechnica_covid-19-2.001-1280x960

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.

Screen Shot 2020-03-12 at 1.19.46 AM

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.

Junkcharts_redo_arstechnicacovid19

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:

Junkcharts_redo_arstechnicacoronavirus_2

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.