« It begins with the data | Main | The shift to antibody testing is a choice of death over life »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Matt VE

I don't see why it's that hard to analyze these data.

The answer is clearly 134.


MVE: lol, I started figuring out the signficance of 134 but thought there is a better use of my time. I did enough to know that it's a different number for each state.


If (Percent excess < 42 = 0; ANDIF (Total number of excess deaths; = 134))

Pat Valente

The date field is clearly a formatting mess. The number of excess deaths looks wrong. That might be a calculation issue. Just some thoughts off top of my head. Funny that regardless of where you get data, it always has issues.


PV: The date field is the first thing I saw. The arrow seemed to suggest it is sorted in descending order. It's sorted left to right sort of. The next three columns are useless, constant throughout. Number of excess is also wrong as you and others noticed. But what about percent excess? That seems also messed up. Especially if you look at the second table, which apparently a positive value of percent excess does not translate to a change in number of excess.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Get new posts by email:
Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.


  • only in Big Data
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here

Principal Analytics Prep

Link to Principal Analytics Prep