[THREAD]
You may well be familiar with the UK Government's coronavirus dashboard, the main website they use to report data on a daily basis for the whole of the UK.
What you may not realise is that almost nothing you see on the summary page is accurate. coronavirus.data.gov.uk
There are a wide range of reasons for the data being incorrect or out of date. Combined, the result is that almost everything you see on that first page underplays the severity of the pandemic.
The first thing is, all graphs are 7-day averages, not actual value graphs.
Secondly, summary Testing data includes some people who have been tested to see if they had COVID-19 in the past.
You need "Tests processed by Pillar" (Pillars 1 and 2) on the detailed Testing page to see number of currently infected people being tested. coronavirus.data.gov.uk/testing
Cases are worse.
Firstly, the 7-day average really blunts the impact of any spike.
Secondly, the graph on the summary page is based on when the results of the tests were made available, not on when the test samples were collected from people.
To get a more accurate view of how the number of cases is growing, you need to look at the "Cases by specimen date" graph on the detailed Cases page.
That shows you positive test results, based on the dates that the test samples were actually taken.
The Healthcare summary can be wildly out of date, because the UK Government only report dates that have data for all 4 nations available. But in some instances, one or other nation - usually Scotland, it has to be said - can be many days (sometimes even weeks) in reporting.
So you need to look at the detailed Healthcare page to see the most up to date data.
It will show you that for example although the summary page said 324 people were admitted to hospital, the real figure was 448. (Excluding Scotland's missing figure.) coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare
Similarly, patients in hospital are stated on the summary page as 2,428. The real number is 2,481. (Excluding Northern Ireland's missing figure.)
The Deaths summary is inaccurate as well.
Deaths are displayed based on the date they are reported to the public. But in some cases that can be weeks after the deaths actually occurred.
In short: if all you're doing is glancing at the summary page once a day, you're getting a skewed (and ultimately more rosy) view of the pandemic.
Every single decision as to how to massage the data seems to have been taken with a view to minimising any increase.
But the real (ok, "more real") figures are available. You just have to put in a bit more effort and dig a bit.
Go to the detail pages (Testing, Cases, Healthcare, Deaths) and download the data into a spreadsheet. That's the only way to see the most up to date info.
/ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
That explains why two senior Trump staffers talked about chlorinated chicken within minutes of Trump's press conference yesterday: despite what the document says, they know the deal's FAR from finalised.
They see it as a sticking point to be swept away before the Real Thing.
1. It's not finalised. According to the NYT, months of negotiations lie ahead.
2. Issue of food standards isn't dead yet, according to comments made in Trump's press conference (even though the UK side believe it is!)
1/6
3. Not clear what concessions have been made to the USA on agricultural products but their deal readout suggests a "US$250 million opportunity" for US exporters that wasn't there before.
4. British car manufacturers are better off than this morning, but not than months ago.
2/6
5. UK film industry was not part of the discussion. Starmer said this afternoon at his press conference that if tariffs are imposed in the future that would have to be discussed in the same spirit as other sectors.
6. Britain has agreed to Trump's 10% baseline tariffs.
3/6
Some more experiments with AI music generation. See what you think...
(One video per tweet. Each includes a static image with the song as soundtrack. Links to Youtube versions at end of thread, together with a rundown of the tools I used to produce them.)
Perhaps it's unworkable, but this feels like it would be a fair tax system...
1) Set the tax free allowance so that it is the same as annualised minimum wage, and raise it every year in line with inflation. Do the same for NI thresholds. So someone on exactly the minimum wage will never pay tax/NI. If it's really meant to be the "minimum" people need to live on, then let them keep all of it.
2) No clawbacks of the tax free allowance no matter your income level. Everyone gets the same untaxed band.
3) Eliminate all 100%+ tax situations. Work should always pay, regardless of the combination of salary and benefits you're receiving. Set a maximum (say 75% combined for tax + NI) and fiddle with the tax system so there are no cliff edges that create effective tax rates above that 75%. In other words, if your income from any source increases by £1, you should never gain less than 25p.
4) Tax every source of income exactly the same. EVERYTHING falls under the same regime - salary, dividends, capital gains, etc. - with no loopholes or exceptions. (If expensive tax lawyers are left twiddling their thumbs, you know the revised system is working.)
5) Adjust all the rest of the income tax and national insurance bands above the sacrosanct "no tax/no NI" lowest band to allow for 1) to 4). This will almost certainly require more tax bands and more granularity.
Net result:
- There's a sense of basic fairness across society: everyone earning at or over the annualised minimum wage (regardless of the source of the money) gets to keep at least the annualised minimum wage component of their total income.
- Work always pays, period.
- There's no point at all in trying to optimise how you make money or game the system because all sources of income are taxed exactly the same
Ok, over to you. What do you think? Be gentle, please. It may well be a naive plan, but it's a naive well-intentioned plan.
Added:
I also believe that NI should be eliminated and there should be just one combined tax.
But that's not necessary for anything I've outlined above - it just makes things simpler, especially when you're taxing ALL income from ALL sources the same - so I left it out.
Added: Minimum wage is about £20,500 for a 48-week year of 40-hour weeks.
Removing both the income tax and the NI from that would leave over £2,200 more in the employee's pocket.
As Labour are coming up to 100 days in power, it's good to ponder why their honeymoon was so short, and why they appear to be getting a torrid time from media outlets all across the political spectrum.
I've illustrated what I believe is happening. More below...
1/4
The average person's expectations of the Tories was VERY low. Yet they underperformed even that low bar.
On the other hand, people had high hopes of Labour. The gap between such stellar expectations and reality is wider than on the Tory side - even though Labour are better.
2/4
Dashed hopes can be a terrible thing. Especially after 14 years of despair. So it's hardly surprising that there has been a good deal of negative reaction and pushback.
Labour urgently need to improve their various stances to come much closer to what people expect of them.