Some interesting questions about the new "active" and "serious" by age graph on the IMoH dashboard. Here's "active" cases and the verticle black line is when they changed the dataset they were reporting
Question 1: What has caused the surge in the population of unvaccinated people that the normalized figures have dropped. If it was that the partially vaccinated were now being counted then we would expect absolute cases for 12-15 to jump by 1400 but they fall slightly... not that
Question 2: Where did the 1400 active cases in 12-15yo disappear to? They're not added to the unvaccinated cases... they're not added to the vaccinated cases... they're not added to the 3rd shot vaccinated cases... these cases have magically disappeared
I haven't done the maths, but by eyeball it looks like the splitting of the vaccinated into 2 shot and 3 shot explains the drop in cases from the old vaccinated dataset as well as the increased normalized numbers (as population of 2nd shot only is smaller than combined)
Now we can move on to the "serious" cases. This is much noisier data. Again I think the 2nd shot changes are explained by the separation into 2nd only and 3rd only
There aren't enough "serious" 1 shot cases to determine where they go...
But we now see a similar pattern to active cases whereby the population normalized unvaccinated case numbers have significantly dropped. In fact the normalized case numbers for 70+ have dropped to the rates for 60-69. There must be some wonder cure everyone got on the 5th of Sept
The cynic part of me, however, has a darker view. Suppose one were to move the population counts of the partially vaccinated over to the unvaccinated column and but not count the cases... anywhere... would that hide a significant increase in active cases in the partial group?
If Blofeld were seeing a massive surge in 12-15y partially vaccinated active cases (rate above unvaccinated rate) and he wanted to encourage 12-15y to get vaccinated it would certainly be convenient if those cases were not being counted any more... but this is not a Bond movie
I see @duolingo didn’t practice “never deploy to production on a Friday”. They’ve managed to break all family plans. My wife is very very annoyed at having lost her ad free experience.
Any ETA on restoration? (hopefully not a case of disgruntled ex-employee on their way out!)
Remember folks, science can *never* prove something is true, it can only prove something is false, and like Sherlock, whatever is left standing must be true (until we prove even that false) @1000Frolly is saying that the data proves a hypothesis false… I see science at work
And if you want to explore some of the ways data can support @1000Frolly claiming a hypothesis is false, I suggest you have a look at the radiosonde data. Plot molar density against pressure and explain how you always get two linear regions (and sometimes a third)…
Also remember that the hypothesis @1000Frolly is claiming is false specifically requires that molar density vs pressure will be non linear as it critically relies on the absence of thermodynamic equilibrium vertically in the atmosphere, so linear regions are completely counter