RelationDigest

Sunday, 8 January 2023

[New post] Why the New York Times is counting it wrong

Site logo image kidatheart posted: " I am a subscriber to the New York Times, And one of the go to sections of mine is the COVID-19 update - both in the US and globally. So yes, the world isn't counting the real numbers anymore. Not even in the United States of America. And this is by no" Relative Joy

Why the New York Times is counting it wrong

kidatheart

Jan 8

I am a subscriber to the New York Times, And one of the go to sections of mine is the COVID-19 update - both in the US and globally.

So yes, the world isn't counting the real numbers anymore. Not even in the United States of America. And this is by no means a sin. Testing strategies have changed. Other countries do not even report the true number of COVID-19 cases. Even the World Health Organization acknowledges this huge gap. With how COVID-19 has run the world in the past three years, everyone and yes, everyone is just sick and tired of seeing the numbers.

But when the numbers being announced are wrong because someone was just basing information on someone else, then that's called fake news. The people in the New York Times probably wouldn't give a sh*t to a blogpost from the Philippines about this. But it matters. It matters because you would expect a respectable newspaper to get the information right.

The data on COVID numbers for the New York Times is based on the data provided by Johns Hopkins. They have a disclaimer on that.

At their online site, it's clear that the newspaper just obtains data from the Center of Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. The very same center the generates the information in https://ourworldindata.org. The link is provided here: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus#explore-the-global-situation.

Those responsible for the data at Johns Hopkins are:

The information gathered by Johns Hopkins are from the internet. Bluntly speaking, they are only dependent on the information that is published in the website of, say, the Department of Health. And when the DoH has a 'glitch' in publishing the right numbers, then what is churned out of Johns Hopkins and of course, the New York Times are wrong data.

To date, the Philippines has not had a surge as published by Johns Hopkins and then culled and quoted by the New York Times.

So where is the error coming from?

Well, to start off with, the automated system (I suppose it is automated) in Johns Hopkins most likely looks at the total and deducts yesterday's total cases with the one today. On January 3, the Department of Health announced a jump in the number of total cases in spite of the 174 additional new cases alone.

Based on the above infographic, the number of new added cases of 174 did not match the total cases, which had jumped from 4,065,173 to 4,200,225 or an addition of 135,052 cases overnight (from January 2 to 3).

Even on the premise that it could have been a pouring of backlog reports to achieve that number, (notice that the number of recovered had also jumped from 3.98 M cases to 4.12 M cases with a gradual decline in active cases), it would be mathematically improbable that there would be that many backlogs. Why?

Two reasons: (1) the Philippines averages 10-11,000 individual PCR tests daily. (2) positive rate is at 5.7%. Which means that even if we did 25000 tests a day (remember, we do not record antigen tests in this country), the most number of positive cases would likely be around 1400 (or even lower).

So why was the January 3, 2023 infographic wrong? Human error. Someone put the wrong data in and did not bother to look or discern the numbers.

As of yesterday, January 7, our numbers are back to reality - 4,067,170 total cases and 3.99M recovered.

Something which the New York Times or Johns Hopkins did not bother to correct. If they were using an automated tool, then that would have generated a negative number and we all know that the 7-day average of cases cannot be NEGATIVE. It's either you have cases or you don't.

But that's what happens when data isn't really analyzed. Garbage in is garbage out.

And that's why I've stopped counting.

Comment
Like
Tip icon image You can also reply to this email to leave a comment.

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Relative Joy.
Change your email settings at manage subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://relativejoyforyou.com/2023/01/08/why-the-new-york-times-is-counting-it-wrong/

Powered by WordPress.com
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play
at January 08, 2023
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Team Up With the Person Against the Problem

Listen now (8 mins) | This chapter explains that when a partner shares their struggles or temptations with you, it's an opportunity to w...

  • [New post] Wiggle Kingdom: April Earnings on Spring Savings!
    Betsi...
  • [New post] Balancing the ‘E’ and ‘S’ in Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) crucial to sustaining liquidity and resilience in the African loan market (By Miranda Abraham)
    APO p...
  • Something plus something else
    Read on bl...

Search This Blog

  • Home

About Me

RelationDigest
View my complete profile

Report Abuse

Blog Archive

  • August 2025 (23)
  • July 2025 (59)
  • June 2025 (53)
  • May 2025 (47)
  • April 2025 (42)
  • March 2025 (30)
  • February 2025 (27)
  • January 2025 (30)
  • December 2024 (37)
  • November 2024 (31)
  • October 2024 (28)
  • September 2024 (28)
  • August 2024 (2729)
  • July 2024 (3249)
  • June 2024 (3152)
  • May 2024 (3259)
  • April 2024 (3151)
  • March 2024 (3258)
  • February 2024 (3046)
  • January 2024 (3258)
  • December 2023 (3270)
  • November 2023 (3183)
  • October 2023 (3243)
  • September 2023 (3151)
  • August 2023 (3241)
  • July 2023 (3237)
  • June 2023 (3135)
  • May 2023 (3212)
  • April 2023 (3093)
  • March 2023 (3187)
  • February 2023 (2865)
  • January 2023 (3209)
  • December 2022 (3229)
  • November 2022 (3079)
  • October 2022 (3086)
  • September 2022 (2791)
  • August 2022 (2964)
  • July 2022 (3157)
  • June 2022 (2925)
  • May 2022 (2893)
  • April 2022 (3049)
  • March 2022 (2919)
  • February 2022 (2104)
  • January 2022 (2284)
  • December 2021 (2481)
  • November 2021 (3146)
  • October 2021 (1048)
Powered by Blogger.