New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Suggestion for improvements #94
Comments
Some more instructive results, same query,
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Data is great, but it is hard to make sense of it. Some ideas to get a grip of what they mean...
Long lists are misleading and of little use. You want to compare only a small number of countries, for example
You might allow wildcards for countries you don't know the name of, e.g.
It is inconvenient and impractical to write country names. Use ISO codes instead or better alternatively
To give you an idea of how these numbers can be used to provide insight, here are some examples created with SQL. All results shown are based on https://data.europa.eu/euodp/de/data/dataset/covid-19-coronavirus-data from 2020-04-17.
A very important ratio is missing: cases and deaths per million or 10,000 inhabitants
It would be instructive to normalize this data with respect to a single country to get a feeling which country does better, e.g. with respect to de (having ratio 1.00)
Next the ratio of cases and deaths is interesting. Well, we know that death numbers are not reliable (Corona may be interpreted as pneumonia) and case numbers are not reliable either (which people are tested, only those with severe symptoms or all infected?). But you get an idea nevertheless.
Also, you see that for countries with a high population (especially India, China) the absolute numbers aren't helpful at all.
Next it would be interesting to see these ratios develop over time. This would give a clue whether the measures of different countries are working.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: