This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is that "daily infection rate" a well-sourced metric? As far as I can tell, it's not published like this by the RKI. We seem to be deriving it from other published data by means of WP:OR. It also appears to be not very informative at all, as beyond a regular weekly oscillation it shows next to no reflection of the changing infection trends. So if it is a metric, what is it a metric of? Should we get rid of the chart? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It may be just me (using Safari Version 14.0.2) who is seeing this, but the chart seems to mess us with dates in November which don't have leaving zeros in the 'day' - i.e. 2020-11-1 would not work, but 2020-11-01 will. I've manually fixed some of the charts, and will try and fix the remaining, but if this is generated automatically (?) could whomever is generating it update their script to include leading zeros?
Data sources and processing for this page have been discussed thoroughly, but the link to it is almost hidden deep inside the more general article COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
I like to see the number of active cases as a kind of "risk chart": Divided by the total population it can tell everybody how likely it is to run into an infected person, for example 1:200 during the peak of the December 2020 wave or 1:30 000 in the week of Angela Merkel's speech in March 2020, which was enough to make people enter voluntary shutdown, even before it was officially mandated. Of course, meeting an infected person does not mean that you become actually infected and local differences from the nationwide average may be significant, but such a risk chart could be a good guideline for how many protective measures are currently appropriate. Just for information, the risk today (beginning of July 2021) is 1:7 000, significantly higher than one year ago.
The second chart that I want to highlight is the effective reproduction number, you may regard it as the "behaviour chart". Given that no immunization effects are in place, there is a linear reduction factor from the basic reproduction number, caused by social distancing (the number of contacts, but also protective measures like masks or quarantine for the infected following successful contact tracing). Example: If an individual has met 100 people per week before the pandemic with a basic reproduction number for COVID-19 of 6 and he has reduced his effective contacts to 10 per week (effective means not just number of contacts, but factored down with protective measures), his personal reproduction number would be 0.6 and the effective reproduction number is just the average across the population.
Included in the effective reproduction number is also immunization, either for people who have already recovered from COVID-19 or who have received a vaccination. Adding this to the "behaviour chart" would make it even more meaningful, but it requires several difficult assumptions (worse than the calculation of the effective reproduction number itself) and I would consider this original research. It would be great if somebody finds a reliable source and if we could cite it, however.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is that "daily infection rate" a well-sourced metric? As far as I can tell, it's not published like this by the RKI. We seem to be deriving it from other published data by means of WP:OR. It also appears to be not very informative at all, as beyond a regular weekly oscillation it shows next to no reflection of the changing infection trends. So if it is a metric, what is it a metric of? Should we get rid of the chart? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It may be just me (using Safari Version 14.0.2) who is seeing this, but the chart seems to mess us with dates in November which don't have leaving zeros in the 'day' - i.e. 2020-11-1 would not work, but 2020-11-01 will. I've manually fixed some of the charts, and will try and fix the remaining, but if this is generated automatically (?) could whomever is generating it update their script to include leading zeros?
Data sources and processing for this page have been discussed thoroughly, but the link to it is almost hidden deep inside the more general article COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.
I like to see the number of active cases as a kind of "risk chart": Divided by the total population it can tell everybody how likely it is to run into an infected person, for example 1:200 during the peak of the December 2020 wave or 1:30 000 in the week of Angela Merkel's speech in March 2020, which was enough to make people enter voluntary shutdown, even before it was officially mandated. Of course, meeting an infected person does not mean that you become actually infected and local differences from the nationwide average may be significant, but such a risk chart could be a good guideline for how many protective measures are currently appropriate. Just for information, the risk today (beginning of July 2021) is 1:7 000, significantly higher than one year ago.
The second chart that I want to highlight is the effective reproduction number, you may regard it as the "behaviour chart". Given that no immunization effects are in place, there is a linear reduction factor from the basic reproduction number, caused by social distancing (the number of contacts, but also protective measures like masks or quarantine for the infected following successful contact tracing). Example: If an individual has met 100 people per week before the pandemic with a basic reproduction number for COVID-19 of 6 and he has reduced his effective contacts to 10 per week (effective means not just number of contacts, but factored down with protective measures), his personal reproduction number would be 0.6 and the effective reproduction number is just the average across the population.
Included in the effective reproduction number is also immunization, either for people who have already recovered from COVID-19 or who have received a vaccination. Adding this to the "behaviour chart" would make it even more meaningful, but it requires several difficult assumptions (worse than the calculation of the effective reproduction number itself) and I would consider this original research. It would be great if somebody finds a reliable source and if we could cite it, however.