#sad to report that analyses have been flawed and that this character is indeed a flawed human being and not a Smol Bean

[jesseweneedtocock]

rewatching the terror is good for my soul because it lets me remember i liked goodsir

[bespectacledbellman]

Why I’m Numb to the Numbers

Every day I tune into the government’s daily Covid conference and listen to what the politicians and the experts have to say on the subject. They present graphs and numbers, gushing in equal amounts of intelligent technobabble and upbeat propaganda. I like it, it’s reassuring, even if it’s mostly unhelpful from a numbers point of view.

There is, for me, one massive problem with the way the government is presenting their statistics. Simply, it is not providing context.

Context is king. It is the plot and landscape of a novel that helps the main character flow from one page to another. Without it, we just have a person wandering around. We’ve all been part of a conversation that we’ve entered halfway through and struggle to understand what’s going on, and try to piece it together from what’s being said, until eventually we ask “What are you on about?”

This is the situation that I feel we’re in now. We’re part of a conversation where we’re missing the metaphorical in-jokes, double-entendres and euphemisms. We’re hearing the words, but not fully grasping their meaning.

I believe this is important to understand because it helps put into perspective what’s going on. Right now the country is in a state of emergency, because we’re combating a disease that kills. Okay, I get that, I’m on board. I’m washing my hands regularly, self-isolating, working from home, keeping away from family and friends - it’s not much different to my normal life, to be honest, but I appreciate the value of these measures to keep vulnerable people safe.

But the number of fatalities keeps rising. The number of cases keeps rising. I see all kinds of mathematical marvels: graphs and charts and maps and matrices. They tell us how many are dying and where. They tell us cases and deaths per 100,000. They tell us many things. All of which are, frankly, useless.

The problem with analysing numbers is that someone has to be there to tell you what they mean. Just look at these interpretations in this piece!

It’s now April 2nd and 2,921 people have died of coronavirus, with 569 people dying in a day. On the face of it, that’s rather terrifying. We hear a little bit of context from the media, with the BBC stating that most of the victims had “underlying health conditions”, yet over 40 victims did not. That’s even more worrying - perfectly healthy people dying? That’s not good at all.

Um, well, there’s other factors not considered, or at least not mentioned. Those 40+ victims who did not have underlying health conditions should probably be read as “had not been diagnosed with a condition”. How many times has a seemingly perfectly-healthy footballer dropped dead because of a heart condition that had never been diagnosed? Keep that in mind.

I’m not pooh-poohing the fact that healthy people are dying from coronavirus, but I also remain sceptical when the media (and the BBC to their credit were quite careful in attaching “apparently” and “according to...” in their analysis) report these deaths without access to coroner’s reports and the like. It’s unhelpful because it just spreads fear. We don’t know the medical conditions of those victims, and making assumptions one way or another is unfair, as there are perfectly good - and perfectly bad - reasons as to why the family may want the victim to be considered perfectly healthy. Indeed, a perfectly healthy person in hospital without friends and family to visit could have a huge impact on mood and mental health as well, which could contribute to a worsening condition.

The other issue is that the government and media are not putting those deaths in context with deaths in general. I took a quick look at some grim stats the other day: in 2016, for instance,  525,048 people died in the UK. “Influenza and pneumonia” was the fifth biggest killer of women, taking more than 15,000 lives in that year. That’s a normal, average year, with access to vaccines. And that’s just women. If coronavirus had struck in 2016, how many of those 15,000 would have died of Covid-19, resulting in the deaths to “normal” flu and pneumonia dropping?

Yes I’m speculating, but that’s the point of this piece - everyone is speculating about what the numbers mean right now. It’s all interpretation.

More interpretation: Every death is sad and heartbreaking for the families. But anyone over 80 is basically on borrowed time - the average life expectancy for me, a 27-year-old male, according to the Office of National Statistics, is 85. So even with future advancements in medicine, I’m expected to die in less than 60 years. Even without coronavirus, many people in their eighties or over are statistically likely to die. The government just told me that. It’s a miserable, wretched truth. Does that mean everyone in their eighties should be allowed to succumb to their fate? Of course not. But without knowing exactly how many people who had met the average life expectancy have died of coronavirus, and whether they had a chance of surviving the year anyway, the total number is a strange thing to analyse.

And that’s why any analysis of the numbers right now is rather pointless. From 17th January until 20th March 2020, the number of weekly deaths in the UK was lower than the average for the past five years. Why? I don’t know. Washing hands could be a reason. People having a sudden raison d’etre to take care of family and friends could be another - I’m a big believer that a positive outlook is a great medical boon, especially as fear and anxiety have been consistently linked to causing poor health. Yet another reason not to worry about numbers.

But as I say, I don’t know.

And I won’t know until the entire year’s statistics on death and disease have been released. There could be a sharp drop in seasonal flu deaths later in the year as the most at-risk have already passed away, averaging out the numbers. So although coronavirus has been vicious, the overall picture could remain relatively unchanged.

We just don’t know. We don’t have the context. Not yet.

So until we get a few years down the line and have the benefit of hindsight, don’t look at the numbers, don’t worry about them and certainly don’t read into them. They are useful for statisticians and professional boffins who can interpret - I say interpret, because numbers have no particular meaning until you attach one.

Look at regular malaria and tuberculosis stats worldwide, for instance. According to an article by M.D. in Private Eye, TB kills 4,000 people a day, with 1,200 dying from malaria every day too. Why are we not reporting and worrying about those numbers? Possibly because a boffin interpreted them and decided it’s not something for the UK, with jabs aplenty, to worry about. How can 4,000 deaths a day go unreported, whilst 500 deaths gets coverage on BBC One every day at 5pm?

Interpretation.

If you’ve found a flaw or problem in my analysis, that’s wonderful: you’ve helped to prove my point. I don’t think my analysis is right or wrong, I don’t think my interpretations are anything to go by either: they’re just examples of how the numbers can be interpreted and that it’s dangerous and pointless to try (although try I did).

All I can say with confidence is this: instead of looking at numbers, look after yourself. Keep washing your hands, self-isolating and take care. The only number that really matters is 1 - if just one of your loved ones dies, does it really matter if six or six million others die as well?