You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Great work thanks for doing this.
My question is about the hdi which purports to show the uncertainty in the derived Rt.
It looks perfectly reasonable to me but if we look at the country data run through the same process here:
and we look specifically at New Zealand which has a high testing rate and low infection rate - due to lockdown and cluster management - then we see the hdi increasing.
This seems to mean we might be drawing the wrong conclusions about uncertainty.
Is there a way to factor in the testing per head of population here ?
Is that even the right thing to do ?
or is the low number of positive cases screwing up something else ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Great work thanks for doing this.
My question is about the hdi which purports to show the uncertainty in the derived Rt.
It looks perfectly reasonable to me but if we look at the country data run through the same process here:
and we look specifically at New Zealand which has a high testing rate and low infection rate - due to lockdown and cluster management - then we see the hdi increasing.
image where hdi seems wrong
This seems to mean we might be drawing the wrong conclusions about uncertainty.
Is there a way to factor in the testing per head of population here ?
Is that even the right thing to do ?
or is the low number of positive cases screwing up something else ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: