Small typo: "For reference 2020/w1 is week number 552, 2021/w1 is week number 575, 2022/w1 is week number 627 and 2023/w1 is week number 679. " [552 should be something earlier than that]
I can't claim to understand your stats very well, but as a policy lawyer with 23 years of experience now, and having studied pandemic policies quite thoroughly over the last four years, I can vouch for the notion that what you're seeing in the data may well have been caused by policy changes.
Small typo: "For reference 2020/w1 is week number 552, 2021/w1 is week number 575, 2022/w1 is week number 627 and 2023/w1 is week number 679. " [552 should be something earlier than that]
Cheers - corrected to 522.
I'm curious what just the excised outlier plot looks like because it would indicate when we were doing senseless interventions.
Aha - the negative image as it were! Nice idea. When man chores are complete I'll rustle up that plot and publish as a note.
This has given me an idea for a proxy for senselessness but this needs to come after the next two articles!
I can't claim to understand your stats very well, but as a policy lawyer with 23 years of experience now, and having studied pandemic policies quite thoroughly over the last four years, I can vouch for the notion that what you're seeing in the data may well have been caused by policy changes.
Here's one rather stark example I wrote about a while back: https://medium.com/@tamhunt/the-math-of-false-positives-shows-chinas-lockdowns-are-unnecessary-and-constitute-human-rights-6bcc448566f1.
And this one: https://medium.com/@tamhunt/how-california-made-the-pandemic-worse-29df15246df7.
And this one: https://medium.com/@tamhunt/the-three-policy-changes-that-may-avoid-the-next-pandemic-9c6066639924