22 April 2020, NIICE Commentary 4208
Basile Pissalidis
Articles pertaining to COVID-19’s statistics have proliferated much like the virus itself. Much of the news and articles has been focused on the number of infections and deaths. Another prevalent type of reporting compares countries’ sum totals with others. There is some value in looking at these aggregates, but this is not enough. The point of qualitative data and qualitative studies is but one:deriving appropriate meaning.
Raw data showing cases of increased cases of coronavirus, is not especially useful. The “Coronavirus Cases Continue to Climb in the US and Around the World” does not say much and may not even be news. Numbers of Coronavirus cases can only climb. It is not possible to “un-contract” the virus. There will never be a case where an individual had the virus, and then later never had it. Similarly, it is not possible that a person was at one point 38 years of age and then later that year turned 18. The aggregate age of all persons alive today can only increase. Similarly, since the aggregate numbers of those that contracted the virus does not fall when those persons recover or perish, Coronavirus cases can only continue to rise. It is a statistical necessity and because of that aspect, it carries only little meaning. There is a need of critical thinking to derive a meaning.
Proportion
The reports highlighting that the Unites States has the greatest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 than any other country in the world is somewhat useful, but not particularly. The United States has the third largest population in the world, and one would expect it to have a large number of cases. If Finland with a population of roughly 5.5 million had 900,000 cases (which is the United States’ aggregate number by 21 April), then the meaning of those sums would be different. Aggregate numbers of a country need to be regarded in proportion to its total population.
Real Aggregates
The apparent numbers of infections and deaths are a compilation of people that have been tested, and not the real or actual totals. Most of those that have contracted the virus but have experienced mild to no symptoms have not been tested and are not part of the aggregate. By all accounts, these untested individuals comprise a great number of cases, if not the majority of the real aggregate. Currently people have no way of knowing what are the real number of people that have been infected or that have died of the infection. China may still be the leader in total (real) numbers, or perhaps Finland’s (real) number are higher. Similarly, there are people who have died of the virus, or from pre-existing conditions that were aggravated by the virus, but are not reflected in the total number of deaths. It is possible, that the aggregate numbers that people see in the news are actually a measure of a country’s capacity to test its population for the virus.
To throw even more doubt on the usefulness of aggregate numbers, as testing becomes more readily available aggregate numbers are necessarily going to be greater. Any study or person that is trying to derive meaning in numbers will have to know the actual number of infected in the early months and compare them to the actual numbers of infected in later months of the epidemic when testing became more readily available. For example, when looking at aggregates in February versus May, aggregates for the month of May will have to be calculated for the increased availability of tests. Aggregates viewed in isolation from any other data or analysis will, again, be misleading.
Geographical Aspects
Threats are geographically specific and rarely do they apply evenly to an entire country. Correspondingly, people see epicenters around the world in which the virus has infected large percentages of the populations. But, as they move further away from the epicenter, most of the geographic locations outside the epicenter and its immediate areas, the numbers of those infected are still either low, or low enough for the medical infrastructure to cope. Once again, the total numbers of infected people in a country, tells us little about the total risk. That number is too general. Meaningful statistics are those that pertain to a specific region and preferably in a very specific location. And this brings to the real point that has to be made.
Real Risk
Even if people have an accurate number of infections and deaths readily available to them, and had it in real time, those numbers would still have little value. What really matters is not the number of infected, but a given geographic area’s medical capacities to treat those that need medical attention. If New York City had three hospital beds been completed with all necessary supplies and ventilators, for every infected patient that needed medical treatment at any given time, and on Sundays, New York’s risk profile would have been drastically different. New York would not be facing the medical, economic, and political crisis it is facing today. What matters as much, if not more than the aggregate numbers of person’s infected in a country, is the mitigating measures that that country can bring to bear. If someone wants useful statistics, from which to derive meaning and upon which they could build a risk assessment, they would need to see total number of infected and needing medical treatment in a given geographic area, compared to that area’s medical capacity.
The real threat is not becoming infected with COVID-19. But, when one looks at the aggregate numbers, the unspoken fear is that those numbers indicate how close the people, or person’s under out protection, are to death. For that reason, it is especially important to look beyond the aggregate numbers and define the threat accurately. The threat can be defined as: Contracting a case of COVID-19 that needs medical treatment, in a geographic area with limited capabilities for providing the necessary medical attention. Once defined, all other statistical data, analysis, and news can be analyzed against this definition for meaning.
