I’m always amazed at the expanding uselessness of Sankey diagrams.
So this means if you don’t get the vaccine you’re at least twice as likely to get complications, assuming I’m doing the math correctly
Measles is far less lethal than I thought. 0.3% among unvaccinated general population.
Why are the three zero-death strands plotted at all? And why are they essentially indistinct from the four-death strand? This gives the immediate impression that equally many people died from each of the four penultimate nodes. It would be much more effective to have them not plotted, or perhaps just send all of the survivors to a “Survived” node at least.
Finally, why are all four of them *much* thicker than the 11 Vaccinated => With complications strand?
I’m a fan of Sankey diagrams in general (sue me) but this one…
![[OC] Evolution of confirmed cases of Measles in Mexico during 2025](https://www.europesays.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/58fugwwg3c3f1-1920x1024.png)
5 comments
tools: Plotly for Python
data source: https://www.gob.mx/salud/documentos/datos-abiertos-152127
I’m always amazed at the expanding uselessness of Sankey diagrams.
So this means if you don’t get the vaccine you’re at least twice as likely to get complications, assuming I’m doing the math correctly
Measles is far less lethal than I thought. 0.3% among unvaccinated general population.
Why are the three zero-death strands plotted at all? And why are they essentially indistinct from the four-death strand? This gives the immediate impression that equally many people died from each of the four penultimate nodes. It would be much more effective to have them not plotted, or perhaps just send all of the survivors to a “Survived” node at least.
Finally, why are all four of them *much* thicker than the 11 Vaccinated => With complications strand?
I’m a fan of Sankey diagrams in general (sue me) but this one…
Comments are closed.