I assume the very high walloon dots are due to extremely small sample sizes in small towns?
Where is the source?
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I hate data visualizations like this.
Though they look nice, the author is able to steer what you perceive in these graphs.
Some examples in this graph in particular:
Choice of colours: green, yellow, red. The way the Antwerp circle is hidden between the Wallonia circles, the many high peaks which are less striking because of our mind trying to draw a trend, etc.
how should I interprete the chart?
With a little bit of imagination (and ignoring the outliers), it kind of looks like the map of Belgium, rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise.
Now to superimpose population density figures on this…
[deleted]
The percentage non-vaccinated confused for a bit. It would have been mor intuitive for me if it was the percentage vaccinated.
Vlaanderen gang rise up 💪🏻
It’s almost as if vaccines work, who would have tought
Is it me, or do I see little or no group-immunity effect ?
Otherwise it’s still a good graph to show vaccinations help.
@ OP where did you find this graph ? Following it’s updates would be interesting if/when we get into the winter wave.
Who would’ve guessed that vaccination rate and covid cases are actually quite linear. Shocking reality but maybe the vaccine does actually prevent a lot of cases happening. Darn anti vaxers, I don’t get their thought process.
Doing a regression between 2020 contamination data and the current vaccination rate by city apparently shows a similar trend: [https://twitter.com/driesdesmet/status/1440569501267808258](https://twitter.com/driesdesmet/status/1440569501267808258)
By this second analysis we see that vaccination is only responsible for the decrease in overall contamination level everywhere but actually does not explain much of the variations between cities and regions. This means that there are other causes to the shape of this scatter plot as the author explains in his tweets:
>”Het toont dat er waarschijnlijk onderliggende factoren zijn die zowel viruscirculatie als vaccinatiebereidheid verklaren. Motivatie om maatregelen te volgen speelt een rol, maar ook dit: sommige mensen liepen een grotere risico op blootstelling door job, woonplaats en leefomstandigheden. Die risico’s zijn er vandaag ook nog”.
So getting the vaccine is not enough. The “underlying factors” mentioned above seem to be responsible for a 3 to 5-fold difference in contamination between locations. Stay safe!
Still not taking the jab but thank you for the graphics to have a better visualisation of what’s happening !
14 comments
I assume the very high walloon dots are due to extremely small sample sizes in small towns?
Where is the source?
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I hate data visualizations like this.
Though they look nice, the author is able to steer what you perceive in these graphs.
Some examples in this graph in particular:
Choice of colours: green, yellow, red. The way the Antwerp circle is hidden between the Wallonia circles, the many high peaks which are less striking because of our mind trying to draw a trend, etc.
how should I interprete the chart?
With a little bit of imagination (and ignoring the outliers), it kind of looks like the map of Belgium, rotated 45 degrees counterclockwise.
Now to superimpose population density figures on this…
[deleted]
The percentage non-vaccinated confused for a bit. It would have been mor intuitive for me if it was the percentage vaccinated.
Vlaanderen gang rise up 💪🏻
It’s almost as if vaccines work, who would have tought
Is it me, or do I see little or no group-immunity effect ?
Otherwise it’s still a good graph to show vaccinations help.
@ OP where did you find this graph ? Following it’s updates would be interesting if/when we get into the winter wave.
Who would’ve guessed that vaccination rate and covid cases are actually quite linear. Shocking reality but maybe the vaccine does actually prevent a lot of cases happening. Darn anti vaxers, I don’t get their thought process.
Doing a regression between 2020 contamination data and the current vaccination rate by city apparently shows a similar trend: [https://twitter.com/driesdesmet/status/1440569501267808258](https://twitter.com/driesdesmet/status/1440569501267808258)
By this second analysis we see that vaccination is only responsible for the decrease in overall contamination level everywhere but actually does not explain much of the variations between cities and regions. This means that there are other causes to the shape of this scatter plot as the author explains in his tweets:
>”Het toont dat er waarschijnlijk onderliggende factoren zijn die zowel viruscirculatie als vaccinatiebereidheid verklaren. Motivatie om maatregelen te volgen speelt een rol, maar ook dit: sommige mensen liepen een grotere risico op blootstelling door job, woonplaats en leefomstandigheden. Die risico’s zijn er vandaag ook nog”.
So getting the vaccine is not enough. The “underlying factors” mentioned above seem to be responsible for a 3 to 5-fold difference in contamination between locations. Stay safe!
Still not taking the jab but thank you for the graphics to have a better visualisation of what’s happening !