Closed vovodroid closed 3 years ago
For these countries the excess mortality is not significantly different from zero. We decided not to provide these normalized measures in this case, as they can be misleading (e.g. look misleadingly large even though in fact not significantly different from zero.)
look misleadingly large even though in fact not significantly different from zero
Why? How 0.5% would be misleading?
You are probably right that these two columns (per 100k and as %) won't be misleading. What can be misleading is the "undercount ratio". For example, in Hong Kong it comes around 20, because the excess mortality is ~2000 (not significantly different from 0 though) but the official number of covid deaths is ~100.
I could fill it in the per100k and the % columns and only leave nans in the undercount column. Or fill everything in and hope nobody will be misled.
What do you think? CC @akarlinsky.
So what is decision?
Thanks for the reminder. I have added to the CSV file the excess per 100k and the excess as a % of annual for countries where excess is not significantly different from zero.
Great, much better know!
By a way, are you preparing for second year circle? It will be here soon.
There is no Excess per 100k and Excess as % of annual baseline columns for some countries, for instance Finland, Norway and more.