Closed klenwell closed 2 years ago
I had some questions about how these values were defined when I updated my immunity model. Did CDPH change the way they are tracked this week? In PR, I noted:
Model assumes, when second shot is reported, CDPH decrements PV and increments FV counts on the date of the first shot.
Maybe that has changed?
Here's the impact on the graph:
Before this week's update
After this week's update
I suspect that this is not accurate (or more ridiculously inaccurate than the before version) and the model needs to be modified.
I restored the second shot adjustments to immunity model: https://github.com/klenwell/covid-19/commit/a3c2da68473dd3fb6562f0bcc346f6759c5d6fd8
The new graph looks much more like the original before CDPH changed its reporting data:
Before
After
CDPH changed reporting methodology so that partial vaxxed and fully vaxxed were counted in full on dates that a person received first and second shot respectively. This led to double-counting of vaccinated individuals and an over-estimates of population-wide immunty.
Immunity model was updated to offset fully vaccinated counts by decrementing partial vaccination counts on earlier dates. See changes in this PR: https://github.com/klenwell/covid-19/pull/56
I noticed it with this week's update. It can be seen in the
data/oc/oc-immunity.csv
file.Compare
Partial Vax
column (#6
) numbers beginning at 12/21/2020 here:For example, look at how counts changed for 12/15 - 12/21/2020:
24, 464, 4036, 5475, 2324, 2053, 4468
0, 6, 46, 69, 36, 32, 58
More info on how this data is collected and used to estimate county-wide immunity here: