The " COVID-19 " pandemic has been an unprecedented situation with rapid research and development taking place. There has been a lot of data that is being generated like the total number of patients infected, Active case, Recovered, Deceased.
Data can be obtained from different sources, Example in India " https://www.mohfw.gov.in/ " is the official website of Govt. of India, " https://www.covid19india.org/ " is a website by a group of dedicated volunteers, then we have " https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ " which is worldometer maintained by Dadax
Is there any data validation model or method to verify the data that has been put out.
There is a possibility of overstating or understating the numbers. There can be a discrepancy between sources.
Has there been a solution or discussion about this in the research community, If so what is it?
Chandrasekar S.N. you have here an example of ground truth appearing, which is not the official data of a government, but the analysis from very professional independent journalists and the official institute of statistics for the UK, ONS:
-the government trailed at less than 30 000 deaths
-the ONS published data, which means 40 000 deaths
-The Guardian (and Reuters) picked it up
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-40000-official-figures-say
-the government sticked to their figure.
Is it typical? The public gets more reliable information from sources other than government?
Another case was PPE, equipment for health staff. The government said "all good" , the official voice of the NHS (health care) said "missing masks and equipment almost everywhere"
Yet another controversy: tests
The government set a target of 100 000/day. They reported earlier confusing things to avoid saying they had failed to meet this.
Puzzling is it not?
For sure we now know who should not be trusted, but it should not be that way, not in a democracy.
Or, put it otherwise, is it not transparency and accuracy of information which characterises a democracy?
It seems that the data of all countries, with respect to the infected is highly underestimated, but with differences. A collection of studies on the number of unregistered people (and the resulting mortality) can be found at this link, which is constantly updated (there are already more than 50 studies): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zC3kW1sMu0sjnT_vP1sh4zL0tF6fIHbA6fcG5RQdqSc/edit#gid=0
Trust civil servants, who do their job honestly, more than elected politicians seeking re-election, and therefore tempted to show a nice fairy tale picture instead of a harsh truth.
In democratic countries,the most reliable source is the national statistics institute.
For Covid19 the core data comparable across countries is just daily hospital deaths. Everything else is measured differently or not measured.
As @Stefan Ziemendorff said, surplus death through Covid19 is huge.
In particular death in elderly carehomes or death at home is not always finding its way to government.
Look at the UK case studied by Reuters and by the Financial Times: 10000 deaths more than declared? That's 20-30% uncertainty. Can it be forgiven by data literate people? No.
However, it seems ok for the citizens up to now, meaning that people are not data literate in general.
You can also use different computable trust models reflecting trust expressed by multiple people towards information sources, derived from the Behavioural Economics studies of Kahneman and Tversky:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318753530_Processing_of_Uncertain_Information_by_Humans-Behavioural_Economics_meets_Noisy_Shannon_Channel#fullTextFileContent
Dear Chandrasekar S.N. , it is a real dilemma that exposes us to the possibility of overestimating or underestimating the incidence of the phenomenon. The collected data must be treated with great caution because we are not sure of the real extent of the covid-19. There are countries that have carried out a so small number of swabs that are impossible, for example, to know the real number of asymptomatic positives. Thanks.
Chandrasekar S.N. you have here an example of ground truth appearing, which is not the official data of a government, but the analysis from very professional independent journalists and the official institute of statistics for the UK, ONS:
-the government trailed at less than 30 000 deaths
-the ONS published data, which means 40 000 deaths
-The Guardian (and Reuters) picked it up
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/12/uk-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-40000-official-figures-say
-the government sticked to their figure.
Is it typical? The public gets more reliable information from sources other than government?
Another case was PPE, equipment for health staff. The government said "all good" , the official voice of the NHS (health care) said "missing masks and equipment almost everywhere"
Yet another controversy: tests
The government set a target of 100 000/day. They reported earlier confusing things to avoid saying they had failed to meet this.
Puzzling is it not?
For sure we now know who should not be trusted, but it should not be that way, not in a democracy.
Or, put it otherwise, is it not transparency and accuracy of information which characterises a democracy?
- Badges
- Science topic