These are neat charts overall, but less useful for studying the details because it’s hard to tell which state is which, because only half the states are labeled and they don’t line up with the...
These are neat charts overall, but less useful for studying the details because it’s hard to tell which state is which, because only half the states are labeled and they don’t line up with the corresponding rows. The first row in each chart is probably Alabama.
For what it's worth, you can mouse over the individual boxes & it will pop up the state & year it represents. Definitely isn't the best way to display the data, but it is all technically labeled....
For what it's worth, you can mouse over the individual boxes & it will pop up the state & year it represents. Definitely isn't the best way to display the data, but it is all technically labeled. And mostly everything is sorted alphabetically, except they put Alaska before Alabama, I'm assuming because they're labeled Alaska & Ala., and they also put Washington D.C. (D.C.) before Delaware (Del). But they did manage to put Maryland (M.D.) before Maine (Maine), so doesn't really seem to be any method to the madness.
I was using a tablet at the time so I didn't see the popups. Yeah, the visualization looks somewhat cursed. Mississippi is out of order too. It was probably sorted in some other way and then...
I was using a tablet at the time so I didn't see the popups.
Yeah, the visualization looks somewhat cursed. Mississippi is out of order too. It was probably sorted in some other way and then edited.
It was more impressive at first glance, before studying it.
I was more confused that they shortened random names in random ways instead of just using AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, Etc... Sloppy labels generally make me wonder if that sloppiness extends to the data...
I was more confused that they shortened random names in random ways instead of just using AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, Etc...
Sloppy labels generally make me wonder if that sloppiness extends to the data too. :/
Yeah the X axis on some of the charts was a bit suspicious too. I imagine it's just that they're at the mercy of what data is available and it's not like "vaccines help decrease infections" is a...
Yeah the X axis on some of the charts was a bit suspicious too. I imagine it's just that they're at the mercy of what data is available and it's not like "vaccines help decrease infections" is a hard notion to sell. But I do wonder if there was a bit of cherry picking for charts that looked good rather than any sort of deeper analysis, in a few cases.
Something mildly irksome when you see a nice looking chart that seems to tell one story followed by a footnote that says the vaccine had been introduced many decades before the data started. What other factors painted the picture you're showing? Was it a push to make the vaccines more available? More effective vaccines? Better health outcomes overall?
A lot of people don't realize proper explanations are needed, stuck in their own bubble without realizing those they're trying to convince are in their own as well and lacking key information to...
Something mildly irksome when you see a nice looking chart that seems to tell one story followed by a footnote that says the vaccine had been introduced many decades before the data started.
A lot of people don't realize proper explanations are needed, stuck in their own bubble without realizing those they're trying to convince are in their own as well and lacking key information to understand. What is common knowledge to some is unheard of or totally wrong to others.
Looks like for both small pox and whooping cough each State independently started requiring vaccination to increasing degrees, requiring reporting and providing public education to get people vaccinated. So the numbers seem odd since some states have large outbreaks well after the vaccine while others don't.
With whooping cough, it may have been introduced in 1914, but looks like it wasn't used on a large scale for at least a decade. A safer and more effective vaccine was made in the late 1930's which was combined with others in 1942 to make the TDP vaccine which combined with required vaccinations dramatically dropped the number of cases.
I'd like to see a flu chart, it would look horrid between people not getting vaccinated and rapid mutations that bypass immunities. However, it's a great example of what happens when you don't require vaccination.
Mirror: https://archive.is/YNrcK
These are neat charts overall, but less useful for studying the details because it’s hard to tell which state is which, because only half the states are labeled and they don’t line up with the corresponding rows. The first row in each chart is probably Alabama.
For what it's worth, you can mouse over the individual boxes & it will pop up the state & year it represents. Definitely isn't the best way to display the data, but it is all technically labeled. And mostly everything is sorted alphabetically, except they put Alaska before Alabama, I'm assuming because they're labeled
Alaska&Ala., and they also put Washington D.C. (D.C.) before Delaware (Del). But they did manage to put Maryland (M.D.) before Maine (Maine), so doesn't really seem to be any method to the madness.I was using a tablet at the time so I didn't see the popups.
Yeah, the visualization looks somewhat cursed. Mississippi is out of order too. It was probably sorted in some other way and then edited.
It was more impressive at first glance, before studying it.
I was more confused that they shortened random names in random ways instead of just using AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA, Etc...
Sloppy labels generally make me wonder if that sloppiness extends to the data too. :/
Yeah the X axis on some of the charts was a bit suspicious too. I imagine it's just that they're at the mercy of what data is available and it's not like "vaccines help decrease infections" is a hard notion to sell. But I do wonder if there was a bit of cherry picking for charts that looked good rather than any sort of deeper analysis, in a few cases.
Something mildly irksome when you see a nice looking chart that seems to tell one story followed by a footnote that says the vaccine had been introduced many decades before the data started. What other factors painted the picture you're showing? Was it a push to make the vaccines more available? More effective vaccines? Better health outcomes overall?
A lot of people don't realize proper explanations are needed, stuck in their own bubble without realizing those they're trying to convince are in their own as well and lacking key information to understand. What is common knowledge to some is unheard of or totally wrong to others.
Looks like for both small pox and whooping cough each State independently started requiring vaccination to increasing degrees, requiring reporting and providing public education to get people vaccinated. So the numbers seem odd since some states have large outbreaks well after the vaccine while others don't.
With whooping cough, it may have been introduced in 1914, but looks like it wasn't used on a large scale for at least a decade. A safer and more effective vaccine was made in the late 1930's which was combined with others in 1942 to make the TDP vaccine which combined with required vaccinations dramatically dropped the number of cases.
I'd like to see a flu chart, it would look horrid between people not getting vaccinated and rapid mutations that bypass immunities. However, it's a great example of what happens when you don't require vaccination.