SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
This excerpt from the below linked article provides an overview regarding concerns about the COVID-19 data coming out of China — the full text expands on why many statisticians and data analysts aren’t particularly confident in the data.
——————————————————
China’s Coronavirus Figures Don’t Add Up. “This Never Happens With Real Data.”
https://www.barrons.com/articles/ch...ns-its-coronavirus-numbers-do-too-51581622840
Anomalies had shown up in China’s coronavirus numbers even before the change in methodology. For instance, the number of deaths reported appeared to correspond to a simple mathematical formula to a very high accuracy, according to a quantitative-finance specialist who ran a regression of the data for Barron’s. A near-perfect 99.99% of variance is explained by the equation, this person said, referring to a statistical measure known as r-squared. That’s a fancy way of saying that the data updating the number of deaths was almost perfectly predictable. “This never happens with real data, which is always noisy,” the person said.
...
Barron’s re-created the regression analysis of total deaths caused by the virus, which first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of last year, and found the same variance. We ran it by Melody Goodman, associate professor of biostatistics at New York University’s School of Global Public Health.
“I have never in my years seen an r-squared of 0.99,” Goodman said. “As a statistician it makes me question the data.”
——————————————————
China’s Coronavirus Figures Don’t Add Up. “This Never Happens With Real Data.”
https://www.barrons.com/articles/ch...ns-its-coronavirus-numbers-do-too-51581622840
Anomalies had shown up in China’s coronavirus numbers even before the change in methodology. For instance, the number of deaths reported appeared to correspond to a simple mathematical formula to a very high accuracy, according to a quantitative-finance specialist who ran a regression of the data for Barron’s. A near-perfect 99.99% of variance is explained by the equation, this person said, referring to a statistical measure known as r-squared. That’s a fancy way of saying that the data updating the number of deaths was almost perfectly predictable. “This never happens with real data, which is always noisy,” the person said.
...
Barron’s re-created the regression analysis of total deaths caused by the virus, which first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of last year, and found the same variance. We ran it by Melody Goodman, associate professor of biostatistics at New York University’s School of Global Public Health.
“I have never in my years seen an r-squared of 0.99,” Goodman said. “As a statistician it makes me question the data.”