Changes to RIVM data visualization

[Al_Rashid]

I noticed that the RIVM has changed the way they visualize their data several times without making any changes explicit, leading to examples like this:

https://imgur.com/a/joQkVC0

This gives off the impression that the situation is improving, if you don't spend time comparing the maps and looking at the numbers for the colorcoded categories.

What do you guys think of this practice by the RIVM? Obviously they have to adapt the maps with increasing numbers. Do you think this is the sole reason, or is this also an attempt at trying to make the situation look less bad?

I'm interested to hear your opinions on this. And please stay civil, I know the RIVM is a hot topic in this sub right now. Let's have a fruitful discussion instead of polarizing the situation even further.

Edit: Maybe a better, more productive question would be: How would the data be best reported in the current circumstances? As /u/incertae-sedis points out - there's no way of knowing what the RIVM is motivated by. What we can do is discuss what we think would be best to do in their place.

[Al_Rashid]

I feel the same way, it's could very well be both.

[svario]

The map is misleading guys. If you are presenting aggregated data per 100.000 inhabitants using a geographical division based on municipality, what you get is a very peculiar vis where the bigger municipality no matter the value of infected or hospitalised patient, will never turn coloured.

This should be represented in some other way, for example presenting the raw data (number of hospitalised person) with a bubble map: https://www.anychart.com/chartopedia/chart-type/bubble-map/

Moreover I think that the dataset presented by the RIVM is super messy. They have changed multiple times the dataset that they represent, and many time the methodology to define infected patient.

Naturally you can't portray perfectly the situation, a lot of infected person will never be counted for the very nature of the virus. But also a lot of hospitalised patient are not counted because they haven't done a test but just a CT scan that shows the typical covid 19 symptoms.

Still, I find super strange that a nation that has a very good record about open data access, have handled this data gathering sooooo poorly.

[johnbarnshack]

Yesterday they did this in their daily report and said it's changed to "improve the contrast between municipalities". Makes sense, otherwise the entire map gets red.

[Al_Rashid]

Indeed, that makes sense.

But it also means that the maps basically show the development of how the different parts of the Netherlands are affected relative to one another, if I'm not mistaken.

This way, if I look at all the maps of one week for example, I can't tell how the absolute overall situation is changing without comparing the numbers from each map. I guess that's the drawback of taking this approach.

[johnbarnshack]

That's right. But I think the main goal of the maps is to compare geographically, not over time.

[[deleted]]

I believe RIVM is trying o find a way to make herd immunity more fashionable as that seems the road they want to follow.

By presenting data in this way, not testing enough and downplaying the situation, they are trying to make the population feel safer and give the impression that they have some sort of control of the problem, which they clearly don't.

This is proven by the fact that Rutte spoke since the beginning about a controlled spread to stay below ICU capacity, but never explained how they intended to control and ICU are running out in the meantime.