Again you post a graph and expect everybody to go "wow, that looks sciency! the waldo has really done his homework!" while hoping that nobody reads the fine print.
you really need to get over your phobia of graphs... you keep referring to them as "sciency looking". In the cases you've objected to, they've simply been presentation avenues to impact some semblance of data relationship! In any case, science is your friend member kimmy - don't be afraid it!
Your graph tracks "mobility", while Dr Henry's analysis is based on "contacts", not "mobility".
no - not MY {Reports} graphs; those are Google graphs... you know, the company in partnership with B.C. (Centre for Disease Control) to provide collected data to, through analysis and processing, arrive at that stated 30% interaction figure. As by name, the Reports 'Mobility Reduction' represents % change in visits to places (as segmented into 5 overall 'place categories').
The waldo never made your grandiose leap to assume an interaction estimate was based solely upon mobility reduction... that's your idiocy at play; as I stated, "the waldo trusts the data and analysis is there", to support the stated 30% estimate figure. Of course it is - it just doesn't appear to have been publicly released... yet - a release that would allow, of course, independent critical assessment of the data and analysis involved.
"But kimmy," someone might ask. "What's the difference?"
Here's the difference. Mobility doesn't measure how much you're interacting with people. For example: a single trip to the grocery store, since after social distancing measures were put in place, would have the same "mobility" as single a trip to the grocery store before social distancing measures. But it would would result in fewer contacts. Before social distancing, you're in a busier store, you're standing within a couple of feet of each other at the broccoli counter and the checkout. Since social distancing, the store is only letting so many people in at once, people are mostly taking steps to give each other space, and the checkout line has everybody spaced out by 2m. Also consider the kinds of activities that are still open and those that are closed. A trip to the local arena to see a concert could generate a huge number of contacts, a walk in the woods could generate the same "mobility" as the concert while creating zero "contacts" at all.
So while the "mobility" data might indicate that people are making just 50% as many trips as they were before the lockdown, we can also project that the amount of "contacts" has decreased by an even larger degree because of social distancing measures.
oh my, member kimmy - oh my!
You've imparted such
"who knew" knowledge yet you can't provide any information to answer the original waldo statement/questioning as to the methodology behind the stated 30% interaction figure... a figure which (relative to an upper-bounds 60% figure),
so emboldened you as to talk of there being "room to lift restrictions". One would think such emboldenment on your part would be matched with the supporting "how" the estimate was arrived at. So, basically, other than your plaintiveWail... you gots nuthin to suggest how the 30% interaction figure was realized - to understand the methodology that determined the current estimated contact level between British Columbians is at around 30 per cent of normal. Of course, that interaction estimate is based, in part, on the Google sourced mobility reduction data I referenced.
stating the all to obvious (even to you member kimmy, even to you), public confidence in removing current restrictions is key - how safe will the public feel in terms of accepting the removal of certain restrictions? The key starts with full transparency in how levels of interaction estimates are arrived at; including transparency that can be imparted to a layperson level.