Post #1098: William and Mary update to 4/5/2021

William and Mary added another 200 tests and ten new positives to their COVID-19 dashboard count on Monday.

I’m not quite sure what to make of that, but I’m going to take a guess.  While it superficially looks like bad news, I’m guessing that it really isn’t.  I’m guessing that this most recent Monday figure should best be compared to last Monday.

What’s the reasoning behind that?  In a nutshell, I’d bet that Monday has three days’ worth of bad news rolled into it.  Continue reading Post #1098: William and Mary update to 4/5/2021

Post #1096: Sue them

A lot of decision-making in the Town of Vienna just seems to wander around, until it stops.

I think the Robinson estate bequest for sidewalks is a perfect example. I gave up on this one a year ago.  But I need something to post about, and so I thought I might revisit it.

For those who are unaware of this, former Town Council member Maud Robinson left $7M (now reportedly grown to $9M) to Vienna, for the purpose of building sidewalks.  But with a five-year time limit.  Of which, I think at least two years may have already elapsed.

Let me start with where this has ended up.

As I understand it, among the places the Town has prioritized for possible sidewalk construction, using this new source of funding, is Circle Drive.  It’s a tiny cul-de-sac with four houses on it.

Here are two view, via Google Street View:

 

In any normal town, where there were lots of roads with no sidewalks, you’d have to say, what a bizarre choice.  Why would you prioritize what appears to be a completely safe little four-house cul-de-sac?

In fact, at least one person affected by this has said exactly that.  Why on earth would you make this a sidewalk priority?

But in the Town of Vienna, when granted millions of dollars for sidewalks, and with streets that really could use them, prioritizing this little cul-de-sac makes perfect sense.  Because it’s the Town of Vienna.

In fact, the first street segments to be designated for sidewalks under this initiative weren’t even chosen by the Town, they were chosen by the estate’s executor.  Which, judging from the reaction that got from the Town’s lawyer when that was announced, probably isn’t strictly legal (Post #532).  But that’s how it goes.  Within the context of how the Town of Vienna operates, that makes perfect sense as well.

(And just to show where that’s gone, more than a year after Town Council gave approval, work hadn’t even started on the ones the executor chose.  Or, at least, not Plum Street, which is the one within easiest walking distance of my house (Post #1056).  )

So, how does this make sense?

First, based on all public-facing statements (e.g., anything you’d hear at a Town Council meeting) the bequest was structured so that the Town could not spend the money on anything but the sidewalk.  No curb, no gutter, no drainage.  Just literally the flat thing you walked on.  Further, the bequest was only for new sidewalks, meaning that anything that really desperately needed a sidewalk, as was on some plan, somewhere, slated to get a sidewalk sometime, was off-limits.

The problem is, that’s not actually true.  All of that — no curb, no gutter, and so on  — all of that was the interpretation of the estate executor.  None of that is actually in Maud Robinson’s bequest itself.

And so, it was the estate’s executor who came up with that “Merchant of Venice” interpretation of the bequest, in that the Town could have its pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood.  Which, when you get right down to it, is an interpretation that basically thwarts using the money for sidewalks, to build sidewalks. And the Town, in classic form, did not meaningfully contest that, perhaps because the executor is a Town insider, being a former Town Council member.

And, equally unfathomable to me, the Town refuses to spend any of its own money on this.  This, from a Town that just borrowed $35M (or was it $25M?) in its last bond issuance, making about 7.5M in not-previously-disclosed land purchase out of that.  (But, aha, that finally explains the oddball $7M extra that they borrowed — so those land purchase were probably already in the works when the did the bond issuance).

And so, the Town is effectively scraping the bottom of the barrel to find streets that have curb and gutter, but not sidewalk.  And so, instead of any rational set of priorities — we end up with Circle Drive.

Now, I would not know any of this — about the bequest not actually limiting what the Town could do, about the Circle Drive being on the list — had I not gotten an earful about it from one of the Town Council candidates, David Patariu.  He’s a lawyer, and member of the Planning Commission, and so far, he’s the only one in the Town government from whom I have heard a sensible plan for using the Robinson estate money.

Here’s Patariu’s plan:  Sue them.  Sue the trust, to get a court to compel a less restrictive interpretation of the language of the estate document.  Apparently, this is something that gets done routinely.  So his plan is prevent the executor of the estate from adding all those restrictions that are not actually in the bequest document.  Then use the unrestricted funds to build sidewalks where they are most needed, not where there by chance happens to be curb and gutter already in place.

That sounded rational to me.  But this is the Town of Vienna, so I don’t think that’s going to happen.

As I said, we tend to do decision-making-by-wandering-around.  And now you know why, in the context of Town of Vienna decision-making, Circle Drive is one of the streets where the Town would now like to put a sidewalk.

In linear fashion:  A former Town Council member made a bequest to build sidewalks, the executor imposed numerous onerous restrictions on the use of those funds, the Town would not meaningfully protest those but instead accepted them at face value, nor would the Town spend its own money to work around those restrictions, so the list of possible streets is limited to those with curb and gutter but not slated to have sidewalks any time soon, and of those, Circle Drive is one.  Even though it clearly doesn’t need a sidewalk.

And the upshot?  A revered former Town Council member cared enough about the Town to dedicate her estate to the construction of much-needed sidewalks in Vienna.  And when the dust settles, we end up using the money to try to prioritize a street that nobody thinks needs a sidewalk.

It all makes perfect sense.

In all fairness, even in the Town of Vienna, I’d be surprised if the Town actually went through with putting in a sidewalk there.  Instead, we’ll just forfeit the funds. We’ll build no sidewalk, rather than useless sidewalk.  I think the Town is at least that rational.  I think.

Post #1094: A blistering pace of COVID-19 vaccination???

Mea Culpa.  I’ve been tracking the pace of vaccination by looking at what is posted on the CDC website over time.  Just taking a snapshot every couple of days, and comparing the new snapshot to an older one.

Like so.  I like these snapshots because they provide a lot of detail that you can’t get elsewhere, over time, from CDC, such the age breakout.

Unfortunately, there’s a real potential for error there.  That’s because that count, as posted by CDC, is substantially incomplete.  And you only get a consistent time series if that lack-of-completeness stays stable over time.

The reason is that the CDC not only puts out new counts each day, it revises the old counts as well.  It adds in counts that took a while to get reported.  So what you see, day-by-day, is the number that have been reported up to that time.  But in fact, CDC will go back and add to those counts, especially for the last five reporting days.  There is not even any guarantee that older data will remain unchanged.

And so, while I can say that, as of today, at least 75% of the elderly have had some vaccine, a) I can’t accurately compare that to the snapshot two days ago because b) both the current and two-day-old numbers may have counts added to them as time passes.

If you look at the little bit of trend data that CDC will show you, like so, you can see that the figure total doses administered through 4/3/20201 and 4/2/2021 exactly matches the 4/3/2021 “snapshot” above.  And that the figure for 4/1/2021 is just slightly less.  And then the numbers begin to change.

And if you look at the detailed table underneath that (which is difficult to deal with), you can see that, sure enough, there are huge amounts of vaccine missing from the last reported day, by date of administration.

And I can quantify the amount of missing vaccine in any snapshot by comparing (say) my March 28 “snapshot” to the final, aged March 28 count.  The actual, final count of doses administered through March 28, 2021 (as of today) was 149.8 million.  The March 28 snapshot — the table that appeared on the CDC website on March 28 — showed 143.5 million doses.  That gap may not seem large until you realize that’s easily two days worth of growth in the numbers.  So the incompleteness of the “snapshot” number is on-order-of two days’ worth of growth.  So there is potential to mis-state the day-to-day changes if the level of incompleteness changes significantly over time.

I’m not sure that this has any material effect on what has been reported on the growth rate in vaccination, as long as nobody cherry-picks the numbers (see below).  As long as that error is constant, you can in fact just compare the current (and incomplete) daily snapshot to an older (and, you hope, equally incomplete) daily snapshot.  As long as you do that consistently, there shouldn’t be a problem.

Source:  CDC, same cite as noted directly above.

If I look at the detailed data, I can see that they tabulate it not only by date of administration, but by date on which the vaccination was reported.  Presumably, those numbers will not change.

But I have to say, those numbers look a lot lower than what I recall being reported by the news media.  In fact, the seven-day moving average only just now hit 3M doses per day.  But I am sure I heard some national commentators crowing about a 3.5M dose-per-day pace.  Which is something you’d get only if you looked at the successive snapshots.

In any event, I now fully understand what I’m looking at with those daily snapshots (first images above).  And I suspect that much of the apparent fluctuation in the daily increases was due to transient changes in the completeness of the snapshot data over time.

In fact, the CDC graphs the data above, when you ask for daily change.  And as you can see below, the reported data show a regular weekly fluctuation.  So if you were a news reporter, and wanted to present a sunny picture, you’d take the “by report date” series and just pick off the couple of days that always seem to have a lot of vaccines reported.

Source:  CDC, already cited above.

Which, in hindsight, is probably how I’ve been hearing all this incredibly cheerful, upbeat, big-numbers news about the rate of vaccination.  And, to be sure, it is going up.  But every (say) 3.5M vaccine day above is routinely and regularly offset by some 2M vaccine days in the same week.  Week in, week out.

In which case, the only figure that makes sense is the seven-day moving average.  And that just now managed to break 3M doses per day.

This is all readily-available public information from CDC.  The only reason I post this is that you can’t just go to the CDC website and see (e.g.) the a finely-detailed day-to-day history of the vaccination rate.  E.g., there’s no simple over-65 rate.  Hence the series of screen shots.  That may or may not give a good estimate of the day-to-day changes in the vaccination rate.

While I’m at it, I might as well point out one more thing. The CDC does show a graph of the vaccination rate by age, over time.  (I’m not sure that has always been there, but it’s there now).  But because of the vaccine doses that are missing from the most recent days, that will always look as if the vaccination rate is tailing off.  When, in fact, the flattening of the line at the very end is due, in part, to the fact that the last days of data are substantially incomplete, while the earlier data are not.

Source:  CDC, same cite as above.

My whole approach here needs a re-think.  And I’m going to keep an eye out for what gets reported.  If reporters are cherry-picking the high days, in something that has a regular weekly cycle, that’s unconscionable.

Post #1092: COVID-19 fourth U.S. wave, clear as mud

So far, the US fourth wave of COVID has almost no coherence to it.  The U.S. as a whole had some upward trend in cases, as of a few days ago.  But that’s from the individual states and regions going their own separate ways.

Source for this and other graphs:  Calculated from The New York Times. (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Data in the United States. Retrieved 4/3/2021, from https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data.  The NY Times on-line COVID-19 tracking page may be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html. Continue reading Post #1092: COVID-19 fourth U.S. wave, clear as mud

Post #1090: Making decisions about $5,000,000,000 worth of private property based on a $400 self-selected internet survey.

 

I’m a Ph.D. health economist, now retired.  I have significant professional experience in both conducting and analyzing surveys.  I’m only bringing that up so that you’ll know that I have the bona fides to discuss what does and doesn’t work in surveys.

And I don’t think it’s very smart to do what the title of this posting says.  That is, to use a low-quality survey to make decisions affecting roughly five billion dollars’ worth of residential property in the Town of Vienna.

But that’s exactly what the Town of Vienna is doing. 

Worse, for a few hundred dollar’s worth of post cards and stamps, they could easily check the results of their low-quality survey.

But I’m betting that they won’t do that.

Read on if you want to know further details.  First, I’ll describe the Town’s survey and the risk they take in accepting the results.  Then I’ll describe how, for a few hundred dollars, they could avoid that risk entirely.  And why they really, really ought to want to do that.

No screeds this time, other than to point out that I’ve been saying the same thing for years now.  And that we used to have people on Town Council who understood the basics of surveys.  But apparently we don’t any more.  Or they aren’t speaking up.  And that’s a pity. Continue reading Post #1090: Making decisions about $5,000,000,000 worth of private property based on a $400 self-selected internet survey.