Want a daily email with one idea? It’s quick, fun, and sometimes helpful. Sign up here.
One of the coronavirus problems, one of any system’s problems, is lack of good data. When data is precise and simple it’s just a math problem. This is why we have to gamble with coronavirus.
In mid-March I started to feel kinda ill. Did I have it? Everything pointed to yes.
I’d traveled through airports. I felt congested and achy. The news talked more about coronavirus than allergies. Wait. What? The noise of the news made me overlook the color of my car, which was a nicely tinged yellow thanks to an above average pollen count in central Florida.
My problem was that the ‘fifth vital sign’ had overtaken all the others. Or put differently, the only data I was using was highly subjective. Instead of continuing my confoundedness I started counting.
Regularly tracking my temperature showed nothing to worry about.
The other potential problem at the the time was toilet paper.
Well before we were storming stores and short sheets I had stocked up. But watching the paper pandemonium I had no idea how long our stockpiles would last. So, I counted. Our conservative count is two rolls per person per month. Prior to counting, I’d never have known.
Now do emergency funds.
Good data is an objective tool to use alongside the subjective. If we kinda feel ill, we can take temperatures. If we see toilet paper rolling out of stores, we can use a rule of thumb. If we’re worried about finances, we can compare spending to savings. Good data is the base rate, our adjustments are the subjective.
In any quantitative field three things matter: counts, computations, and communications.
Without accurate counts, we know nothing.
Without accurate counts and computations, we infer nothing.
Without accurate counts, computations, and communications, we do nothing.
Sometimes we jump the gun. We build a model and share it to the world. #dataisbeautiful. Sometimes though we just need to start at the beginning and count.
Thanks for reading.