This is interesting but the way the data is presented is not good. A one-off set of numbers doesn’t mean much. It’s like going to your doctor to have your BP measured. It might be odd but he – and you – don’t know what it was before, what is “normal”. It’s just a number and it is what you then do afterwards that determines how useful it is.
What this video does not display is 2009 or 2010 or any other year. We have no idea whether the first couple of months shown here were abnormally quiet. If they were then it means the numbers shown at the end are closer to the normal than the first two months. Another reason we do not know what is normal is that any huge event always leads to closer monitoring which gets more data which in turn is presented as being “more accurate”. But more accurate than what? Unless you have similar data on similar data to compare then it’s just a number.
If the point behind the making of the video was to demonstrate only the impact visually then it does that well. But if it was also to push some sort of agenda or policy then it would seem to be flawed.
You need the sound up.
