My hypothesis is that the "with no symptoms" and "with symptoms" items actually do include deaths. > Remember to not include death, because this is a quasi-hie

My hypothesis is that the "with no symptoms" and "with symptoms" items actually do include deaths. > Remember to not include death, because this is a quasi-hierarchy. The table tempts you to, but it's excluded. (The quasi-nature is because it is under the PCR tested positive umbrella on level 2.) So what about integrating level 3? > That's simple. You don't. Because no matter how hard you try, the numbers won't add up. (e.g. Give it a try - you'll end up with 129 != 131 and 1147 != 1191. We'll need one of these numbers later.) Level 4 adds up though, so the plot thickens. Note, however, that (131 - 129) + (1191 - 1147) = 46, i.e. the number of deaths. So if you adjust the 131 and 1191 figures to match their subdivision, everything would sum up correctly, including the top level (pcr_tested_positive), which would then include deaths. This would imply that 2 people without symptoms died, and 44 people with symptoms did. Taking a guess, "deaths" used to be two separate columns: one under "with no symptoms" (2 deaths), and one under "with symptoms" (44 deaths). It was then decided that "deaths" should be its own top-level item, and someone decided that this was the best way to achieve that goal. I can't find a way to make sense of the daily increases though, so this might be entirely wrong.