Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Canada medical cases by province

Numbers

In Ontario there is a large difference between the number of people "approved for testing" and the actual tests being carried out: https://www.ontario.ca/page/2019-novel-coronavirus I think to be fair and comparable, we can only use the total number of positive and negative tests for the table and not the people "approved" -- I can find no evidence these people were actually tested so far. --hroest 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The approved is a total of negative, currently under investigation, and positive. Currently under investigation have in fact been tested, the results are just pending, per the website, so I think it is fair to include them. UmpireRay (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nova Scotia numbers

In a recent edit, 70.76.229.79 says: "Nova Scotia said Recovered 999, Death 62 and Active case 1, 999 62 1 = 1,062 then Case number is 1,062". Well, that's assuming...

• that the reported number of recovered is still 999. That's what they reported on June 7, but their news releases since then haven't given the number of recoveries.
• that the reported number of recoveries is more reliable than the reported number of cases. (My guess is, it's the other way round.)
• that the number of active cases is only 1. As far as I can tell, Nova Scotia Health has never given the total number of active cases. Their news releases give the number in long-term care facilities and (until a couple days ago) the number in hospitals, but leave out all the other cases. Instead, the only way to get the number of active cases has been to subtract recovered dead from cases, which gave reasonable numbers until a couple weeks ago, and since June 6 is even giving negative numbers.

Anyway, all this is probably moot, because NS Health is overhauling how they collect and report their case numbers. For example, see [1] Jmdyck (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Quebec recovery overhaul

Just a note for those updating Quebec's numbers: the government of Quebec has recently revised their recovery criteria (unknown, according to CTV News), so a footnote might need to be added in regards to the new recovery numbers. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Vandalism

The template was vandalized by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:3D08:9B83:4800:C570:75D:24AB:5CDF and it took me a while to straighten it out. Is it possible to ask for something like semi-protected status? Arrecife (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Arrecife, page protection generally isn't granted unless multiple IPs have been vandalising frequently over the span of a few days. If it's a single IP vandal reverting their edits or restoring the page before they vandalised solves the problem. If the problem persists you can try dropping a line at WP:RFPP. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. With a table full of figures, it can be difficult to spot vandalism until later. Arrecife (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism.

BC Test Figures

BC has stopped posting cumulative test figures, so I do a workaround. I get an out-of date figure from the federal site, then I add together the missing figures from from the New Tests section of the BC site. Arrecife (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The new 40,000 number is from the federal site, but it's at odds with all the other data from the provincial and federals sites. BC stopped reporting active cases in February. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/here-s-how-b-c-is-changing-the-data-it-releases-about-covid-19-1.5775209 I think we should leave the BC data out, with an asterisk or something, and list the total Canadian data as (#active cases) . It's really misleading. 96.54.56.197 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)