Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois

WikiProject COVID-19
I've created WikiProject COVID-19 as a temporary or permanent WikiProject and invite editors to use this space for discussing ways to improve coverage of the ongoing 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Please bring your ideas to the project/talk page. Stay safe, --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bunch of photos here, could be migrated
https://www.flickr.com/photos/raedmansour/albums/72157713603790542 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Case breakdown by county
Does anyone have the details of the breakdowns by county for March 15th, 16th and 17th? I have all of the other data except these dates. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 02:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Does the Johns Hopkins data here have what you need: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/tree/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_daily_reports ? 3Idiot (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope. This information would be from the Illinois Department of Public Health. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Reorganizing the "Government response" section
I'd like to re-organize the "Government response" section into "state", "county", and "municipal" sections. Given that the content in this section will continue to grow in coming weeks, I think this would help make the article more readable. I'm opening up discussion here in case others are opposed or would like to help with the proposed re-organization. Kumar (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, please Be Bold and try it. At some point this page will have to evolve from a day-to-day chronicle into a well-organized article that explains the impact of the virus in the state. Reorganizing government will be a good step. Fishal (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and make the changes and fill them in. I'd do it but I am busy with other things at the moment.  I have been resorting to getting the daily numbers updated.  There are many of articles of government response from downstate that need to be added as this does not revolve just around Chicago. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I created the sub-sections earlier. I'll also try to organize within the sub-sections thematically later today. Kumar (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Cases - Confirmed, Recovered, Deceased, and Active
On the matter of the confirmed, active, recovered and deceased cases, it appears that we have somewhat of an issue. Each day the Illinois Department of Public Heath releases the number of active and deceased cases which we have listed in multiple spots on the page, lead section, infobox and the county statistics. We also have a confirmed instance of recovered patients, although a small number, it is still confirmed recoveries. We can also determine using basic math the amount of active cases by taking the total confirmed cases and subtracting the amount of deaths and recovered cases from it.

Recently the recovered and active cases are being removed from the article. Other states are including all of these cases. So my question is this, do we keep them in the article or not? — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have doubts that the sources we use are tracking and reporting recovered patients. No where else in the world have I seen the odds thus bad, with only 2 recovered and over 700 dead, a case fatality ratio of about 99.7%. Edison (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * .I confirmed hat the Illinois Dept of Public Health is releasing daily statistics for infected and dead, but not recovered.   https://www.nwherald.com/2020/04/02/idph-director-ezike-50-of-illinois-covid-19-patients-recover-within-7-days/a526z88/. Therefore we need to remove the column showing “Recovered,” since it is grossly misleading and unencyclopefic. If accurate stats are ever released, the info can be added. We must not be slaves to the desire to have the same info tabulated in each state article. Unfortunately editing tables is not something I have the skills to do. Edison (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think @Edison makes a convincing point. 2 is obviously wrong, and in the absence of better information, it's misleading to keep it. Fishal (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So I have been watching the live press briefings on a daily basis. Both Governor JB Pritzker and Dr. Ngozi Ezike have announced a percentage rate of the recovered patients at a 7, 14, and 28 day recovery period. This leads me to believe that they are aware of these numbers and have yet to release them. Granted the amount of confirmed recovered is very minimal, hell at this point trivial compared to the confirmed cases and death totals. Instead of removing those totals we should place footnotes and "—" symbols denoting that there are inconsistencies or minimum amounts of data. I have no problems with either way and can modify the tables if we have a consensus to remove the data. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Updated the table to reflect that no current data is available and maintained the count of those recovered cases for Cook County with a caveat that the number has not be updated since February 15, 2020 by IDPH. If recovered cases change and IDPH reports them, then we can update those cases. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with putting in the data with the notation that dash does not equal zero. It is a puzzling choice the health department has made, which makes things look worse than they are. It includes the recovered in the active segment of the graph. Edison (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Are the daily counts in the timeline useful?
I would think anyone wanting those daily numbers would look at the easily digestible graph rather than reading a few sentences for each day, taking several times as long. We could reserve timeline updates for actually notable events. Right now it's quite a slog to try to read through for anything interesting in the timeline. Even the statements about the first time each county reports a case or death would be more useful as a column in the county table. And as a small bonus we would stop adding the same reference with a new retrieved date every day.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially as the timeline gets longer and longer. Sentences like the ones currently in the article made sense in the first week or so, but not now. Running prose should be in a readable summary style and not get bogged down in this level of detail. I agree that it should be possible to make a collapsable table containing this information, so that the running text gives highlights and changes. Fishal (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am ok with leaving the counts out of the timeline. I agree with adding notable events, milestones and when counties had their first cases. As the one who is mainly adding these timeline entries I have no objection to cleaning up the timeline. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 23:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The information is useful. Can it be presented in chart form? Fishal (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It already is. That's the "easily digestible graph" I mentioned.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that last response. I didn't read correctly. The next talk section covers that though. Seems like Mr Xaero has the data for it ready to go.
 * Also, any objection to me now cleaning most of the daily counts out of the timeline?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , clean away and while you are at it, be sure to add information about the 10k tests/day along with the increased number of confirmed cases in relation to the testing. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 02:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I...do not know what you're talking about.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

First case/death per county
I was thinking of adding column(s) for the date of the first case and/or death to the county table. I don't mind doing the work to gather the data and citations from the prose, but I won't bother if it's going to be controversial.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a chart when each county had their first cases except for March 15 and 16. These two dates have no data as the State of Illinois apparently didn't record them from what I could find.  I also reached out to IDPH and the spokesperson for the media side of the State's COVID response but all I got was crickets. If you want to find the references I can adjust the table.  I doubt that this would be controversial at all.—  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about the March 15 and 16 part. Are you saying you know there was a county that had its first case on one of those days, but no source for it? I kind of doubt that's what you mean, but I don't have a better guess.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So when the State was first announcing the data in the early stages, they included which counties had cases within a press release (not video). They did this through March 14.  Starting on the 15th and carrying on into the 16th news releases, they didn't include any numbers so for those dates I have not been able to locate any data of cases per county.  Here is an image of those blank days in a spreadsheet that I have been maintaining. If you look, Champaign and Clinton show cases on March 17 whereas Cook maintains cases throughout the missing days but values increase. The State did however update the total cases of the disease on those two days but nothing was broken down. Even on the current statistics that IDPH is publishing that breaks down the counties, the 15th and 16th are missing as they start on the 17th. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like we do have the sources for when Champaign and Clinton had their first cases, and they're even from IDPH, although it seems like our dates are a little inconsistent in a way. For example, Champaign seems to have technically had its first case on the 14th, as seen here and then it's confirmed by the IDPH report that was published on the 15th here. In our timeline we've reported that as Champaign's first case being the 15th. As opposed to Sangamon, which is in the same boat with a case on the 14th according to at least this source from the article and again confirmed by that same 15th IDPH report, yet our timeline lists Sangamon on the 14th. Whether we decide to use the date of the IDPH report or the day before (since that's when the county would've actually reported it), we should try to be consistent.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the date of confirmation come from IDPH as they are the ones that are confirming the tests also. It might be reported a day later but that it to be expected. If need be we could include a citation to both IDPH and the local county health department, if they published something. I am working on fixing the table currently so I will add the first reported death column while I am at it. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on Recovered Data and the Source of Statistical County Data
So back to the recovered portion of the statistics by county, there needs to be a consensus of where we are going to get this data for the recovered information. We know that IDPH has only announced publicly the two initial cases that recovered. Which we have listed on the page, removed, readded, argued and finally came to a conclusion that referenced a single date. Now this has reared its head again after another user, added all of the county health departments data that was previously published. I applaud that person for doing so but the maintenance portion of updating the records and locating citable references will be a tremendous undertaking on a daily basis. There are 102 counties in Illinois with data that changes daily. This data is scattered all over at each county health department websites, Facebook pages, Twitter, etc. and is constantly changing. By using IDPH numbers, that data changes in one location daily and is easily maintained. You can read that discussion that I had on that user's talk page where I voiced my concerns.

I bring this to the talk page as I was using the official information from IDPH as the citable referenced information and not the county data. I have attempted to keep the data clean and concise with that single source by using good faith reverts over and over and over again. So as per this summary by, one of the WP admins, I am asking for a consensus as to this matter. We need to figure out where this data needs to come from and which will be the official source information.

Option A: Do we only use the data from IDPH?

Option B: Do we use the data from each of the 102 counties?

Option C: Should we have a hybrid that uses both state and county level data?

The downsides for each option differ in their own way. Option A provides a single source but does not offer recovery data and has lag time by a day. Option B potentially can have near realtime data but is scattered across 102 different locations (if published) and obtaining this is a logistical nightmare. Option C provides all the plus sides of A & B but also the negatives along with them. If there is an Option D, E, or F I would love to see them.

Thoughts? — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 03:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will point out that Wikipedia in and of itself is a logistical nightmare. ;) That said, I'm happy to update recovery data as it comes in from counties since I've already collected all the sources in a nice neat folder - all I have to do to find the data is hit "open all" on the bookmarks. If we take Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic by California county as an example, very few things need to be sourced day-to-day, since we have already established all of the county health departments as reliable sources. Possibly another thing we can do to mitigate the workload is create a template akin to the California one - Template:2020 coronavirus pandemic by Illinois county to simply transclude. Best, Keilana (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If is willing to update the stats, I don't see why we should throw up a barrier in front of her. :-)
 * Jumping off on a tangent quick, I have to question a bit of the wording you used. I'm an administrator, sure, but so is "another user" Keilana. I'm also not sure why pointing out my userrights is pertinent to this discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * to humor your question why I singled out your role as an admin, it is based on the comment and summary in which you provided along with the revert. As per Be bold I was taking an action to ensure that the most accurate, concise, and vetted data was added to the article. The only source that had that information at the time was IDPH.  This is why each edit to revert was in good faith. To me it appeared that your tone was that of an admin and not of a fellow user whereas 's comments appeared to be of a peer. I have defended the statistics along with the recovered data not only in the article but the talk page also so I took this to heart. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I like the idea of the template and I am currently scouring the interwebs to locate the reliable sources for each of the 102 counties. Once I get that template built, I will update the daily information on cases/deaths from IDPH but someone else will need to do the recoveries. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have all of the sources already in a document, do you want me to stick them in the template, or somewhere else? (By the way, if it helps, IDPH maintains a list of local health department websites here.) I'm happy to do the recoveries daily, of course. Do you think we should stick with the IDPH numbers for cases/deaths in situations where they lag behind the local data by a day? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. :) Thanks for your work on the template! I'm really glad we're able to collaborate on this. Keilana (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I went through the edit in which you made and added the references and either added the missing ones or cleaned up the existing ones. As for the IDPH data, I believe that we should use that data as the gold copy for the daily numbers for both cases and deaths. Even though they lag behind by a day, they are the ones tasked with verification from each county and then report those totals to the CDC and also to the public. Since IDPH is not announcing the recovered numbers, we should use the numbers from the local health departments. I am going to see if I can get the template completed today. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 14:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The template has been created and article has been updated to reflect this. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 16:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're awesome, I'll start updating it right away! Keilana (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 👍🏼 — Mr Xaero  ☎️ 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Were you able to locate the local health department numbers for Monroe or Shelby counties? I looked but could not find anything. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, I looked for awhile and couldn't find anything. Keilana (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I found Shelby County's information as it is updated by their emergency management agency. I have added that reference to the list although it is also a Facebook link. I reached out to Monroe County via their Facebook page to see if and where they are posting their county information. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, nice work tracking that down! Hopefully Monroe County gets back to you. Keilana (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we are going to be able to get the Monroe data from the source as per the conversation I had with them. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 01:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for maintaining the stat section of the couty data. I had updated a couple of county numbers using the information from the the county health department circular and local news website that collects data from local health departments of 17 counties. However, the whole section is not visible anymore. Could it be reinstated? (I am new to editing on Wikipedia, so please excuse if the format of posting is not correct. Let me know what I need to be aware of for the next time. Thank you.) Mchakato (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Mchakato Wed Jun 03 19:40:25 2020 UTC

COVID-19 pandemic in Chicago
Hello Wikipedians from Chicago, So the largest city in the state of Illinois is Chicago. I hope anyone will create article titled COVID-19 pandemic in Chicago, The proposed article will be titled as title COVID-19 pandemic in Chicago will be focused on the pandemic within the city of Chicago, Illinois. The propose article will include how many active cases, how many deaths, how many recoveries and how many overall cases within the city of Chicago, Illinois. I will by happy for anyone's reply for the requested article to created and will be only focused on the city of Chicago, Illinois. Thanks for your time. Come back if the propose article is created. See you later. 2001:569:74D2:A800:597:7665:7DAB:5D7F (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lethality by gender and age?
Anyone willing to add a table like Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Italy medical cases based on data at http://www.dph.illinois.gov/covid19/covid19-statistics? Ain92 (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, as I hadn't seen this very useful page before (although we have referenced it in the article, so I'm just lazy I guess). It's annoying that for some reason there's no exact total given for each age group in the Age Demographics chart, so if someone created/updated this table they'd have to manually sum the racial segments to get the age data. Also, we wouldn't have a lethality column since that's not reported and of course dividing current deaths by current cases would be a wildly inaccurate representation of lethality. So, we could have the raw numbers for age, gender, and race if we wanted to, plus if someone wanted to calculate the percentages they could, though I'm not certain that's worth the time. If not for the silliness on the age chart, this would be pretty quick to put together.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I decided to go for it, and it's sitting here in my sandbox. I made an attempt to put it next to the county table in the article, but it wasn't too pretty and I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix it. If anyone else would like to insert it, that would be great.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are a resident of Illinois, do you think you could file a request to a Chief Data Officer or some other official responsible for the open data in the state so that they publish the numbers, not just the charts? Ain92 (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Constant removal from lead
It appears that someone does not want to have the total cases or deaths in the lead along with the blurb about the only recoveries within the lead. Granted these are contained withing the infobox, but they should also be within the lead. I have had to add them back over and over and over again. "As of May 9, there were 76,085 diagnosed cases in the state and 3,349 deaths. As of early-May 2020, the State of Illinois has not released data for recoveries other than the first two initial recovered cases in February." So once again, let's have a consensus on these two sentences and in the meantime, we will need to leave them in the lead. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 02:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * May as well directly ping since they've removed it at least twice.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Lack of medical context
Someone doesn't want to acknowledge the extensive medical literature that shows that only .3 percent of cases of Covid are transmitted outdoors, which makes Mayor Lightfoot's closing of the parks appear unjustified by science. This is a general problem with wikipedia. The surviving point of view on any topic, even scientific topics, is filtered through what liberals think best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:CB81:3770:B1A7:6B84:9DAD:83A4 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is the proper area to voice these concerns. Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal thoughts. Please do not use the talk pages for your own personal agenda. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Map inaccuracy
Why hasn't Hamilton County been highlighted on the map? It already has a confirmed case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4000:E00:F878:E98:507C:87F9 (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The map is not updated daily as the coloring ranges do not change daily based on the total values. The map has been updated today with data that was released today. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of that, but according to the article, Hamilton County's first case was on April 18th, meaning that it had been overlooked for about a month, while the rest of the map had been updated. Anyways, it appears to be fixed now. Thank you! Also, I'm sorry for not signing this comment along with the preceding one, I'm not quite sure how to sign comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:4000:E00:78C2:104D:B112:1AEB (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Recovery cases
, could you please explain exactly where you're getting the number that you added to the infobox?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I was quite confused with that recovery rate. However, after looking at Worldometers, it seems right. I think they mean the recovery rate out of all the closed cases, meaning that 92% of closed cases are recovered and 8% are deaths. Chopanero77 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I had accidentally used the wrong number for my calculation. Looks like this was arrived at by applying some algebra to the deaths and recovery rate using the methodology described on the statistics web page: (5390 * 0.92) / (1 - 0.92) = 61985. I think this should be alright to use. It would be nice to also get onto our chart, but I'm not sure if it will be updated daily.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see anything to suggest that number wouldn't be updated along with everything else, so I've added it to the chart.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide a proper source of the recovery numbers. All that IDPH is reporting is a percentage and not factual numbers. Granted we could use math but those are not considered factual. Without onset of the confirmed case the calculation is inaccurate. as per IDPH website it states: "Recovered cases are defined as persons with initial positive specimen collection date > 42 days who have not expired. Recovery rate is calculated as the recovered cases divided by the sum of recovered cases and deceased cases."
 * Since we do not have the onset of the cases, we are unable to provide that recovery value and it is basically a guess. — Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding why the text you quoted is there. It isn't a statement of inaccuracy; they're explaining how they've arrived at the number and that explanation makes it clear how many recovery cases they are reporting based on the the death count and the percentage. Using math is very much factual per WP:CALC, and I have no idea what "is a percentage and not factual numbers" means. A percentage is a factual number. IDPH knows the onset dates and have used that to produce the numbers. There is absolutely no guesswork involved here.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The only argument regarding accuracy that would make sense is regarding significant figures. I could agree that since 92% has only 2 significant figures that the number of cases should also be rounded to 2 significant figures, making it 62,000.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that until you can gather the actual onset date of the case, the calculations using the information provided are incorrect. Granted you can guess by using data that is reported to IDPH and what they report but that data is not accurate per se. IDPH stated in many of the press conferences that the data comes from rapid testing, state lab testing and commerical testing.  These tests range from about two hours, 24-48 hours, and 7-14 days respectively. IDPH's data is also reported from data that is entered prior to 10:00am daily.  So with those variables determining when the  "> 42 days" to be classified as recovered is not accurate.  The only cases that you would be able to calculate would need to use past data not present.  Even then, you would need to calculate when the cases were onset and when a death occurred. You can ball park, but there is no confirmation of a correct recovery number nor is there a proper source.  —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. My apologies. And here's actually an article from Chicago Tribune explaining quite a bit and giving what they believe would be the number of recovered cases: . They report it would be 19,725 recoveries based on 21,440 cases at the 42 day mark. I would assume we don't include that one, unless maybe it's just in the body of the article with explanation.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the recovery rate percentage as actual value is undetermined as there are too many variables. This should suffice until IDPH released actual numbers (if they ever do).  —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 23:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with that at this point the 2 recovered cases data point is not only quite stale, but very inaccurate. With this 92% recovery rate reported directly by IDPH they are clearly saying that there's more than 2 recoveries. I can't see how leaving that number up helps any readers.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with removing that number but when doing so make sure that it is listed within the article itself. Don't just remove it without summarizing why, hence my again statement. —  Mr Xaero   ☎️ 16:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Updating/Revamping Timeline
It seems that while numbers have been continued to be updated, the longevity of the pandemic has made the original timeline section excessively verbose and perhaps unnecessary. I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Keep the section as is and update to current day

2. Reduce the length of the section to reflect novel significant cases (i.e. first case in each county)

3. Remove the section and replace with a more holistic section on the change in cases over time in the state, in concordance with the state's response.

Any other thoughts on how to improve this section? --Karthiksci (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Statistics empty?
I can see when I edit the Statistics section that we have the county template in there, and when I navigate to the template page I see it, but here on the Illinois page the Statistics section just appears empty. Is that just me? I've tried it on both Chrome and Firefox.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks empty to me as well (on Chrome and Firefox). Not sure what's broken about it - is it possible to replace by copying over a county table from another state and replacing the entries? Karthiksci (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got it fixed now. There was a bad edit by an IP user a little while ago that just needed a revert. It broke the end of a noinclude tag.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the main image
Hello, I no longer believe that the main image, File:COVID-19 rolling 14day Prevalence in Illinois by county.svg, is very helpful. Please see File talk:COVID-19 rolling 14day Prevalence in Illinois by county.svg. Please WP:PING me there. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 Racial Inequality
Hello everyone. I am a graduate student at the University of Chicago and am wondering if the section on Covid-19 racial inequalities could be added to. Specifically, there is very little information about Latinos: would it be useful for me to add more? I would appreciate your feedback Oscurojon (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Merger of University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic article
The Wikipedia article about the UIUC COVID-19 response has recently undergone a review, with the decision that it be merged into this article (and/or other articles, as appropriate). As a first step, I plan to soon replace the short section titled "UIUC fall semester 2020 response" here with that article, then start to modify it, as appropriate for this setting. I hope that we can discuss changes here, and work together to improve this material. CWBoast (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article about the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic (soon to become a redirect) is now almost entirely incorporated here. I believe I did not "break" any of the existing COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois article while doing this. Please undo my edit if I broke existing content. There is probably a lot that needs to be done to integrate this new material into the article. Looking forward to working on that. CWBoast (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been 8 days since I copied the contents of the Wikipedia article titled University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response to the COVID-19 pandemic into the section titled "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response" here). It seems that this copy worked well.
 * That same day, I said that the contents of the old Wikipedia article would soon disappear, i.e., that the old Wikipedia article would become a Redirect (to the section titled "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response" here. However, when I tested redirection strategies, I found problems with two kinds of Redirect: (1) to the section named "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response" and (2) to the associated "anchor" named "UIUCresponse".
 * These problems are described in this discussion at the Village Pump. (If you are interested, this Teahouse discussion preceded and led to the Village Pump discussion.)
 * To give just one example, the Redirect from UIUC response to COVID-19 pandemic often does not end up anywhere near the anchor named "UIUCresponse" (i.e., does not end up anywhere near the section named "University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign response"), at least in Safari. (And this Redirect may work only sporadically in Chrome.)
 * As I understand it, one of the two people who looked at this, in the Village pump discussion (Rchard2scout), concluded that when the "bar chart with the number of cases (COVID-19 pandemic data/United States/Illinois medical cases chart)" collapses, it "reformats the text, which moves the target section up" causing (again, as I understand it) the Redirect to go to the wrong location within COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois. And, the other person who looked at this (TheDJ) concurs, recommending against use of "autocollapse and custom collapsibles".
 * Here is what I propose: to remove the bar chart, at least temporarily -- to see whether doing so makes it possible for redirects (to specific locations within the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois article) to work correctly. Then it might be productive to discuss how the bar chart itself could be improved. CWBoast (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than removing the bar chart, it was sufficient to move it lower in the COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois article. See next section, titled: A move of the "COVID-19 cases ..." bar chart to near the end of the article CWBoast (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A move of the "COVID-19 cases ..." bar chart to near the end of the article
The bar chart titled "COVID-19 cases in Illinois, United States" shows cumulative values (total deaths and total cases) over the previous 15 days. Currently (as of June 17, 2021) the bar lengths change imperceptively over a 15-day period (a 1.1% change in bar length for deaths and a 0.4% change in bar length for cases). While this bar chart may have, early in the pandemic, visually portrayed important trends, it seems that its visual impact is now minimal. Its appearance near the top of the article may actually be a turnoff for people who expect a bar chart to visually portray important trends. So, I have moved this bar chart to a location near the end of the article.


 * Frankly, the previous section on this Talk page describes a big part of my motivation for trying out this move of the bar chart -- namely, to test whether moving it to near the end of the article would solve the problem described in that section of this talk page. Moving the bar chart did seem to solve that problem, so I would very much prefer to leave the bar chart where it now is. However, if others strongly object to this move, the bar chart could be restored to near the top of the article. (And I will simply give up, at least temporarily, on making the Redirects to this section work right.)


 * This move is, at best, a provisional solution to what I find to be a problem (that the bar chart visually portrays very little information at present). It might be useful for us to find some better visual way to summarize COVID-19 statistics in Illinois, e.g., (a) show 15 weeks rather than 15 days of information; (b) show weekly deaths, weekly new cases, etc., rather than cumulative values; (3) other approaches? I have done only a tiny amount of thinking about such possibilities. Maybe this can be the subject of a future discussion on this Talk page? CWBoast (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Bar chart data
The bar chart data includes numbers for every day of the week. Beginning on June 19, 2021, the Illinois Department of Public Health stopped reporting numbers on the weekends. Rather than repeating Friday's numbers for Saturday and Sunday (and giving a false impression, in my opinion), I think Saturday and Sunday should be left empty. As a result, Monday's numbers would not have a percentage increase, since the 3-day increase is not comparable to the other one-day increases. This is the way the bar chart is displayed for Iowa, which stopped providing daily numbers on July 22, 2021, and Michigan, which stopped providing daily numbers in on July 3, 2021. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)