Template talk:COVID-19 pandemic data/Belgium medical cases

Numbers based on regions, instead of provinces.
By now we know every province has atleast 1 infected person. The problem with how the Belgian government publishes test results, by region, not by province, is that most of the numbers based on provinces are research done by local newspapers, and still leaves open gaps, especially now that the cases have dropped significantly, the research also has slowed down.

So instead of using provinces, simplify it to regions, like the Belgian government publishes them, OR keep it like it is, maybe adding a total column for the regions (whereas these numbers are given), with alot of open gaps on the unknown cases. Kef274 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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 ) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hospital totals and Sciensano numbers
I believe the totals numbers for hospital admitted and discharged need to move up one day. Meaning that they should start at the 18th, not the 19th. The reasoning is that the Sciensano reports clearly state that these numbers are from 15/03 (as for reports from 23/03 and later) up to day-1 of the report. While other numbers always talk about the last 24 hours. This would also resolve the issue of having a higher number in the total active column. Tverhoeven (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All numbers are well of report date (it's the title of the column to avoid confusion)... and all numbers in the daily reports are actually from day-1 (check their charts). Moreover, "the last 24hours" means the same as "the day before", so there is no difference to make between data. They cannot write "the last 24hours" regarding the total of admissions/discharges because it's a cumulated total (in a period longer than 24 hours). If you move the totals up, you don't match anymore with the numbers of new admissions. For example (and despite some inconsistencies on some days), take the 29 March: there is 629 new admissions reported on the 29 March and there was a cumulated total of 3.913 admissions on the 28 March. 3913+629 = 4542 total admissions. 4542 is well the total mentioned in the report dd 29 March. Jrm7 (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Special report on 31/03
In the latest report, Sciensano mentioned 98 new deaths, and an additional 94 deaths in the previous period. In my opinion, it's important to also show that difference in the table. By mentioning the 98 new deaths, people can see the trend in the numbers. The number 98 is also what gets mentioned in most media. While the additional 94 are needed to explain the new total of 705.

This is why I split it up in two numbers 98 (+94).Sanderd17 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The thing is, all numbers of are of report date, not of actual date... In all daily reports they talk about the number of deaths that was reported (!) and even say the deaths notification may have a delay of a few days. It means that, in each daily report, there is a part of deaths that occurred more than 24 hours ago. Should we make a difference in the table only because the number of reported deaths is suddenly bigger today? In my opinion, it is not coherent... because it is the same situation for all "new" numbers every day. Only today, they highlighted the difference (probably because of the big increase). However, there is well a small note explaining this sudden increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm7 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Smaller tables and graphs in columns do not work well with the visual editor
Putting the smaller tables and graphs next to each other using colums is nicer visually. But this prevents from using the Visual Editor to edit them easily. This makes it impossible to just copy/paste new data into them. This way it is much more work to update those. Would it be ok to remove the colums or another way that does work well with the visual editor. Tverhoeven (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm afraid the article would be too long if we display all the tables below each other... Can't you copy/paste from the Edit source function? Jrm7 (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the column templates for the first two tables Jrm7 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Scripted update
There have been a number of retroactive updates, some dating to early March. So it was quite hard to correctly update all the numbers.

As a result, I wrote a little script for it (to run on Node.JS) to generate the table contents: https://pastebin.com/zuczxqBG

It pulls the latests numbers, and summarises them by date into wiki table format. If anyone wants to use it further. Go ahead. --Sanderd17 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)