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  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)

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)
 * , 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)