Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Update timeline table

Hey can someone update the timeline table? It's been 4 days. I'm not skilled enough to dive into that. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline/Government response

I'm thinking we should merge the information presented in the government response section as a timeline into the timeline section, and leave the policy details, and reopening plans, mask by-laws etc in the section. I feel like it would be presented easier to read that way. Thoughts? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I must agree. How it is currently written can get confusing. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Graphs all out of date

All of the graphs are now outdated by over a week. It seems whoever was keeping them up to date before has gone on vacation or something. Can someone new step up to do this? I'm afraid I lack the technical expertise to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.55.19 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pageviews on this article are also at 1/4 of what they were near the beginning of the pandemic. COVID fatigue is real. Even the local governments stopped updating their websites daily... CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been updating the cases by health unit every 10 days or so. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020

I would like access to add to the 'new cases per day' graph. It has not been updated since August 24th. I will use the information provided by Public Health Ontario here: https://covid-19.ontario.ca/covid-19-epidemiologic-summaries-public-health-ontario HeartofOak (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You will need one more edit before you can edit the page yourself. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 20:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Updating the page

Hey there, since it's been suggested that part of the page is out of date, I updated the lead and some sub sections and continue to update the infobox daily. If we can look into updating the statistics and anything else we think the article needs that would be great. Thanks! CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If we could get the statistics graphs up to date I believe we'd have the page up to date. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed update tag

I've noticed the statistics have been updated, the infobox is updated daily, and I've updated the lead section to reflect the new changes in the province and it's pandemic. I've updated the timeline, reconsolidated the information from the government response into it, and have been updating the economic reopening and school reopening subsections. I believe it was justified at this point to remove the update tag, let me know if that's all well and good. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate article for Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario

@CaffeinAddict: @Earl Andrew: @Sikander: Just by looking at the section size for the Timeline section of this article, a separate article can be justified with the main COVID-19 pandemic article in Ontario having a summarized timeline. What do you think? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is starting to bloat and by-golly... this pandemic has been going on for a while eh? COVID-19 pandemic in Canada has already migrated to moving theirs. My only criticism is it's been neglected since it was split off into a separate article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as the regulars edit the main article, they would likely edit the timeline article. Not just that, but the timeline article wouldn't be semi-protected (yet), unlike the main article, allowing practically anyone to edit it right away. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 16:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johnny Au: @CaffeinAddict: @Earl Andrew: The timeline section seems OK to me right now. Perhaps in 2021 we can create a separate timeline for 2020. The graphs under Statistics are getting messy and I'm thinking maybe we can create COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario/Statistics with graphs for each month with the main article showing graphs for the last 2 months only. Thoughts? // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be a better idea as the graphs in the Statistics section are getting long and convoluted. The timeline article could probably be created next year for 2020 events to make things simpler. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Howdy, with adding the December subsection we now have a full 12 months in display on the timeline. What to do? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: It's time to create a separate article. The main article is getting large. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It is  Done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting and graph data

The pink graph of active cases, and the graphs below it, have not been updated since October 6, even though the graphs above it have been.

The large vertical graph near the start of the article has become quite long and one must now scroll quite far to get past it to further text of the article. I'd suggest reformatting it in either of two ways: flow the article text around it on the left instead of having that large blank space that is to its left now; or else reducing the graph on this page to the last month's or so of data and linking to a separate page with the full graph. The latter method might also be used with the horizontal graphs to get rid of the need for horizontal scrollbars on these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.251.2 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be great, but I am seeking consensus with the others first per WP:CONSENSUS. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

Howdy, appreciate everyone's work! The statistics are a month out of date now... CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the statistics are outdated. Who should I ping? Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 14:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why whoever keeps updating the first, vertically-oriented graph cannot update them all. Or, for that matter, why you can't, or anyone else who knows enough about the markup and has any other necessary skills -- the one who is keeping some of the graphs up to date, though, demonstrably does have all the necessary knowledge and skills. And re: the previous item about consensus-seeking, I think enough time has now elapsed to make it clear that everyone who cares has already weighed in.

Um no, that's not how Wikipedia works. You can't compel editors to make edits. I don't mind updating the vertical graph every day, and the geographic counts every 10 days like I've been doing, but the rest is beyond what I'm willing to do. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source which lists daily active cases in the province? Maybe I can take a crack at that statistic. CaffeinAddict (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here you go -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Y Done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in phraseology of the new response framework

It's new, and it's a mess, and seems to be hastily put together... but that's just my bias. I've seen wildly different wording relating to the new response framework in the media and from government officials. For example: "Red zone", "Red level", "Control (red level)", "Control (red zone" etc.

As I suspect we'll be writing about this quite a bit - I'm wondering how we should take our lead on standardizing these new measures/restrictions/levels/categories/tiers/stages/zones/frameworks... the language is endless. I am assuming we should use what the government is officially calling this...

CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we summon the Guild of Copy Editors? They can help us go through the article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Update; test positivity rate

Ontario's test positivity rate is 3.1% as of today https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/dramatic-drop-in-daily-covid-19-cases-for-waterloo-region-1.5218680  

Canada: positivity rate of 7.3 per cent. https://www.guelphtoday.com/national-news/the-latest-numbers-on-covid-19-in-canada-for-saturday-dec-5-2020-3157611 Peter K Burian (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

There is now an extremely long (several screens high) section near the start of the article where the left 2/3 of the screen is blank and there's a graph down the right third.

This is ... clunky, in my opinion. I'd suggest that either the text be flowed around the graph to fill the huge empty area to its left or else to compress the graph in some way (the full size one could be preserved on another page, or perhaps at Wikimedia).

At the same time, some of the horizontal graphs further down are slipping out of date, with some not updated in almost two weeks even while others are more-or-less up to date. A bit more consistency in updating here would be desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.178.76 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

York and Windsor-Essex counties are going in lockdown effective December 14th, 2020

York Region is heading into lockdown along with Windsor-Essex on Monday [1] from the red (control) zone to the grey (lockdown) zone.

This info has been updated in the regional advisory section and will be updated in the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown language

ViperSnake151 - I noticed in your recent edit you changed the term lockdown to shutdown. Now, while personally I believe Ontario has never actually had a COVID-19 pandemic lockdown the likes of which other places in the world have, it seems Ford is definitely bent on using the term, whether it applies or not. Do you think we should be avoiding the term even though the Ontario government insists on it? CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is read internationally. We should use the term "lockdown" but note about Ford's use of the word "shutdown" to mean "lockdown." Plenty of high-ranking officials don't use correct terminology (and we note them) and Wikipedia strives for accuracy and verifiability rather than truth. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

New statistics

Thanks to TCT101 - I think splitting up the years is a good idea, however the format of the new 2021 bars are rather awkward looking until we have at least a week of info in them. Any ideas how to remedy the look of these? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

CaffeinAddict, I narrowed the graph as there is no need for it to be that wide right now. I think we should wait until the bars are as wide as in the other graphs before widening the new one. Username6892 18:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism in need of a revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Someone blanked all the statistics subsections. All I now see is this:

Statistics

New cases (2020)

New cases (2021)

Confirmed deaths (2020)

Confirmed deaths (2021)

Active cases (2020)

Geographical distribution

Just the headings. No graphs or anything else. I can't revert it myself because someone apparently thought that semi-protecting the page would prevent things like this from happening ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

I see them fine - must be your device. We are semi-protected to prevent vandalism, you are correct. I see no vandalism that has occurred. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Another comment - just to be sure - I checked on my mobile device as well and I could see the statistics fine. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There's been no change to my device, a Windoze box running Firefox. The statistics graphs were there yesterday. They are gone today.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

I recommend that you clear all cache and cookies first. Here is how to clear them on Firefox: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/clear-cookies-and-site-data-firefox (note that this can be done on any OS) Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Still just a bunch of headings. The images were there 2 days ago and missing 1 day ago and are still missing.

There is a simple solution to this. Just find any edit to that section that occurred between 24 and 48 hours ago and revert it. Whatever that edit was, caused the disappearance. Doing so shouldn't even cause the graphs to become out of date, since images are modified separately on their own pages last I checked. (And since some of them were *already* out of date.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect - there's an even simpler solution to this - use someone else's computer to look at this page and stop bothering us about it. The statistics are working fine. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The change that caused this was made at Wikipedia, not to any of my equipment. If that change was outright damage or vandalism, or if it "merely" created an incompatibility with some users' devices that were formerly supported, either way the fault is with a Wikipedia edit to this page, not any user whose equipment is somehow incompatible with that edit. The attempt here to shirk responsibility and shift the burden of maintaining compatibility onto end-users is wrong, is damaging to Wikipedia's brand, and moreover is likely to be against Wikipedia policy, though I'm too pressed for time right now to go trawling so I can quote the exact chapter and verse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

I rightly don't know what the heck you're talking about. None of us work for Wikipedia, we're all volunteers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. When I disable Javascript on my browser, I only see headings as 74.12.80.118 reported. When I re-enable Javascript, I can see the charts again. Perhaps 74.12.80.118 needs to enable Javascript. The NoScript browser extension could be inadvertently disabling it as well. Try disabling that extension. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there is a serious problem at Wikipedia's end, because no Wikipedia content is supposed to require client-side scripting whatsoever -- not even audiovisual content. And none ever has before. Certainly static content such as text and images (and that would include graphs) should never require scripting at *any* site, though other sites frequently violate that to punish people who disable scripts because such people are evading ads. Obviously that motive is illegitimate *and*, at ad-free sites like Wikipedia, inapplicable.

Furthermore, the section in question displayed just fine only a few days ago, so that would mean someone recently deliberately broke *existing* functionality for people who disable scripts. I say deliberately, because if it was accidental they would surely have said "oops, sorry about that" and reverted the problematic change by now, especially after all of this discussion. To see all of this discussion and leave it broken clearly telegraphs that whoever did it likes it fine that way. The thing is, performing effortful work for the purpose of making something *worse* and taking *away* functionality is negative-sum and Pareto-suboptimal, which is a fancy mathematical way of saying that it's morally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

First off, not all editors who ever edit on this page read the talk, so the idea that they would know about this discussion simply is false. Anyway, that's not the point. Now, as far as I know, Wikipedia does use JavaScript. That doesn't mean you're prohibited from using it, it just means that you can't see some graphs. Secondly, you are mistaken in the belief that "the section in question displayed just fine only a few days ago" since I have gone through the history, with my JavaScript off, and have found the exact day the JavaScript required graph was added [2]. I checked that version with JavaScript off and have found that it never worked. It doesn't remove some of the information, it simply makes you unable to see a graph. Last point, please sign off with ~~~~ when you respond. Thanks, Sixula^Talk 00:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? I'm telling you, the graphs displayed for me until the day I added this section to this talk page. The edit that broke things was made sometime during the immediately preceding 24 hours. I am asking for that edit to be reverted because nothing at Wikipedia is supposed to require Javascript in order to display it.

As for signing, I don't see why I should bother when your machine will do the job for me anyway after a short delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.80.118 (talk • contribs)

I don't see any need for further comment, I'm closing this discussion. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Viewing the graphs in the article should not require Javascript to be enabled.

WP:COLLAPSE

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Users with limited CSS or JavaScript support

Upshot: "features that would cause content to be hidden or corrupted when CSS or JavaScript is unavailable must not be used"

Now, could someone who has the ability to edit the article please make the graphs not require Javascript, as per strongly-worded official Wikipedia policy?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.178.195 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why has no action been taken to bring this article into compliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.178.195 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Compliance... Oh no boys, watch out! It's the Wikipedia police! CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your contempt for the manual of style that was mutually agreed upon by editor consensus is noted. If you don't like the manual of style here, feel free to propose a change to it in the appropriate forum or to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, please abide by community consensus re: accessibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.178.195 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP user (70.52.178.195) has been blocked for WP:IDHT. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Updating Lifting of restrictions after the first wave Section

I suggest this section be updated to include some information about regulated health professions, which occurred on May 27, 2020. It was effectively a Stage 1.5.

BACKGROUND Ontario was previously in a situation where healthcare professionals were only allowed to provide emergency/urgent care through a government ordered closure of non-essential businesses. The government’s order was updated. With the updated order (Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health’s Directive #2 for Regulated Health Professionals, below) Massage Therapists (RMTs) and other regulated health professionals were now permitted to gradually restart services. Directive #2 allowed for a gradual restart of services to be carried out with adherence to guidance from the health profession’s regulatory college. This change was effectively made due to the fact that the Ontario government announced a re-start to elective surgeries on May 14, 2020, meaning rehabilitation was required for post-op patients from regulated healthcare professionals like massage therapists, chiropractors, physiotherapists and others. Sources.[3][4] Karltaylor321 — Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be edited? The stages were a framework, not really a rigid structure. I'm sure there was some fluidity to the operations of certain healthcare workers. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hatnote

I believe Shhhnotsoloud has an issue with the hatnote - which has been at the top of this article for nearly a year, it has only become an issue since the creation of COVID-19 pandemic in Ottawa (which in and of itself needs major editing). I believe we should generate discussion instead of removing it so swiftly. The region of peel and Toronto arguably have a very unique situation and definitely warrant their own articles and I think it's important readers coming to this page know immediately there are specific articles for those regions. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: I do have a problem with the hatnote, even now that it is properly formatted, and regardless of how long it's been there (there are over 4,800 articles with incorrectly-formatted hatnotes and I'm getting to them one at a time). As I explained [5], the inappropriate hatnote separates readers from the body of the article. The purpose of hatnotes (see WP:HATNOTE) is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. This page title is not ambiguous (WP:NAMB). The place for these links is See also or in the body of the article. (If every single place in Ontario had it's own COVID article this hatnote would be a page long). If I specifically wanted to know about COVID in Peel I would search for that, and not end up here. What part of my explanation do you disagree with? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shhhnotsoloud. Hatnotes should be used for clarity. Articles linking to specific localities within a region belong in both the body and in the See also section to minimize clutter at the top of the article. There's a reason why the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada article doesn't have a list of provinces in its hatnote (the list is in the body, as well as in its own template). Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now removed the hatnote. The links are at See also and might also be included elsewhere in the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Too soon? - Provincewide shutdown again

News sources are reporting that Ford will be implementing an "emergency brake", although it hasn't been officially announced, is it too soon to update the information? [6] [7] CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a little too soon. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright - now that it's been announced according to this [8] "Shutdown" is kind of a new category, should I start a separate paragraph or a separate category under the response framework? CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the "Demographic distribution" table

The lethality percentage values are wonky. With some being over 200% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Ontario#Demographic_distribution 172.98.156.205 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Nick

Fixed. I believe it was taking the whole percentage and being x100, when that formula should only be made at the initial x divided by y. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Statistics sizes

What are the optimum sizes for the statistics graphs? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)