Talk:2009 flu pandemic in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Colors update[edit]

H1N1 Canada Map by confirmed cases.svg

I'd say it's time to update legend colors for the cases, since both Quebec and Ontario are over 1,000 now. Maybe add a fifth line, or simply change the numbers count. I'd say put it like this:

  • White-pink: less than 50 cases
  • Pink: 50-500 cases
  • Red: 500-1000 cases
  • Dark red: over 1000 cases

What d'ya think? Shadiac (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried it and the stupid shit doesn't want to work again. Man this is frustrating, wasting time like that! What the hell is wrong? I upload and it's the same shit as before...Shadiac (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone else changed the scale. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


The colour for Akimiski is wrong, it's part of Nunavut, not Ontario. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bargraph[edit]

An outbreak evolution bargraph might be good...

Look at the one under construction for Australia ( Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak in Australia/workpage )

70.29.210.130 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A chart is available on the workpage: Talk:2009 flu pandemic in Canada/workpage
70.29.212.226 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Zoonosis map[edit]

H1N1 Canada human swine flu - zoonosis - CSS map.svg

So, should we add the zoonosis map to the article? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort, but it doesn't add much, given that the cases were confined to one barn. Why show a province, not a town or a planet?LeadSongDog come howl 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new table[edit]

I propose to include the following table in the article. The population figures are directly from the Wikipedia articles. If there are no objections to the inclusion of this table I shall enter it by end of week (June 27, 2009).--HJKeats (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed cases per capita and mortality rates
Pos. Province/Terittory Population Confirmed
cases
Confirmed cases
per 10,000 inhabitants
Confirmed
deaths
Mortality
rate (%)
1 Nunuvat 31,556 258 81.76 0 0
2 Saskatchewan 1,023,810 685 6.69 0 0
3 Manitoba 1,213,815 599 4.93 4 0.67
4 Ontario 12,986,857 3,161 2.43 7 0.22
5 Quebec 7,782,561 1,834 2.36 12 0.65
6 Alberta 3,632,483 793 2.18 1 0.13
7 Northwest Territories 42,940 7 1.63 0 0
8 Nova Scotia 939,531 130 1.38 0 0
9 Newfoundland and Labrador 508,990 31 0.61 0 0
10 British Columbia 4,419,974 264 0.60 0 0
11 Yukon 33,442 1 0.30 0 0
12 Prince Edward Island 140,402 3 0.21 0 0
13 New Brunswick 748,319 9 0.12 0 0
Canada 33,504,680 7,775 2.32 24 0.31

Provincial maps?[edit]

Should we start having provincial maps? There's enough information available from provincial ministries of health to make maps for BC, Alta, Sask, Man, Ont, and Nunavut.

Some industrious people have been doing this for the US and Brazil already... And there is one regional map for Manila in the Philippines. (and there's a map for Hong Kong, if you consider that a "province" of China) 76.66.203.200 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Especially a full map of counties and districts like this:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.201.67 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We definitely do not have enough information for a full country map, only for half the provinces. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Death totals accuracy[edit]

Why are the numbers of deaths the same for total but vary by province compared to the Public Health Agency of Canada's totals chart? For example, the Public Health Agencies website map says Ontario has 9 confirmed deaths while our chart says 7. Also, on the website Quebec has 11 confirmed deaths but on our chart there are 12. I know there are multiple sources but surely the government one is the most accurate? I will update the death totals in accordance to the PHC website revert if there are any problems and discuss here please. Bretonnia (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Akimiski Island[edit]

H1N1 Canada Map by confirmed cases.svg

Someone needs to fix the confirmed cases map. Akimiski Island is coloured the same as Ontario, and should not be, it is part of Nunavut.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anticosti Island[edit]

Canada swine flu map.svg

Someone needs to fix the suspected/confirmed/deaths map. It was fixed once before, and then undone. Anticosti Island is part of Quebec, but it is not coloured to match.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Akimiski Island[edit]

H1N1 North America Map.svg

Akimiski Island is the wrong colour, it should be the same as Nunavut, instead it's the same as Quebec.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

new swine flu[edit]

FYI, while testing for A/H1N1-2009, a new swine flu in humans was discovered, see http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/media/nr-rp/2009/2009_0707-eng.php

This might merit mention somewhere.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 Canada map.svg[edit]

A new image has shown up... image:H1N1 Canada map.svg

However, the new map is wrong, Anticosti Island and Akimiski Island are the wrong colour. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This was resolved a while ago... however, it occassionally crops up because various people update the map without taking various islands into consideration. 76.66.202.123 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MAP UPDATE[edit]

Anyone who is able to update the map needs to black out NOVA SCOTIA as it has confirmed deaths. Thank you. Bretonnia (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done If you want to edit the map, just download the SVG version. It can be changed through a text editor, since it's done in XML markup, and the current versions (as of this date) use simple CSS instructions to colour areas. 76.66.202.123 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removable of tables from article[edit]

As most jurisdictions are not reporting total number of cases, it seems the tables in the article are not required. The numbers in the table are from various dates as per the last report from the provinces and it serves no purpose in this article without current and time sensitive reporting. IMHO HJKeats (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The deaths are reported in a timely manner to Public Health Canada, per province/territory, so a table of that would work. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the chart indicated number of cases and mortality rate. Since deaths are being updated but not number of cases, the mortality rate is misleading. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Now I've removed the chart of total cases and deaths for each province. The total cases are months out of date because they're no longer being recorded; I've incorporated these numbers into each province's section. The deaths are listed in a separate chart anyway.66.183.132.33 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Cases/deaths charts: it would help if someone would simplify the first graph to a red chart for cases only, since suspected cases are not graphed anyway and hospitalizations were only graphed for a couple weeks, some time ago. The deaths from the upper graph could be moved to the lower graph. There should also be a note on the upper graph that cases were no longer recorded by the Public Health Agency of Canada after July 15.66.183.132.33 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I did this. 66.183.132.33 (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

Should we eliminate the "confirmed cases" map? Obviously it is ridiculously out of date, with just over 10,000 confirmed cases when really the estimate is 3.5 million infected. They haven't been consistently counting since July.

The Northwest Territories needs to be coloured black. The date of death was not reported, just the week, about 2 weeks ago. 207.216.6.104 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Accurately portraying outdated info[edit]

I don't think it makes much sense to use statistics that are outdated as if they're current. It's misleading. For example, the earliest source stating that 3.5 million were infected is November 20, which is 3 weeks ago. Given how rapidly this virus has spread, three weeks ago is outdated information. If people read 3.5 million or 10% as current, they'll be misled into thinking it's spread less than it has. The fact that it's a current issue doesn't mean all the info is current. We wouldn't use present tense for info from April on H1N1, even though H1N1 is a current event. We'd use past tense because the April info is outdated, even though it's about H1N1 and H1N1 is a current event. Likewise, we should use the date and past tense for info from 3 weeks ago, because it's outdated. In the evolution of this virus, the last three weeks is a long time given how rapidly it's been spreading lately. 207.216.6.104 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't make much sense to use recent statistics, that somewhat nullifies the point of the article. This is, after all, an encyclopedic treatment of the current topic, not a blog. Do you think that more or less Canadians have been infected or immunized, or provide sources to that effect? It's not unreasonable to indicate that those proportions are infected or immunized, particularly given that the stats are fairly recent and haven't been nullified by subsequent stats. As well, I simply reworded the noteworthy mention of Canada re: proportion of the population vaccinated with the Maclean's in mind ('among'), whereas you removed it previously without comment initially, and unreasonably subsequently. Or, did you completely miss that nuance when you whined on my talk page?
Apropos, if you think that I'm trying to exert "power" in retaining sourced encyclopedic information, it's best you find someone else to insult and engage. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it doesn't make sense to use recent statistics. You've ignored my points completely.

I didn't whine on your talk page, and I didn't insult you. I did point out that Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative, which means you should listen to different viewpoints rather than making the article say only what you personally want it to say. 207.216.6.104 (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is your point, then? You removed referenced information from the article because you didn't believe it to be current, which I challenge given available information about the pandemic, and did so without comment beforehand. Coupled with extraneous addition of dates (that I feel wasn't necessary) and -- pow! Anyway, when you say you feel "I suspect that your reverts are really only about power", thereby obviating any assumption of good faith there may have been, you don't really deserve a fulsome response. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my points already. I think they're valid. I don't imagine that re-stating them would make much difference to your willingness to consider them.207.216.6.104 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And I don't. Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)