This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
I'm sort of WP:IAR to make this list easier to add/remove. Feel free to add entries without signing, and remove if you cite them in the article. tedder (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like OHA is using "total living cases" as their metric. Does anyone know if that is OHA-specific or a common reporting method? I want to bring it up before we start having confusion. tedder (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The graph under "Incidents by Day" has a caption under it saying "Lines show trend using a five-day average", while the graph itself says "7 Day Deaths" and "7 Day Cases". I would guess that 7 is the correct number, not 5, since the "7" is part of the graph, but does anyone know for certain? DKMell (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the graph under "Incidents by Day", the orange line for the 7-day average number of deaths is so flattened against the bottom (the X-axis) as to be nearly illegible. This happens because it's plotted using the same scale as the number of new cases, which is two orders of magnitude larger. Is it possible to plot the deaths using a different scale than new cases so that both are legible? And maybe show the scale for new deaths on an axis at the right side of the graph (in orange, if you really want to help make it clear what's what). Thanks to anyone who knows how to do this. DKMell (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reasonable way to draw a line graph showing the cases and deaths over time? Ideally it would size itself to match the numbers and wouldn't have to be regenerated each time we do a daily update to the data. I can do it pretty easily in a spreadsheet, but don't know how it would be done here. Perhaps something like this:
Dang, apparently I can't upload an image of the graph. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsey55 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Template:Graph:Chart will do it. I've never used it before, but I like that we don't have to upload an image. Feel free to make a start at it, I'm sure we can work together to perfect it. tedder (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the team and especially Esprqii for the excellent map graphic. As a Wikipedia reader, I appreciate the faithful updating of data as the virus spreads. One small correction: it appears the color coding for Linn County and Lane County have been reversed on the map, as Linn has 19 positives and Lane has 3? Stay safe, everyone. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I spotted the Linn/Lane error myself this morning. Let me know if anyone has suggestions on improving the map. I haven't done too much with svg graphics before so it's been interesting to figure out. I'll also try and help out with the graph when it shows up. Stay healthy everyone. --Esprqii (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I embedded a first try at the graph. I'm not figuring out how to display on the X axis fewer day names, such as 28-Feb 2-Mar 5-Mar so they don't end up overlapping. I also don't see any way to add data except manually. Ideally we'd put all the numbers into a database and generate both the box and graph from there... Billsey55 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, other than the latest row doesn't match the OHA numbers. Let's swap it in! --Esprqii (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That number is from OregonLive, as long as they match tomorrow I think we should use the OHA numbers. tedder (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good, it should also be better for mobile. I could scroll back and forth on my phone, but a lot of the impact was missing.Billsey55 (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to add another graph, showing a rolling average of new cases and new deaths. When I do that on my local spreadsheet it is looking (today at least) like we're almost a week past peak on new cases and a day past peak on new deaths. This one likely would look better as a line chart with the lines running horizontally.Billsey55 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would be a useful chart. The flattening appears to be happening so would be nice to have a graph that shows it. --Esprqii (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The map really should show cases per capita, not total cases, since Oregon's counties vary wildly in population. An low-population eastern county with a medium number of cases is likely being hit much harder in reality than an urban county with a high number of cases. I wish I had time to do this myself, but unfortunately I don't right now. GeoEvan (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea, I'll see if I can put one together. --Esprqii (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created this map. File:COVID-19 Cases in Oregon by counties per capita.svgCOVID–19 cases per capita in Oregon by county It correctly show that Marion is the per capita hottest spot and identifies Umatilla and Morrow as eastern hotspots. For Sherman, since there is only 1 case, but also fewer than 2,000 residents, the map makes it look more severe than it probably is. Thoughts? --Esprqii (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Co-owned by Terri Waldroff, based Oregon City. Runs Healthcare at Foster Creek, Heartwood Place Memory Care Community (Woodburn, 2014, 48 beds)[1][2][3], River Grove (Lane County, purchased 2015, out of compliance Feb 9, 2017, forced to suspend admissions, prev Santa Clara Special Care Community, prev Sierra Oaks of Santa Clara, prev Santa Clara Residential Inn)[4][5], Ross Linn Care Center (purchased July 2012)[6]
Per DHS, Healthcare at Foster is listed as being owned by "St. Jude Operating Company, LLC".[7]
Pamplin calls it Benitia in one article, which is wrong. Have also seen it called "Benicia LLC".
^"Memory care facility to open May 1". Woodburn Independent. 26 March 2014. Archived from the original on 13 May 2020. Retrieved 13 May 2020. "The Best Friend method is our way of providing a richer and fuller experience for all of our residents," said Terri Waldroff, managing partner of Heartwood Place. "We design activity stations for each resident based on their life experiences."
^"Oregon elder care site hides thousands of complaints". oregonlive. Retrieved 13 May 2020. River Grove Memory Care in Eugene, for example, shows four complaints racked up since the current owners bought it in 2015. However, searching for the home under three of its previous names and owners shows an additional 31 complaints. Seventeen of those happened in the two years before the current owners took over.It would take a thorough knowledge of the home's history to find them. River Grove used to be Santa Clara Special Care Community. Before that, Sierra Oaks of Santa Clara. Before that, Santa Clara Residential Inn.
^Randall, Barb. "Major renovation transforms Rose Linn Care Center". Lake Oswego Review. Retrieved 13 May 2020. The renovation project, which included new carpets, vinyl flooring, paint, furniture, remodeling of social spaces and the addition of state of the art technology, began last July when Terri Waldroff purchased the property.
Lincoln County exempting non-white people from wearing masks[edit]
This was reported a few hours ago, but I thought this might be worthy of inclusion as it may influence infection rates in Oregon (or at least in the county). There are some news articles[1][2][3], as well as a mention on Lincoln County's site:[4]
Exceptions:
Persons with health/medical conditions that preclude or are exacerbated by wearing a face covering.
Children under the age of 12. Children over the age of 2 but under the age of 12 are encouraged to wear face coverings but not required to do so.
Persons with disabilities that prevents them from using the face covering as described in this Directive. These persons must be reasonably accommodated to allow them access to goods and services.
People of color who have heightened concerns about racial profiling and harassment due to wearing face coverings in public.
Why does the "# of cases" and "# of deaths" columns show the % instead of the actual number? Showing the % is completely meaningless. For example, the % of new cases on 3/15/2021 is 0.11%, which turns out to be 178; however, the % of new cases on 3/30/2020, when the pandemic was in its infancy, is 11% (100 times higher), and yet, the actual number turns out to be 58 (about 2/3 lower). This is not like comparing apples to apples, it is like comparing apples to truck loads of apples.
Please change this reporting to show actual numbers that people can make sense out of.
Percentages are used to get an idea of how fast the pandemic is spreading. 11% versus 0.11% shows it is spreading 100 times slower. Percentages also allow comparison of cases versus deaths, though with a time delay. EphemeralErrata (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the logic. On 3/1/2020, there was ONE case in Oregon. ONE case. There had been a total of ONE case up till then, so the % of new cases was 100%. In your way of thinking, the virus was spreading 909 times FASTER on 3/1/2020 than on 3/15/2021. This is ridiculous!
If you are the person updating the COVID information on this page, THANK YOU!!! However, the percentages that you show are, as I have said previously, COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS.
63.155.61.1 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get someone to answer my question about the % of new cases?[edit]
I would like to discuss the % that is shown in the section "COVID-19 cases in Oregon, United States (vte)" (both the # of cases % and the # of deaths %) with the author. If I am mistaken about how meaningful that number is, than please enlighten me; however, if I am correct, and the number is completely meaningless, then I feel it should be replaced with a meaningful number or a meaningful %.
Thank you for your wonderful contribution,
Jackson
63.155.51.174 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The % displayed is (newCount - oldCount) / oldCount. Dividing normalizes the result to the number of cases. This allows comparing Oregon's growth rate with California, ... and Wyoming, ... and so on. The apparent consensus across many uses of this chart is to display % when the counts get large.
We would like to display R0 in these charts. However, that is not a value we can compute from public information. Showing percentage change is a poor website's alternate.
By now, the divisor has grown too large. The vast majority of cases have reached a conclusion and are no longer infectious. A better % to display would be (newCount - oldCount) / activeCount. Alas, the number of active, potentially infectious, cases is also a number we can't compute. Even health departments can only estimate the number. At the start of the pandemic, the total count was a good proxy for the number of infectious individuals. Percent change per day was then a good indication of how fast the pandemic was growing. Remember, when unrestricted, it grows exponentially.
When the case count was very small, it was useful to show the absolute number of new cases. However, once cases exceed the number of people on your sports team, or students in a classroom, or diners in a restaurant, or coworkers in your job, then it becomes a number that isn't humanly comprehensible. It becomes just a number. Hence the switch to percent. If you wish to track the absolute numbers, those are shown lower down in the Oregon article.
Change is afoot. The amount of data in these charts will soon break Wikipedia.
One proposed change is to show the number of new cases per unit of population, often shown here as cases per 100,000 persons. EphemeralErrata (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has the image request for this article been fulfilled?[edit]
I'm seeing multiple wikiproject image requests on this talk page but the article already has images. Have these image requests been fulfilled? Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the requests until further notice. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the article size is too massive, and I have discovered that this is caused by one massive table where the 'Notes' section is filled with paragraphs of repetitive data. Is there any way on solving this? zsteve21 21:12, 23 September 2021
I've been wondering about that table as well. It's getting pretty unwieldy, especially the text-heavy column of daily deaths. Since the references contain the same information, and we're more than a year and half into the pandemic, we can stop tracking by day. Perhaps User:Billsey55 has a thought on how to tighten it up, such as rolling up by month, removing the narrative text, etc. --Esprqii (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting unwieldy, just due to the length of time we've been in the pandemic. We could stop listing the death info, which would save a lot on a daily basis, but I'd be uncomfortable removing the existing data. The numbers don't take up room, it's the sex, age and location of each death that eats the space up. We're not looking at a quick ramp down to 'normal' IMHO from here, so I'd be open to switching to just numbers in the first five fields and leaving the last two blank. We've left the doubling info off for a long time, so there's a precedence. Also, the state is getting to be slow with that data, typically I don't see it until the next day...Billsey55 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good start. Over time, we could cut down the narrative text in the older rows, such as about underlying conditions, for example. We could also consolidate the references in each row to be a single citation to the top of the column that links to all the news releases. --Esprqii (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection between the table and the graph above it? It appears the graph is prepared off-Wikipedia and uploaded as an image. As for the table, the numeric columns partially duplicate data that is also in the Medical Cases Chart. ("Every" state has a Cases Chart - which has more functionality than a table.) The counts of new cases/deaths are additional data, as they are not the delta between two day's totals. New Mexico has reporting similar to Oregon. Look at that state's article for how new cases/deaths are logged and graphed from within Wikipedia. I'd like to see the age data in the Notes column turned into a stacked bar chart. It could be grouped by decade, or for fewer gradations, perhaps 0-17, 18-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80+. This is a value add we could do that isn't WP:OR. @Stattracker24: should join this conversation - they edit similar information. EphemeralErrata (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I'm very new to Wiki.. I'm not even sure if this message will properly reach you. It seems to me, though, that a lot of how data is controlled and displayed in the graphs (and possibly linked in the reference notes) is hidden and locked down by the user that created the graph. I don't think other pages that have been updated daily have been bogged down with what we are seeing here (Texas for example). I'm not sure if it possible to find out who the creating user was, but it is probably worth reaching out to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattracker24 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you look earlier in the talk here I believe I provided a link to the spreadsheet for the graph. I believe it to be a more accurate display for the progress of the pandemic in Oregon than many of the charts published by the state. It has at time been used by some of the TV stations, but not as much since I redid the scaling for deaths. As you suggest it's a manual process to create, not automated from the chart data.Billsey55 (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
