File talk:COVID-19 pandemic cases in the Philippines.svg

Source

@Hariboneagle927: Is there a more reliable source where we could base this map on? The tweet's (initial source) accuracy is quite disputed on Twitter. Thanks! --hueman1 (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: , I afraid not, I tried looking for a more recent (and reliable) source but to no avail. The only updated source is from the Department of Health who prefers to release reports using regions as basis instead. So I replaced the map on the main article with a one showing a breakdown of confirmed and suspected cases by region for now for easy updating.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 10:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: and @Hariboneagle927: : I found one source by GMA News, but unfortunately it is a graphical map they posted on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/gmanews/photos/a.126333131976/10158334532271977/

That said map uses DOH as source. They labelled the areas by region, but in map coloring scheme they colored only provinces as opposed to regions. Only regions were also mentioned when I visited this link indicated there: https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/724166/doh-confirms-first-ncov-case-in-philippines/story/?fbclid=IwAR1pWlV7mOexkT-B5drtAa03tH-KYdbOwQO3kOeMq7rsj6So4quEmrKaE1Y JWilz12345 (留言) 03:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: Hello again, I saw this email address (ncov@doh.gov.ph) on https://ncovtracker.doh.gov.ph. Maybe we could try to contact the DOH and ask them if they could provide a province level map or at least a list of provinces that has PUIs? --hueman1 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: Good find, didn't notice the email. Maybe worth the effort to make a request.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 14:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: Are you going to write an email now? —hueman1 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: The DOH made their statistics even worse. Their latest case tracker, for the 12th of February 2020, has been minimised to just new PUIs per region. What should we do, are they supposed to be included with the "Admitted" row? And how did your email go? Thank you in advance. --hueman1 (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: The blue numbers on the latest map are the new overall figures for admitted PUIs. It seems not to include the confirmed cases anymore in the map. There's also a inconsistency with the image tracker updates with the interactive map available on the site. For example as of this posting. Metro Manila has 86 admitted PUIs while the latest image tracker release just shows 82. Also I was not able to send an email and I apologize for that. Now I've message them if they could have a province-level breakdown and reasoned that such a breakdown would make people rely less on unofficial sources to find about the PUI status of their home provinces and also gave them feedback that the previous version of the tracker was better. I'll update you if I receive a response.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: No response as of posting, I would just assumed good faith and say they get flooded from inquiries as not to affect our chances of getting a favorable response.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 10:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: What should we do now? --hueman1 (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Either we could take figures from the interactive tracker itself and not the image releases by the DOH (with new PUIs by region), downgrade the table on Wikipedia to just regions with PUIs, or scrap the map altogether.

• As for the maps. It will be easier to keep track with confirmed cases, that's why I scrapped the blue shading on by the province-level breakdown of the map (since again there is no official by-province breakdown). I don't see any foreseeable problem for updating the by-region breakdown version of the map. The only issue is keeping the suspected cases by region updated, and this has been an issue ever since. Theoretically a region solely with PUIs with discharged unconfirmed status would revert to grey but it has never happened. We could just maintain the map which shows which region "had" suspected/confirmed cases and not regions which "currently" have suspected cases and had confirmed cases. The map was meant not as a live tracker of suspected/confirmed cases.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 11:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What I noticed is the interactive tracker counts that Metro Manila confirmed cases as 2 and confirmed deaths as 1 even though that there were only two patients. The discharged status of the one confirmed case is no longer noted and suspected PUI deaths are no longer part of the tracker either.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 11:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

5th and 6th cases

The 5th and 6th cases are from Rizal province. The map needs to be updated.--Renzoy16 | (Talk) 17:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Renzoy16: I'm not sure about this, the DOH included them with Metro Manila, since they were confined in Muntinlupa. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 10:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: What should we do? —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 10:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should include marking Rizal. The two patients resides in Rizal, it was just coincidental that the cases were diagnosed in Metro Manila since most of the facilities are there. From what I have read in the news, during contact tracing, the wife is a resident and was ordered to self-quarantine (presumably in her residence at Rizal). So when she was tested and later confirmed to be infected, she was transferred to Metro Manila (my presumption and a logical guess based on the events that had happened). Further, their neighbors in Rizal were, I think, also asked to self-quarantine. Much more, the LGU became on alert upon the confirmation of the male patient.--Renzoy16 | (Talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The DOH tracker is listing the cases under Metro Manila, so we should follow how they are tracking the cases. Though still it should be noted on the main article where they are resided in.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 06:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

New areas

Please add Dumaguete and Cagayan de Oro; patient 39 and patient 40, respectively.--Renzoy16 | (Talk) 13:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please add Davao de Oro, one case positive.--Renzoy16 | (Talk) 16:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Renzoy16: The patient from Davao de Oro was confined in Davao del Norte. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Density map

@Hariboneagle927: I think we should convert this map into a density map (like most European countries with high number of confirmed cases). The DOH stopped reporting suspected cases (both provincial and regional levels) anyways. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 03:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

We could do this. Since the tracker shifted from following cases by residence, we could convert COVID-19 pandemic cases in the Philippines by residence.svg instead to a density map?Hariboneagle927 (留言) 07:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: Thank you for updating the map but what are your plans for File:COVID-19 pandemic cases in the Philippines by residence.svg? Now it's quite redundant from the main map. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 16:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: , your welcome. As you noted its now redundant. Probably, I'll have the map file on standby just in case the tracker changes again how they track confirmed cases and have the file deleted after the pandemic is over.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 16:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: What do you think about File:March 2020 Philippine COVID-19 Testing Centers - for Wiki.png? Do you think we need to replace it with an SVG version? Because I kinda want to replace it IMO. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1: , We could. An SVG version would be easier to update since the uploader of the file is the only one with access to the workable file (assuming they kept it). Or alternatively we could just use Location map template to plot the testing facilities.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 16:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: The location map template would be better. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 16:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: I'll do it. —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 17:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Zamboanga del Sur

@Hariboneagle927: Isn't inconsistent to map Zamboanga del Sur in a provincial map without Zamboanga City? —hueman1 (talk • uploads) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Though in the case of Zamboanga City, aside from being separate from Zamboanga del Sur physically, although they are sometimes lumped together for statistically. It is independent administratively and historically to the province.

Though my concern is coloring Zamboanga City and Zamboanga del Sur as one may be more consistent it looks "weird" for the lack of better word. Also it may misrepresent the situation in "non-Zamboanga City" parts of the province than it is

Notes could fix this issue. Though I made a separate map including HUCs and ICCs we could use that instead. Hariboneagle927 (留言) 13:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@HueMan1:  完成 Resolved the issue already by reverting the coloring (as weird the map may look like), by tweaking the notes. Thanks for pointing this out.Hariboneagle927 (留言) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Improvement of colors for better accessibility

The single hue colors used in the image were useful in the early stages of the pandemic. However, these single-hue colors have become hardly distinguishable due to the rise of cases in each province, rendering the image not very useful. Perhaps using analogous colors will help instead of using only one hue with different shades? Something like:

•      50–499 confirmed
•      50–499 confirmed
•      500–4999 confirmed
•      5000–99999 confirmed
•      >100000 confirmed

—Sanglahi86 (留言) 15:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)