This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | 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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe was split to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Belgium on 2 March 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
The quoted pages on www.info-coronavirus.be are available in Netherlands, French and English. As this pages is intended for native English speakers, the politeness would be to quote pages in that language when they are available. For example, https://www.info-coronavirus.be/en/news is better here than https://www.info-coronavirus.be/nl/news/ even if there is a delay for the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpilotte ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
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) 17:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
According to these sources: COVID-19 - EPIDEMIOLOGISCH BULLETIN NL and COVID-19 - BULLETIN EPIDEMIOLOGIQUE FR the graph 'Confirmed deaths per day in Belgium' is not correct. What is the cause? Where the reported statistics in the past wrong and is this corrected by governement afterwards? Or what is the source of the current graph? -- PJ Geest ( talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Concerning these two sources: COVID-19 - EPIDEMIOLOGISCH BULLETIN NL and COVID-19 - BULLETIN EPIDEMIOLOGIQUE FR.
I would like to have the raw numbers on the first graph on page 3. I would also like to now if the IC numbers are the amount of current IC cases. I.e. if they are corrected for people who got out of IC.
Using this data I want to construct two graphs: - Amount of current patients in IC per day. I believe this is a better reflection of the current hit our healthcare system is taking. - Amount of new patients in IC per day. I believe this is a better reflection of the total amount of people infected. As you would expect a certain percentage of people infected to be hit hard enough to be held in IC.
I believe these two graphs would be better indicators than the amount of confirmed cases, as these numbers highly depend on how much and whom the government is testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydr ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that it does not make any sense present the forecast over 1 month (using a logistic fit) without also including the uncertainties in the forecast which are likely to be very large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.237.223 ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I still find it odd that we can only get the data from 1 day before. Meaning that if you didn't save a bulletin, you lack datapoints. So if anyone has the bulletins saved over the course of a few weeks, I would very much like to get them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydr ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Historical PDF now available as on the French and Dutch page from march 14th onward :
https://epidemio.wiv-isp.be/ID/Pages/2019-nCoV_epidemiological_situation.aspx — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.26.3.225 (
talk)
12:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There is also a graph showing a logistic fit on the daily numbers (daily new deaths, daily hospitalized). This doesn't make sense to me. A logistic model can only be used on the totals. Since the logistic model trends towards a certain number, we can't expect to keep having 80 deaths per day due to Covid-19... For the initial phase, logistic growth is just exponential, and you can indeed fit both stats with exponential functions (as the derivative or the integral of an exponential is again an exponential). But once you get into the flattening part of the logistic function, the derivative becomes quite different.
Sanderd17 (
talk)
10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
What is definition ? Total people hospitalized over time or at a specific day ? Figures seems to be mixture of both. Or did you copy the wrong text on the summary part of the bulletin of today ? The line on page 3 is the correct one!!
regards, theo
A similar problem is the "total" column under ICU. The report contains the number of ICU beds occupied on a given day. Adding them up gives no meaningful figure, as some people occupied a bed for 2 weeks...The day load has to be compared with the number of ICU beds available, to give an idea of the pressure on the health system.
From 31 March Sciensano started to make a set of raw data available, on a daily basis just like the daily reports. Those are the up-to-date data used by Sciensano to study "the dynamics of the epidemic, help to anticipate different scenarios and to elaborate possible measures to curb the spread of the virus" (their words). The shared data are kinda rich and present all the numbers (cases, hospitalisations, deaths, etc.) by actual dates and not report dates, e.g.: the actual date of death and not the date on which the death was reported to Sciensano. Many "numbers" are actually reported with delay as it is explained in the daily reports. Sciensano make the retrospective consolidation and work with the actual dates. They obviously follow the development of the COVID-19 in Belgium based on those actual dates; all the charts in their daily reports are made with the actual dates. In fact, as disconcerting as it can be, the "new" numbers presented in the daily reports do not mean a lot, especially for new cases and new deaths which are mostly reported with delays. Numbers regarding hospitalisations are more reliable bc there is less delay (less retrospective consolidation) but actual dates mostly are just the day before it was reported by Sciensano, as well as all cumulated totals. Given the above, I started to make graphs similar to the ones Sciensano present, considering the actual dates of cases. Now, the question is: Should we keep going with graphs made with dates of reports, and what would be the point? Jrm7 ( talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
To little fanfare, Sciensano released their numbers and a beautiful interactive dashboard. Spreading the word so that we don't have to keep using those awful PDFs.
Adys ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I heard that Belgium changed the strategy concerning the numbers of covid19-dead a few days ago, sorry, that my English is not good enough to explain it. Before, a lot of dead are counted, even without positive test, different from other countries, but they changed that, the numbers have slowed down the last days, I did not find it mentioned in the article, does anyone have a source for that? -- 188.97.169.53 ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
>Death statistics did not change, be were refined. I added new section around this criticims: [ [1]] -- Sanderd17 ( talk) 08:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The timeline section is not encyclopedic to me. If it's just an enumeration of deaths, it belongs in the statistics part. In my opinion, the timeline and government response can be merged/rewritten. It can still be in a chronological order, where the governement and public responses are a result of the evolution of the number of cases and the mortality.
It could be split in a few phases, each mentioning their general evolution in cases/deaths, combined with what governmental actions were taken as a response, and how the numbers changed. E.g. the following structure could be used:
-- Sanderd17 ( talk) 07:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, little problem with the total numbers! Hospitalized: 15.000 Discharged: 12.000 Remaining in hospital: 3.000 Right and checked! ... but also Died in hospital: 3.500? Did they die just before entering or just after leaving, but already/still in the hospital? :D (sorry not able to sign, forgot password 62.235.80.118 ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It is stated that most other countries only count deaths occurring in hospitals. This may have been true at one time, but I'm not sure it is true now (8 May). The UK and France both now count deaths occurring in care homes as well as hospitals. This resulted in a large increase in both countries' death totals, though they are still below Belgium in proportion to population. I believe some other European countries do the same. 31.48.173.36 ( talk) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
"between 5 March and 5 April, Belgium reported 2,373 COVID-19 deaths with the excess mortality being estimated around 3,000. Causing still an underreporting of around 600 deaths. While the neighbouring Netherlands had an estimated excess mortality of 6,200, with 3,197 reported COVID-19 deaths in that same period. Causing an underreporting of around 3000 deaths." There are some problems with this phrasing. Primarily, terming the difference between excess mortality and reported COVID-19 deaths *underreporting* presumes that all excess mortality is due to COVID-19, which is not a reasonable assumption. I suggest to remove the two short sentences that refer to the difference as underreporting. 109.136.43.186 ( talk) 10:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
if we are on correlations, world comparison? Wikistallion ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the % positive tests keeps dropping and dropping, and I noticed that it is not representing what I think it is representing.
Here it calculates new cases / total tests. Shouldn't this be new cases / new tests? I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to edit if I'm not correct, but I'm pretty sure this is calculated wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.151.31 ( talk) 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Mortality peak was two days earlier on 10th of April. Just look at the figures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.85.156 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the overall death count for January 1st to end of May? How does this figure compare to the last years, especially 2018? Did 2020 had more deaths than 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.196.140 ( talk) 08:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ibisbird,
why don't you name your sources for your sentences ?
I have changed it and added two sources. -- Neun-x ( talk) 19:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Please take part in discussion here: Project COVID-19, Medical cases charts - change type — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohraa Mondel ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Fresh insights on the situation in this country; see the final sections especially. AND NOTE THIS Belgium has the second-highest rate of infection in Europe behind the Czech Republic. That indicates that the high death rate is understandable. https://dispatcheseurope.com/expat-essentials-dispatches-complete-guide-to-pandemic-rules-restrictions-across-europe/ AND see https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Belgium has the dismal distinction of having the highest rate of deaths per million of population – 1,565 as of 15 December – in the world and more than 18,000 deaths since the pandemic began. https://dispatcheseurope.com/expat-essentials-dispatches-complete-guide-to-pandemic-rules-restrictions-across-europe/ AND also see https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Why such a high death rate? Although it is hard to fully explain the different death rates among countries, certain explanations have been put forward more than others. Indeed, as COVID-19 casualties are higher in older patients, countries could face different death tolls due to the different age structures of their population. For instance, 70 percent of deaths in the Netherlands occurred in people aged over 70, and 51 percent of deaths in Belgium occurred in nursing homes. However, in 2020, the Belgian population was not particularly old, especially when compared to countries such as Germany or Japan. Therefore, experts are considering further reasons to fathom such a high death rate.
Other explanations As of December, over one million people have been tested positive for the coronavirus in the Benelux, from which 609 thousand in Belgium and 628 thousand in the Netherlands. These numbers solely reflect confirmed and diagnosed cases and not the entire number of sick or infected people. Indeed, numbers depend on the logistic capacity for testing, which can vary from one country to another. The accurate number of Sarscov2 infected people is, therefore, unknown. Meanwhile, the number of deaths due to the virus relies on this unknown number. Moreover, some deaths are not accounted for in the death tolls because not all deaths have been officially linked to the coronavirus. For instance, in France or Italy, COVID-19 death tolls solely include tested casualties while untested deaths are not systematically considered. In Belgium, however, suspected cases are accounted for in the death toll, regardless of the person having been tested or not. HOW GREAT IS THE OVER-REPORTING???? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107558/coronavirus-death-casualties-in-netherlands-belgium-luxemburg-benelux/ Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, is that relevant for the article? I assume there are much more 'critical' installations that got a high number of infections at a certain moment in time ... SpamHunters ( talk) 14:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is it possible to have frequent updates ???? It is not updated since December 8, contrary to all big countries where it is updated every day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks. 2A02:A03F:C07D:C200:F8CF:1C7E:42BC:B60C ( talk) 11:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | 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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe was split to 2020 coronavirus outbreak in Belgium on 2 March 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:2020 coronavirus outbreak in Europe. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
![]() |
|
The quoted pages on www.info-coronavirus.be are available in Netherlands, French and English. As this pages is intended for native English speakers, the politeness would be to quote pages in that language when they are available. For example, https://www.info-coronavirus.be/en/news is better here than https://www.info-coronavirus.be/nl/news/ even if there is a delay for the English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpilotte ( talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
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) 17:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
According to these sources: COVID-19 - EPIDEMIOLOGISCH BULLETIN NL and COVID-19 - BULLETIN EPIDEMIOLOGIQUE FR the graph 'Confirmed deaths per day in Belgium' is not correct. What is the cause? Where the reported statistics in the past wrong and is this corrected by governement afterwards? Or what is the source of the current graph? -- PJ Geest ( talk) 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Concerning these two sources: COVID-19 - EPIDEMIOLOGISCH BULLETIN NL and COVID-19 - BULLETIN EPIDEMIOLOGIQUE FR.
I would like to have the raw numbers on the first graph on page 3. I would also like to now if the IC numbers are the amount of current IC cases. I.e. if they are corrected for people who got out of IC.
Using this data I want to construct two graphs: - Amount of current patients in IC per day. I believe this is a better reflection of the current hit our healthcare system is taking. - Amount of new patients in IC per day. I believe this is a better reflection of the total amount of people infected. As you would expect a certain percentage of people infected to be hit hard enough to be held in IC.
I believe these two graphs would be better indicators than the amount of confirmed cases, as these numbers highly depend on how much and whom the government is testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydr ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that it does not make any sense present the forecast over 1 month (using a logistic fit) without also including the uncertainties in the forecast which are likely to be very large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.237.223 ( talk) 13:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I still find it odd that we can only get the data from 1 day before. Meaning that if you didn't save a bulletin, you lack datapoints. So if anyone has the bulletins saved over the course of a few weeks, I would very much like to get them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreydr ( talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Historical PDF now available as on the French and Dutch page from march 14th onward :
https://epidemio.wiv-isp.be/ID/Pages/2019-nCoV_epidemiological_situation.aspx — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.26.3.225 (
talk)
12:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There is also a graph showing a logistic fit on the daily numbers (daily new deaths, daily hospitalized). This doesn't make sense to me. A logistic model can only be used on the totals. Since the logistic model trends towards a certain number, we can't expect to keep having 80 deaths per day due to Covid-19... For the initial phase, logistic growth is just exponential, and you can indeed fit both stats with exponential functions (as the derivative or the integral of an exponential is again an exponential). But once you get into the flattening part of the logistic function, the derivative becomes quite different.
Sanderd17 (
talk)
10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
What is definition ? Total people hospitalized over time or at a specific day ? Figures seems to be mixture of both. Or did you copy the wrong text on the summary part of the bulletin of today ? The line on page 3 is the correct one!!
regards, theo
A similar problem is the "total" column under ICU. The report contains the number of ICU beds occupied on a given day. Adding them up gives no meaningful figure, as some people occupied a bed for 2 weeks...The day load has to be compared with the number of ICU beds available, to give an idea of the pressure on the health system.
From 31 March Sciensano started to make a set of raw data available, on a daily basis just like the daily reports. Those are the up-to-date data used by Sciensano to study "the dynamics of the epidemic, help to anticipate different scenarios and to elaborate possible measures to curb the spread of the virus" (their words). The shared data are kinda rich and present all the numbers (cases, hospitalisations, deaths, etc.) by actual dates and not report dates, e.g.: the actual date of death and not the date on which the death was reported to Sciensano. Many "numbers" are actually reported with delay as it is explained in the daily reports. Sciensano make the retrospective consolidation and work with the actual dates. They obviously follow the development of the COVID-19 in Belgium based on those actual dates; all the charts in their daily reports are made with the actual dates. In fact, as disconcerting as it can be, the "new" numbers presented in the daily reports do not mean a lot, especially for new cases and new deaths which are mostly reported with delays. Numbers regarding hospitalisations are more reliable bc there is less delay (less retrospective consolidation) but actual dates mostly are just the day before it was reported by Sciensano, as well as all cumulated totals. Given the above, I started to make graphs similar to the ones Sciensano present, considering the actual dates of cases. Now, the question is: Should we keep going with graphs made with dates of reports, and what would be the point? Jrm7 ( talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
To little fanfare, Sciensano released their numbers and a beautiful interactive dashboard. Spreading the word so that we don't have to keep using those awful PDFs.
Adys ( talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I heard that Belgium changed the strategy concerning the numbers of covid19-dead a few days ago, sorry, that my English is not good enough to explain it. Before, a lot of dead are counted, even without positive test, different from other countries, but they changed that, the numbers have slowed down the last days, I did not find it mentioned in the article, does anyone have a source for that? -- 188.97.169.53 ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
>Death statistics did not change, be were refined. I added new section around this criticims: [ [1]] -- Sanderd17 ( talk) 08:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The timeline section is not encyclopedic to me. If it's just an enumeration of deaths, it belongs in the statistics part. In my opinion, the timeline and government response can be merged/rewritten. It can still be in a chronological order, where the governement and public responses are a result of the evolution of the number of cases and the mortality.
It could be split in a few phases, each mentioning their general evolution in cases/deaths, combined with what governmental actions were taken as a response, and how the numbers changed. E.g. the following structure could be used:
-- Sanderd17 ( talk) 07:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, little problem with the total numbers! Hospitalized: 15.000 Discharged: 12.000 Remaining in hospital: 3.000 Right and checked! ... but also Died in hospital: 3.500? Did they die just before entering or just after leaving, but already/still in the hospital? :D (sorry not able to sign, forgot password 62.235.80.118 ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
It is stated that most other countries only count deaths occurring in hospitals. This may have been true at one time, but I'm not sure it is true now (8 May). The UK and France both now count deaths occurring in care homes as well as hospitals. This resulted in a large increase in both countries' death totals, though they are still below Belgium in proportion to population. I believe some other European countries do the same. 31.48.173.36 ( talk) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
"between 5 March and 5 April, Belgium reported 2,373 COVID-19 deaths with the excess mortality being estimated around 3,000. Causing still an underreporting of around 600 deaths. While the neighbouring Netherlands had an estimated excess mortality of 6,200, with 3,197 reported COVID-19 deaths in that same period. Causing an underreporting of around 3000 deaths." There are some problems with this phrasing. Primarily, terming the difference between excess mortality and reported COVID-19 deaths *underreporting* presumes that all excess mortality is due to COVID-19, which is not a reasonable assumption. I suggest to remove the two short sentences that refer to the difference as underreporting. 109.136.43.186 ( talk) 10:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
if we are on correlations, world comparison? Wikistallion ( talk) 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the % positive tests keeps dropping and dropping, and I noticed that it is not representing what I think it is representing.
Here it calculates new cases / total tests. Shouldn't this be new cases / new tests? I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to edit if I'm not correct, but I'm pretty sure this is calculated wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.110.151.31 ( talk) 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Mortality peak was two days earlier on 10th of April. Just look at the figures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.85.156 ( talk) 07:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the overall death count for January 1st to end of May? How does this figure compare to the last years, especially 2018? Did 2020 had more deaths than 2018? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.196.140 ( talk) 08:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ibisbird,
why don't you name your sources for your sentences ?
I have changed it and added two sources. -- Neun-x ( talk) 19:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Please take part in discussion here: Project COVID-19, Medical cases charts - change type — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohraa Mondel ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Fresh insights on the situation in this country; see the final sections especially. AND NOTE THIS Belgium has the second-highest rate of infection in Europe behind the Czech Republic. That indicates that the high death rate is understandable. https://dispatcheseurope.com/expat-essentials-dispatches-complete-guide-to-pandemic-rules-restrictions-across-europe/ AND see https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Belgium has the dismal distinction of having the highest rate of deaths per million of population – 1,565 as of 15 December – in the world and more than 18,000 deaths since the pandemic began. https://dispatcheseurope.com/expat-essentials-dispatches-complete-guide-to-pandemic-rules-restrictions-across-europe/ AND also see https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-maps-and-cases/
Why such a high death rate? Although it is hard to fully explain the different death rates among countries, certain explanations have been put forward more than others. Indeed, as COVID-19 casualties are higher in older patients, countries could face different death tolls due to the different age structures of their population. For instance, 70 percent of deaths in the Netherlands occurred in people aged over 70, and 51 percent of deaths in Belgium occurred in nursing homes. However, in 2020, the Belgian population was not particularly old, especially when compared to countries such as Germany or Japan. Therefore, experts are considering further reasons to fathom such a high death rate.
Other explanations As of December, over one million people have been tested positive for the coronavirus in the Benelux, from which 609 thousand in Belgium and 628 thousand in the Netherlands. These numbers solely reflect confirmed and diagnosed cases and not the entire number of sick or infected people. Indeed, numbers depend on the logistic capacity for testing, which can vary from one country to another. The accurate number of Sarscov2 infected people is, therefore, unknown. Meanwhile, the number of deaths due to the virus relies on this unknown number. Moreover, some deaths are not accounted for in the death tolls because not all deaths have been officially linked to the coronavirus. For instance, in France or Italy, COVID-19 death tolls solely include tested casualties while untested deaths are not systematically considered. In Belgium, however, suspected cases are accounted for in the death toll, regardless of the person having been tested or not. HOW GREAT IS THE OVER-REPORTING???? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107558/coronavirus-death-casualties-in-netherlands-belgium-luxemburg-benelux/ Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, is that relevant for the article? I assume there are much more 'critical' installations that got a high number of infections at a certain moment in time ... SpamHunters ( talk) 14:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is it possible to have frequent updates ???? It is not updated since December 8, contrary to all big countries where it is updated every day !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks. 2A02:A03F:C07D:C200:F8CF:1C7E:42BC:B60C ( talk) 11:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)