Today, the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit (SMDHU) reported four new COVID-19 cases in Huntsville: a 35-44 year-old female whose infection is under investigation; and three people whose infections are from close contact with a confirmed case—two 65-79 year-old females and one 65-79 year-old male.
One Huntsville case is now reported as being in hospital.
There have now been ten COVID-19 cases reported for Huntsville this month. One is under investigation, two are outbreak-related, four are close contacts of a confirmed case, and three are community acquired, which by the health unit’s definition means, “a sporadic case in an individual where most likely the acquisition of illness is from somewhere within the community but not associated with a community outbreak [and excluding] transmission due to travel and due to close contact with a known case”.
Of the 64 confirmed COVID-19 cases in Huntsville to date, eight are active and one is in hospital in Huntsville. Two people have died from the disease in Huntsville, as well as a third person in Muskoka Lakes.
There have been 21 COVID-19 cases in Huntsville since Jan. 1. Just over half of Huntsville’s cases to date (36) have occurred since December 1, 2020. In Lake of Bays, there have been six cases in total, all of which are resolved.
There have been a total of 210 cases reported in Muskoka to date (21 of them currently active) and 6,032 in Simcoe County (578 active). (For a full list of Huntsville and Lake of Bays cases to date, and other COVID-19 updates for the area, visit our COVID-19 page.)
Simcoe Muskoka entered the province’s Red-Control zone last Tuesday.
For more COVID-19 information from the health unit, visit simcoemuskokahealth.org.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Hi Brian,
The definition of community acquired in plain English means they’ve ruled out other possibilities involving confirmed cases and don’t know where the person was infected.
As for location, it’s where the person is recovering. That could be their home, another residence, a hospital etc. As an example, if a hospitalized COVID case who is a resident of Huntsville is transferred to RVH, the health unit will count that case in Barrie, not Huntsville.
Well, if someone wants to try to better explain what the Health unit is trying to say with this definition it might be helpful if they put it in a second set of words. The way it is now it sure does not enlighten us much.
“a sporadic case in an individual where most likely the acquisition of illness is from somewhere within the community but not associated with a community outbreak [and excluding] transmission due to travel and due to close contact with a known case”.
Here is a question that I’m curious about too.
When a case is reported is the location given
(1) the location where they think the transmission occurred?
or (as I have been told by some)
(2) the location of the primary residence where the person who caught the virus lives?
In case (1) the information would be useful in helping define a location where it would be wise to be more careful.
In case (2) the information is essentially useless to most of us that might wish to stay in a safer condition.
As an example, if a person from Huntsville caught the virus in say, Barrie or North Bay, would they report the case as being in Huntsville, Barrie or North Bay? I wonder?
In the second case it is relatively meaningless data