Surrey’s COVID-19 cases from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2020. (Image: BCCDC)

Surrey’s COVID-19 cases from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 2020. (Image: BCCDC)

Surrey’s COVID-19 case count exceeds 1,800

About 800 new cases in September

The latest data from the BC Centre for Disease Control shows more than 1,800 COVID-19 cases in Surrey residents between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30.

As of Sept. 30, there have been 1,814 COVID-19 cases among Surrey residents.

That’s an 809-case jump from the 1,005 reported through to the end of August. Through to the end of July, there were just 521.

OUR VIEW: Way too many Surrey COVID-19 cases, Sept. 23, 2020

READ ALSO: More than 500 Surrey residents have been diagnosed with COVID-19, Aug. 27, 2020

The BCCDC data separates South Surrey/White Rock from the rest of Surrey.

Through to the end of September, that region has had 166 COVID-19 cases, a 74-case jump from the end of August.

As for rate of COVID-19 cases, Surrey is seeing 200-plus per 100,000.

However, daily COVID-19 testing in the province increased toward the end of September, with nearly 70,000 tests in Fraser Health in September alone.

Also in September, Fraser Health relocated its Surrey COVID-19 test and collection centre to 14577 66th Ave. from its previous location in Whalley at an urgent primary care centre.

The new location, according to the health authority, would “triple testing capacity” for up to 800 tests per day.

READ ALSO: Fraser Health relocates Surrey COVID-19 testing centre, Sept. 18, 2020

Surrey has seen the most cases in the Fraser Health region since the start of the year, followed by Abbotsford (655), Burnaby (570), Tri-Cities (420), Langley (280), Richmond (277), Delta (207), Mission (185), New Westminster (174) and Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows (159).

The only city to surpass Surrey is Vancouver with 2,407 cases in the same period.

According to notes from the data, cases are mapped by location of residences, while cases “with unknown residence and from out of province are not mapped.”

It adds that the number of cases in the Local Health Authority, “may not represent the location of exposure,” such as people who were infected while travelling or working elsewhere.

Like us on Facebook Follow us on Instagram and follow Lauren on Twitter


Pop-up banner image ×