COVID-19: Aylmer numbers jump again, masks required as of Friday


**updated to reflect new information on masks**

Aylmer continues its sharp rise in COVID-19 cases, jumping from 15 on Wednesday to 23 on Thursday, July 30. Aylmer alone makes up half the total COVID-19 cases in the Southwestern Public Health (SPH) region (Elgin-St.Thomas-Oxford). Aylmer has nearly as many as all of London-Middlesex (27), which has instituted face-covering rules in public places. In mid-July, Elgin-St. Thomas had zero cases.

Earlier today, likely in response to the increases, SPH announced starting tomorrow, face-coverings would be mandatory in all enclosed public places.

The 14 new cases in the SPH region (Elgin-St. Thomas-Oxford) make up 16% of the 89 new cases in the province.

Bayham continues to report 6 cases, St. Thomas is down by 1 case to 4. Central Elgin also has 1 ongoing case.

In Oxford County, also covered by SPH, there are 7 cases in Tillsonburg and 4 in Norwich.

Of the 34 health units in the province, 28 are reporting five or fewer cases, with 17 reporting no new cases.

The numbers paint only a small part of the picture – If you or someone you know has had COVID-19 and would like to share your experiences (good, bad, neutral), please contact us by calling 519-773-3126 or email

  • Ron Bell

    Why did it take so long for Southwest Public Health to mandate masks? Are we going to become the new provincial hotspot? Going back to stage 2 would not be a good thing. At least now I will not have to go to London ro do my shopping.

    • Li McKenzie

      Great question! Various family members in St. Thomas messaged the Health Unit over the past several weeks before the outbreak asking why no mask mandate. The reply was basically that they were considering it. We had been alarmed to see the numbers of people shopping in St. Thomas without masks and not observing social distancing. We too all made the decision last week to do our shopping in London. Relieved that the decision was finally made. Disappointed the decision was reactive rather than proactive.