As of April 26, 2023, the number of both confirmed and presumptive positive cases of the COVID-19 disease reported in the United States had reached over 104 million with over 1.1 million deaths reported among these cases.

Coronavirus deaths by age in the U.S. Daily new cases of COVID-19 hit record highs in the United States at the beginning of 2022. Underlying health conditions can worsen cases of coronavirus, and case fatality rates among confirmed COVID-19 patients increase with age. The highest number of deaths from COVID-19 have been among those aged 85 years and older, with this age group accounting for over 300 thousand deaths.

Where has this coronavirus come from? Coronaviruses are a large group of viruses transmitted between animals and people that cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases. The novel coronavirus that is currently infecting humans was already circulating among certain animal species. The first human case of this new coronavirus strain was reported in China at the end of December 2019. The coronavirus was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and its associated disease is known as COVID-19.

Effective September 27, 2023, this dataset will no longer be updated. Similar data are accessible from wonder.cdc.gov. Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19, beyond the number of deaths that are directly attributed to COVID-19. Excess deaths are typically defined as the difference between observed numbers of deaths and expected numbers. This visualization provides weekly data on excess deaths by jurisdiction of occurrence. Counts of deaths in more recent weeks are compared with historical trends to determine whether the number of deaths is significantly higher than expected. Estimates of excess deaths can be calculated in a variety of ways, and will vary depending on the methodology and assumptions about how many deaths are expected to occur. Estimates of excess deaths presented in this webpage were calculated using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and the upper bound of the 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) of these expected counts is used as a threshold to estimate excess deaths. Observed counts are compared to these upper bound estimates to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Provisional counts are weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks. However, data for the most recent week(s) are still likely to be incomplete. Only about 60% of deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, and there is considerable variation by jurisdiction. More detail about the methods, weighting, data, and limitations can be found in the Technical Notes.

As of March 10, 2023, there have been 1.1 million deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States. There have been 101,159 deaths in the state of California, more than any other state in the country – California is also the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

The vaccine rollout in the U.S. Since the start of the pandemic, the world has eagerly awaited the arrival of a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. In the United States, the immunization campaign started in mid-December 2020 following the approval of a vaccine jointly developed by Pfizer and BioNTech. As of March 22, 2023, the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. had reached roughly 673 million. The states with the highest number of vaccines administered are California, Texas, and New York.

Vaccines achieved due to work of research groups Chinese authorities initially shared the genetic sequence to the novel coronavirus in January 2020, allowing research groups to start studying how it invades human cells. The surface of the virus is covered with spike proteins, which enable it to bind to human cells. Once attached, the virus can enter the cells and start to make people ill. These spikes were of particular interest to vaccine manufacturers because they hold the key to preventing viral entry.

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only. Only Chicago residents are included based on the home ZIP Code as provided by the medical provider. If a ZIP was missing or was not valid, it is displayed as "Unknown". Cases with a positive molecular (PCR) or antigen test are included in this dataset. Cases are counted based on the week the test specimen was collected. For privacy reasons, until a ZIP Code reaches five cumulative cases, both the weekly and cumulative case counts will be blank. Therefore, summing the “Cases - Weekly” column is not a reliable way to determine case totals. Deaths are those that have occurred among cases based on the week of death. For tests, each test is counted once, based on the week the test specimen was collected. Tests performed prior to 3/1/2020 are not included. Test counts include multiple tests for the same person (a change made on 10/29/2020). PCR and antigen tests reported to Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) through electronic lab reporting are included. Electronic lab reporting has taken time to onboard and testing availability has shifted over time, so these counts are likely an underestimate of community infection. The “Percent Tested Positive” columns are calculated by dividing the number of positive tests by the number of total tests . Because of the data limitations for the Tests columns, such as persons being tested multiple times as a requirement for employment, these percentages may vary in either direction from the actual disease prevalence in the ZIP Code. All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received. To compare ZIP Codes to Chicago Community Areas, please see http://data.cmap.illinois.gov/opendata/uploads/CKAN/NONCENSUS/ADMINISTRATIVE_POLITICAL_BOUNDARIES/CCAzip.pdf. Both ZIP Codes and Community Areas are also geographic datasets on this data portal. Data Source: Illinois National Electronic Disease Surveillance System, Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, Illinois Vital Records, American Community Survey (2018)

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since late January, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

A. SUMMARY This dataset shows San Francisco COVID-19 deaths by population characteristics. This data may not be immediately available for recently reported deaths. Data updates as more information becomes available. Because of this, death totals may increase or decrease. Population characteristics are subgroups, or demographic cross-sections, like age, race, or gender. The City tracks how deaths have been distributed among different subgroups. This information can reveal trends and disparities among groups. B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED As of January 1, 2023, COVID-19 deaths are defined as persons who had COVID-19 listed as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to their death on their death certificate. This definition is in alignment with the California Department of Public Health and the national Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Death certificates are maintained by the California Department of Public Health. Data on the population characteristics of COVID-19 deaths are from: *Case reports *Medical records *Electronic lab reports *Death certificates Data are continually updated to maximize completeness of information and reporting on San Francisco COVID-19 deaths. To protect resident privacy, we summarize COVID-19 data by only one population characteristic at a time. Data are not shown until cumulative citywide deaths reach five or more. Data notes on select population characteristic types are listed below. Race/ethnicity * We include all race/ethnicity categories that are collected for COVID-19 cases. Gender * The City collects information on gender identity using these guidelines. C. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 06:30 and 07:30 AM Pacific Time on Wednesday each week. Dataset will not update on the business day following any federal holiday. D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET Population estimates are only available for age groups and race/ethnicity categories. San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity and age groups can be found in a dataset based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset.These population estimates are from the 2018-2022 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). This dataset includes several characteristic types. Filter the “Characteristic Type” column to explore a topic area. Then, the “Characteristic Group” column shows each group or category within that topic area and the number of cumulative deaths. Cumulative deaths are the running total of all San Francisco COVID-19 deaths in that characteristic group up to the date listed. To explore data on the total number of deaths, use the COVID-19 Deaths Over Time dataset. E. CHANGE LOG

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

Detroit-specific ZIP code populations, along with their cumulative COVID case counts, deaths, and rates. Data provided by Detroit Health Department. The public-facing COVID Cases Dashboard is hosted at: detroitmi.gov/healthUPDATE* July 29 2021:The underlying calculation for disease date was updated to allow for individuals to appear on the curve in multiple locations if they experienced more than one case of COVID-19 that was at least 90 days apart.Geospatial information analysis was also improved and additional criterial for address clean up were implemented, which leads to more accurate case counts within Zip Codes. Some unverified addresses that may have appeared in previous Zip Code counts are now excluded.This change discourages direct comparison of dashboard visualizations and counts prior to the new calculation, and non-significant shifts in numbers will be noticed.Case numbers represent Detroit residents only. Some ZIP codes with very low case counts are excluded to protect privacy. Case counts are totals per ZIP code and are not adjusted for population. ZIP code totals are preliminary; addresses are updated as new information becomes available and counts are subject to change. Not all cases have an accurate location; only cases with a known ZIP code are represented. Where a ZIP code is split between cities, only the Detroit portion is shown (48203, 48211, 48212, 48236, 48239). The counts exclude cases among prisoners at the Wayne County Jail and known hospital or laboratory locations.ZIP_Code: The USPS ZIP postal code Clipped_ZIP_Population: The 2010 population of the ZIP code, clipped to include Detroit City residents only.ZIP_Case_Count: The current cumulative count of Confirmed COVID cases within the ZIP code, since the beginning of the pandemic. (Have a "Confimed" case status in MDSS)ZIP_Death_Count: The current cumulative count of Confirmed COVID cases within the ZIP code, since the beginning of the pandemic. (Have a "Confimed" case status in MDSS and are deceased)ZIP_Case_Rate: Rate of confirmed cases per 100 thousand residents in the ZIP code. For each zip, the rate was calculated by (C/P)*100000 C = the count of confirmed (MDSS case status = Confirmed) cases with a resident address in the ZIP code P = the population count of the ZIP codeZIP_Death_Rate: Rate of confirmed cases that were marked deceased, per 100 thousand residents in the ZIP code. For each zip, the rate was calculated by (D/P)*100000 D = the count of confirmed (MDSS case status = Confirmed) cases marked as deceased, with a resident address in the ZIP P = the population count of the ZIP code

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries

Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

• Filter cases by state here

• Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

• Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

• Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

• Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

• Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

• This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website.
• In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules.
• In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county"
• This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members.
• Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
• Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey.
• The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories -- from Large Central Metro to Non-Core -- according to population and other characteristics. More details about the classifications can be found here.

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

Understanding Global Excess Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from The Economist Data

The COVID-19 pandemic has left an indelible mark on societies worldwide, not only through its direct impact on health but also through its ripple effects on various aspects of life. As we strive to comprehend the full extent of its toll, one crucial metric that emerges is excess deaths – a measure encompassing not only confirmed COVID-19 fatalities but also those indirectly caused by the pandemic. In this discourse, we delve into the comprehensive dataset provided by The Economist and processed by Our World in Data, shedding light on the central estimates and uncertainty intervals of global excess deaths.

The dataset, meticulously compiled and analyzed by The Economist, serves as a cornerstone for understanding the broader implications of the pandemic beyond official death counts. This invaluable resource, available for public scrutiny and further research, offers insights into the nuanced dynamics of excess mortality across different regions and timeframes.

Central to our exploration are the central estimates provided by The Economist, representing the best approximation of excess deaths attributable to the pandemic. These figures, derived through rigorous statistical methodologies, provide a foundational understanding of the pandemic's impact on mortality rates globally. By accounting for excess deaths beyond what would typically be expected, these estimates paint a clearer picture of the true toll of COVID-19.

Accompanying these central estimates are uncertainty intervals, reflecting the range within which the true value of excess deaths is likely to fall. As with any statistical analysis, uncertainties abound, stemming from various factors such as data collection methods, reporting inconsistencies, and the inherent complexity of modeling excess mortality. Acknowledging these uncertainties is paramount in interpreting the data accurately and avoiding overgeneralizations or misinterpretations.

Delving deeper into the dataset, it becomes evident that the magnitude of excess deaths varies significantly across different regions and time periods. Factors such as healthcare infrastructure, socio-economic disparities, and the stringency of public health measures exert profound influences on mortality outcomes. By dissecting these variations, policymakers and public health experts can glean invaluable insights to inform targeted interventions and mitigate future crises.

Moreover, the dataset underscores the interconnectedness of global health, highlighting how the impact of the pandemic transcends geographical boundaries. As nations grapple with containing the spread of the virus within their borders, the ripple effects of excess mortality reverberate across the international community. This interconnectedness underscores the importance of collective action and solidarity in addressing not only the immediate challenges posed by the pandemic but also the long-term ramifications on global health security.

It is essential to note that behind every data point lies a human story – a life lost, a family shattered, a community grieving. Amidst the statistical analyses and epidemiological models, it is imperative not to lose sight of the human dimension of the pandemic. Each excess death represents more than just a number; it embodies a profound loss and underscores the urgency of concerted efforts to prevent further tragedies.

In conclusion, the dataset provided by The Economist and processed by Our World in Data offers a comprehensive lens through which to understand the complexities of excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. By interrogating the central estimates and uncertainty intervals, we gain critical insights into the multifaceted dimensions of the pandemic's impact on global mortality rates. Moving forward, leveraging these insights to inform evidence-based policies and interventions is paramount in mitigating the ongoing crisis and building resilient health systems for the future.

This dataset contains counts of COVID-19 deaths by race by county. Suppression applies for quantities less than 5.

Data only includes information reported to EDRS, the Electronic Death Reporting System.

This dataset contains counts of COVID-19 deaths by age by county. Suppression applies for quantities less than 5.

Data only includes information reported to EDRS, the Electronic Death Reporting System.

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Accountability for global health issues such as a pandemic and its devastating consequences are usually ascribed to a virus, but a comprehensive view should also take into account the state of the host. Data suggests that excessive nutrition is to blame for a yet unknown but not negligible portion of deaths attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We analyzed the correlation between mean body mass index (BMI) and 2-year coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mortality rates reported by 181 countries worldwide. Almost two thirds of the countries included had a mean BMI greater or equal to 25, with death rates ranging from 3 to 6,280 per million. Death rates in countries with a mean BMI below 25 ranged from 3 to 1,533. When the analysis was restricted to countries where the extent of testing was deemed more representative of actual mortality, only 20.1% had a mean BMI

The monthly excess mortality indicator is based on the exceptional data collection on weekly deaths that Eurostat and the National Statistical Institutes set up, in April 2020, in order to support the policy and research efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic. With that data collection, Eurostat's target was to provide quickly statistics assessing the changing situation of the total number of deaths on a weekly basis, from early 2020 onwards.

The National Statistical Institutes transmit available data on total weekly deaths, classified by sex, 5-year age groups and NUTS3 regions (NUTS2021) over the last 20 years, on a voluntary basis. The resulting online tables, and complementary metadata, are available in the folder Weekly deaths - special data collection (demomwk).

Starting in 2025, the weekly deaths data collected on a quarterly basis. The database updated on the 16th of June 2025 (1st quarter), on the 16 th of September 2025 (2nd quarter), and next update will be in mid-December 2025 (3rd quarter), and mid-February 2026 (4th quarter).

In December 2020, Eurostat released the European Recovery Statistical Dashboard containing also indicators tracking economic and social developments, including health. In this context, “excess mortality” offers elements for monitoring and further analysing direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The monthly excess mortality indicator draws attention to the magnitude of the crisis by providing a comprehensive comparison of additional deaths amongst the European countries and allowing for further analysis of its causes. The number of deaths from all causes is compared with the expected number of deaths during a certain period in the past (baseline period, 2016-2019).

The reasons that excess mortality may vary according to different phenomena are that the indicator is comparing the total number of deaths from all causes with the expected number of deaths during a certain period in the past (baseline). While a substantial increase largely coincides with a COVID-19 outbreak in each country, the indicator does not make a distinction between causes of death. Similarly, it does not take into account changes over time and differences between countries in terms of the size and age/sex structure of the population Statistics on excess deaths provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby covering not only deaths that are directly attributed to the virus but also those indirectly related to or even due to another reason. For example, In July 2022, several countries recorded unusually high numbers of excess deaths compared to the same month of 2020 and 2021, a situation probably connected not only to COVID-19 but also to the heatwaves that affected parts of Europe during the reference period.

In addition to confirmed deaths, excess mortality captures COVID-19 deaths that were not correctly diagnosed and reported, as well as deaths from other causes that may be attributed to the overall crisis. It also accounts for the partial absence of deaths from other causes like accidents that did not occur due, for example, to the limitations in commuting or travel during the lockdown periods.

Context

Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19, beyond the number of deaths that are directly attributed to COVID-19.

Content

Estimates of excess deaths can provide information about the burden of mortality potentially related to COVID-19, beyond the number of deaths that are directly attributed to COVID-19. Excess deaths are typically defined as the difference between observed numbers of deaths and expected numbers. This visualization provides weekly data on excess deaths by the jurisdiction of occurrence. Counts of deaths in more recent weeks are compared with historical trends to determine whether the number of deaths is significantly higher than expected.

Estimates of excess deaths can be calculated in a variety of ways and will vary depending on the methodology and assumptions about how many deaths are expected to occur. Estimates of excess deaths presented in this webpage were calculated using Farrington surveillance algorithms (1). For each jurisdiction, a model is used to generate a set of expected counts, and the upper bound of the 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) of these expected counts is used as a threshold to estimate excess deaths. Observed counts are compared to these upper bound estimates to determine whether a significant increase in deaths has occurred. Provisional counts are weighted to account for potential underreporting in the most recent weeks. However, data for the most recent week(s) are still likely to be incomplete. Only about 60% of deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, and there is considerable variation by jurisdiction. More detail about the methods, weighting, data, and limitations can be found in the Technical Notes.

• Source: data.cdc.gov
• Publisher: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cdc.gov
• Homepage URL: https://data.cdc.gov/d/xkkf-xrst
• License: https://www.usa.gov/government-works
• Contact Email: cdcinfo@cdc.gov
• Public Access Level: Public

Additional information

Dashboard: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kabartay/kaggle-datasets-supports/master/images/WeeklyExcessDeaths.png%20=1349x572" alt="">

Acknowledgements

Thanks to:
- data.cdc.gov - healthdata.gov

References

• Noufaily A, Enki DG, Farrington P, Garthwaite P, Andrews N, Charlett A. An Improved Algorithm for Outbreak Detection in Multiple Surveillance Systems. Statistics in Medicine 2012;32(7):1206-1222.
• Salmon M, Schumacher D, Hohle M. Monitoring Count Time Series in R: Aberration Detection in Public Health Surveillance. Journal of Statistical Software 2016;70(10):1-35.
• Rue H, Martino S, Chopin N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models using integrated nested Laplace approximations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 2009;71(2):319-392.
• Spencer MR, Ahmad F. Timeliness of death certificate data for mortality surveillance and provisional estimates. National Center for Health Statistics. 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/report001.pdf.pdf icon

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only. Weekly rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among people living in Chicago by vaccination status and age. Rates for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated begin the week ending April 3, 2021 when COVID-19 vaccines became widely available in Chicago. Rates for boosted begin the week ending October 23, 2021 after booster shots were recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for adults 65+ years old and adults in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings who received Pfizer or Moderna for their primary series or anyone who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Chicago residency is based on home address, as reported in the Illinois Comprehensive Automated Immunization Registry Exchange (I-CARE) and Illinois National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (I-NEDSS). Outcomes: • Cases: People with a positive molecular (PCR) or antigen COVID-19 test result from an FDA-authorized COVID-19 test that was reported into I-NEDSS. A person can become re-infected with SARS-CoV-2 over time and so may be counted more than once in this dataset. Cases are counted by week the test specimen was collected. • Hospitalizations: COVID-19 cases who are hospitalized due to a documented COVID-19 related illness or who are admitted for any reason within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Hospitalizations are counted by week of hospital admission. • Deaths: COVID-19 cases who died from COVID-19-related health complications as determined by vital records or a public health investigation. Deaths are counted by week of death. Vaccination status: • Fully vaccinated: Completion of primary series of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine at least 14 days prior to a positive test (with no other positive tests in the previous 45 days). • Boosted: Fully vaccinated with an additional or booster dose of any FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine received at least 14 days prior to a positive test (with no other positive tests in the previous 45 days). • Unvaccinated: No evidence of having received a dose of an FDA-authorized or approved vaccine prior to a positive test. CLARIFYING NOTE: Those who started but did not complete all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized or approved vaccine prior to a positive test (i.e., partially vaccinated) are excluded from this dataset. Incidence rates for fully vaccinated but not boosted people (Vaccinated columns) are calculated as total fully vaccinated but not boosted with outcome divided by cumulative fully vaccinated but not boosted at the end of each week. Incidence rates for boosted (Boosted columns) are calculated as total boosted with outcome divided by cumulative boosted at the end of each week. Incidence rates for unvaccinated (Unvaccinated columns) are calculated as total unvaccinated with outcome divided by total population minus cumulative boosted, fully, and partially vaccinated at the end of each week. All rates are multiplied by 100,000. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) are calculated by dividing the weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by those among fully vaccinated but not boosted and boosted people. Overall age-adjusted incidence rates and IRRs are standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. Population totals are from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates for 2019. All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received and it is, in fact, very common for recent dates to be incomplete and to be updated as time goes on. This dataset reflects data known to CDPH at the time when the dataset is updated each week. Numbers in this dataset may differ from other public sources due to when data are reported and how City of Chicago boundaries are defined. For all datasets related to COVID-19, see https://data.cityofchic

The novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide, especially in Brazil, currently one of the leading countries in number of infections and deaths. The beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic in Brazil is uncertain due to the low number of tests done in the country. The excess number of deaths can suggest the beginning of the pandemic in this context. In this article, we used an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model to investigate possible excesses in the number of deaths processed by the São Paulo Autopsy Service according to different causes of deaths: all-cause, cardiovascular, and pulmonary causes. We calculated the expected number of deaths using data from 2019 to 2020 (n=17,011), and investigated different seasonal patterns using harmonic dynamic regression with Fourier terms with residuals modeled by an ARIMA method. We did not find any abnormalities in the predicted number of deaths and the real values in the first months of 2020. We found an increase in the number of deaths only by March 20, 2020, right after the first COVID-19 confirmed case in the city of São Paulo, which occurred on March 16, 2020.

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 12 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors, and no geographic data.

CDC has three COVID-19 case surveillance datasets:

• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical data (including symptoms), demographics, and county and state of residence. (19 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data and demographics, with no geographic data. (12 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Access Detailed Data: Restricted access, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data, demographics, and state and county of residence. Access requires a registration process and a data use agreement. (33 data elements)

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data cells are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• The datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensures that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and aut