Between July 2021 and June 2022, males in the United States reported higher death rates per million population than females for both COVID-19 and Long COVID. During this period, the death rate from COVID-19 for males was around 1,312 per million population, while roughly 7.3 men per million people died due to Long COVID. This statistic displays the death rates from COVID-19 and Long COVID per million population in the United States from July 2021 to June 2022, by gender.
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.
April 9, 2020
April 20, 2020
April 29, 2020
September 1st, 2020
February 12, 2021
new_deaths
column.February 16, 2021
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.
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.
The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.
@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)
<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>
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
This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project
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.
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 https://preparedness.cste.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CSTE-Revised-Classification-of-COVID-19-associated-Deaths.Final_.11.22.22.pdf">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
Open Government Licence 3.0http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
License information was derived automatically
The number of deaths registered in England and Wales due to and involving coronavirus (COVID-19). Breakdowns include age, sex, region, local authority, Middle-layer Super Output Area (MSOA), indices of deprivation and place of death. Includes age-specific and age-standardised mortality rates.
ABSTRACT Background : The Covid-19 pandemic associated with the SARS-CoV-2 has caused very high death tolls in many countries, while it has had less prevalence in other countries of Africa and Asia. Climate and geographic conditions, as well as other epidemiologic and demographic conditions, were a matter of debate on whether or not they could have an effect on the prevalence of Covid-19. Objective : In the present work, we sought a possible relevance of the geographic location of a given country on its Covid-19 prevalence. On the other hand, we sought a possible relation between the history of epidemiologic and demographic conditions of the populations and the prevalence of Covid-19 across four continents (America, Europe, Africa, and Asia). We also searched for a possible impact of pre-pandemic alcohol consumption in each country on the two year death tolls across the four continents. Methods : We have sought the death toll caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries and obtained the registered deaths from specialized web pages. For every country in the study, we have analysed the correlation of the Covid-19 death numbers with its geographic latitude, and its associated climate conditions, such as the mean annual temperature, the average annual sunshine hours, and the average annual UV index. We also analyzed the correlation of the Covid-19 death numbers with epidemiologic conditions such as cancer score and Alzheimer score, and with demographic parameters such as birth rate, mortality rate, fertility rate, and the percentage of people aged 65 and above. In regard to consumption habits, we searched for a possible relation between alcohol intake levels per capita and the Covid-19 death numbers in each country. Correlation factors and determination factors, as well as analyses by simple linear regression and polynomial regression, were calculated or obtained by Microsoft Exell software (2016). Results : In the present study, higher numbers of deaths related to Covid-19 pandemic were registered in many countries in Europe and America compared to other countries in Africa and Asia. The analysis by polynomial regression generated an inverted bell-shaped curve and a significant correlation between the Covid-19 death numbers and the geographic latitude of each country in our study. Higher death numbers were registered in the higher geographic latitudes of both hemispheres, while lower scores of deaths were registered in countries located around the equator line. In a bell shaped curve, the latitude levels were negatively correlated to the average annual levels (last 10 years) of temperatures, sunshine hours, and UV index of each country, with the highest scores of each climate parameter being registered around the equator line, while lower levels of temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index were registered in higher latitude countries. In addition, the linear regression analysis showed that the Covid-19 death numbers registered in the 39 countries of our study were negatively correlated with the three climate factors of our study, with the temperature as the main negatively correlated factor with Covid-19 deaths. On the other hand, cancer and Alzheimer's disease scores, as well as advanced age and alcohol intake, were positively correlated to Covid-19 deaths, and inverted bell-shaped curves were obtained when expressing the above parameters against a country’s latitude. Instead, the (birth rate/mortality rate) ratio and fertility rate were negatively correlated to Covid-19 deaths, and their values gave bell-shaped curves when expressed against a country’s latitude. Conclusion : The results of the present study prove that the climate parameters and history of epidemiologic and demographic conditions as well as nutrition habits are very correlated with Covid-19 prevalence. The results of the present study prove that low levels of temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index, as well as negative epidemiologic and demographic conditions and high scores of alcohol intake may worsen Covid-19 prevalence in many countries of the northern hemisphere, and this phenomenon could explain their high Covid-19 death tolls. Keywords : Covid-19, Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, climate, temperature, sunshine hours, UV index, cancer, Alzheimer disease, alcohol.
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.
As of March 10, 2023, the death rate from COVID-19 in the state of New York was 397 per 100,000 people. New York is one of the states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.
As of March, 2020, 55 percent of Hungarians who found the mass spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) possible stated that the healthcare system and its workers were mostly responsible for minimizing the death toll due to the virus. According to 32 percent of respondents, the responsibility was in the hands of the people. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Fact and Figures page.
Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve. The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj. The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 . The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 . The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed. COVID-19 cases and associated deaths that have been reported among Connecticut residents, broken down by race and ethnicity. All data in this report are preliminary; data for previous dates will be updated as new reports are received and data errors are corrected. Deaths reported to the either the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) or Department of Public Health (DPH) are included in the COVID-19 update. The following data show the number of COVID-19 cases and associated deaths per 100,000 population by race and ethnicity. Crude rates represent the total cases or deaths per 100,000 people. Age-adjusted rates consider the age of the person at diagnosis or death when estimating the rate and use a standardized population to provide a fair comparison between population groups with different age distributions. Age-adjustment is important in Connecticut as the median age of among the non-Hispanic white population is 47 years, whereas it is 34 years among non-Hispanic blacks, and 29 years among Hispanics. Because most non-Hispanic white residents who died were over 75 years of age, the age-adjusted rates are lower than the unadjusted rates. In contrast, Hispanic residents who died tend to be younger than 75 years of age which results in higher age-adjusted rates. The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used. Rates are standardized to the 2000 US Millions Standard population (data available here: https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/). Standardization was done using 19 age groups (0, 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, ..., 80-84, 85 years and older). More information about direct standardization for age adjustment is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf Categories are mutually exclusive. The category “multiracial” includes people who answered ‘yes’ to more than one race category. Counts may not add up to total case counts as data on race and ethnicity may be missing. Age adjusted rates calculated only for groups with more than 20 deaths. Abbreviation: NH=Non-Hispanic. Data on Connecticut deaths were obtained from the Connecticut Deaths Registry maintained by the DPH Office of Vital Records. Cause of death was determined by a death certifier (e.g., physician, APRN, medical
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Results data for the thesis on estimating the age-, sex-, cause-specific excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong and South Korea.Thesis abstractBackgroundFew studies used a consistent methodology and adjusted for the risk of influenza-like illness (ILI) in historical mortality trends when estimating and comparing the cause-specific excess mortality (EM) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies demonstrated that excess mortality was widely reported from CVD and among the elderly. This study aims to estimate and compare the overall, age-, sex-, and cause-specific excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong (HK) and South Korea (SK) with consideration of the impact of ILI.MethodsIn this population-based study, we first fitted a generalized additive model to the monthly mortality data from Jan 2010 to Dec 2019 in HK and SK before the COVID-19 pandemic. Then we applied the fitted model to estimate the EM from Jan 2020 to Dec 2022. The month index was modelled with a natural cubic spline. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to select the number of knots for the spline and inclusion of covariates such as monthly mean temperature, absolute humidity, ILI consultation rate, and the proxy for flu activity.FindingsFrom 2020 to 2022, the EM in HK was 239.8 (95% CrI: 184.6 to 293.9) per 100,000 population. Excess mortality from respiratory diseases (RD) (ICD-10 code: J00-J99), including COVID-19 deaths coded as J98.8, was 181.3 (95% CrI: 149.9 to 210.4) per 100,000. Except for RD, the majority of the EM in HK was estimated from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) (22.4% of the overall EM), influenza and pneumonia (16.2%), ischemic heart disease (8.9%), ill-defined causes (8.6%) and senility (6.7%). No statistically significant reduced deaths were estimated among other studied causes.From 2020 to 2022, the EM in SK was 204.7 (95% CrI: 161.6 to 247.2) per 100,000 population. Of note, COVID-19 deaths in SK were not included in deaths from RD but were recorded with the codes for emergency use as U07.1 or U07.2. The majority of the EM was estimated from ill-defined causes (32.0% of the overall EM), senility (16.6%), cerebrovascular disease (6.8%) and cardiovascular diseases (6.1%). Statistically significant reduction in mortality with 95 CrI lower than zero was estimated from vascular, other and unspecified dementia (-26.9% of expected deaths), influenza and pneumonia (-20.7%), mental and behavioural disorders (-18.8%) and respiratory diseases (-7.7%).InterpretationExcluding RD in HK which includes COVID-19 deaths, the majority of the EM in HK and SK was from CVD and senility. Mortality from influenza and pneumonia was estimated to have a statistically significant increase in HK but a decrease in SK probability due to different coding practices. HK had a heavier burden of excess mortality in the elderly age group 70-79 years and 80 years or above, while SK had a heavier burden in the age group of 60-69 years. Both HK and SK have a heavier burden of excess mortality from males than females. Better triage systems for identifying high-risk people of the direct or indirect impact of the epidemic are needed to minimize preventable mortality.
In June 2022, approximately 1.7 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the United States were attributed to Long COVID, a decrease from the 2.4 percent reported a month earlier. This statistic displays the percentage of COVID-19 deaths in the United States that were from Long COVID from January 2020 to June 2022, by month.
Open Government Licence 3.0http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
License information was derived automatically
Provisional age-standardised mortality rates for deaths due to COVID-19 by sex, local authority and deprivation indices, and numbers of deaths by middle-layer super output area.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Washington data was reported at 1,068.000 Number in 16 Sep 2023. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,114.000 Number for 09 Sep 2023. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Washington data is updated weekly, averaging 1,153.000 Number from Jan 2017 (Median) to 16 Sep 2023, with 350 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,539.000 Number in 03 Jul 2021 and a record low of 924.000 Number in 17 Jun 2017. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Washington data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G012: Number of Excess Deaths: by States: All Causes excluding COVID-19: Predicted (Discontinued).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Arkansas data was reported at 587.000 Number in 16 Sep 2023. This records a decrease from the previous number of 671.000 Number for 09 Sep 2023. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Arkansas data is updated weekly, averaging 640.000 Number from Jan 2017 (Median) to 16 Sep 2023, with 350 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 786.000 Number in 31 Dec 2022 and a record low of 526.000 Number in 05 Aug 2017. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Arkansas data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G012: Number of Excess Deaths: by States: All Causes excluding COVID-19: Predicted (Discontinued).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Pennsylvania data was reported at 2,350.000 Number in 16 Sep 2023. This records a decrease from the previous number of 2,351.000 Number for 09 Sep 2023. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Pennsylvania data is updated weekly, averaging 2,573.000 Number from Jan 2017 (Median) to 16 Sep 2023, with 350 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3,175.000 Number in 13 Jan 2018 and a record low of 2,151.000 Number in 02 Sep 2023. United States Excess Deaths excl COVID: Predicted: No. of Deaths: Pennsylvania data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G012: Number of Excess Deaths: by States: All Causes excluding COVID-19: Predicted (Discontinued).
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Disclosure of information with far right's ideas, negationism of science and anti-vaccine attitude x Risk of COVID-19The electoral preference by Bolsonaro in the first round of Brazil presidential election 2018 per state, shows a strong predictive value of the amount of deaths by Covid-19, excess death per 100,000, increased P-score and intensity in reducing Brazilian population growth in the 1st Tour 2021### Content of this DatabaseIn the period from January to April (1st Quadrimester Q1) from 2021 and 2019 per state (UF) we show:Main variables for each of the 27 Brazilian states and 3 States groups and 1 country BRA1. The main population rates: - Number deaths, excess deaths, births, birth rate, mortality rate, vegetative growth, p-score, total population, population > 70A., Demographic density2. The main rates of Pandemic by Coronavirus - Covid-19: - No. Total cases, cases Q1, Nº Total deaths, Nº Q1 deaths, Total deaths / 100000 hab, mortality rate, cases / 100000 hab3. The main metrics of the 2018 presidential election: - Voters, voting paragraphs, nº of votes in Bolsonararo 1st turn, nº of abstinences.Groups of Brazilian UFS (Federation States)1. States that Bolsonaro received more than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn2. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn and more than 50% in the 2nd turn3. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st and 2nd shifts4. Sum of the 27 Brazilian states
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Given the lack of potential vaccines and effective medications, non-pharmaceutical interventions are the major option to curtail the spread of COVID-19. An accurate estimate of the potential impact of different non-pharmaceutical measures on containing, and identify risk factors influencing the spread of COVID-19 is crucial for planning the most effective interventions to curb the spread of COVID-19 and to reduce the deaths. Additive model-based bivariate causal discovery for scalar factors and multivariate Granger causality tests for time series factors are applied to the surveillance data of lab-confirmed Covid-19 cases in the US, University of Maryland Data (UMD) data, and Google mobility data from March 5, 2020 to August 25, 2020 in order to evaluate the contributions of social-biological factors, economics, the Google mobility indexes, and the rate of the virus test to the number of the new cases and number of deaths from COVID-19. We found that active cases/1,000 people, workplaces, tests done/1,000 people, imported COVID-19 cases, unemployment rate and unemployment claims/1,000 people, mobility trends for places of residence (residential), retail and test capacity were the popular significant risk factor for the new cases of COVID-19, and that active cases/1,000 people, workplaces, residential, unemployment rate, imported COVID cases, unemployment claims/1,000 people, transit stations, mobility trends (transit), tests done/1,000 people, grocery, testing capacity, retail, percentage of change in consumption, percentage of working from home were the popular significant risk factor for the deaths of COVID-19. We observed that no metrics showed significant evidence in mitigating the COVID-19 epidemic in FL and only a few metrics showed evidence in reducing the number of new cases of COVID-19 in AZ, NY and TX. Our results showed that the majority of non-pharmaceutical interventions had a large effect on slowing the transmission and reducing deaths, and that health interventions were still needed to contain COVID-19.
https://www.usa.gov/government-workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.
Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:
Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:
Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).
Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.
Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.
CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html
Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.
Archived Data Notes:
November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.
November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.
November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths.
November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.
December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.
January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.
January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.
January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.
January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.
January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.
January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.
February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.
February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.
February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.
February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s
Differences in policy responses have enabled some nations to successfully mitigate COVID-19 cases and deaths while others continue to struggle. In their efforts to contain the virus, nations have pursued disparate policy responses with policy stringency ranging from policy over-reactions to under-reactions. As nations look towards recovery, a retroactive evaluation of the relationship between policy responses and outcomes can provide much-needed insight on disparities in pandemic-related outcomes. Using time series data for 2020, we employ pooled panel linear regression to analyze the relationship between policy choices and COVID-19 outcomes. This study uses stringency measures of government policy responses across three dimensions—containment, economic, and health policies—to assess the impact of these policies on COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that increased income support and debt relief policies are associated with a reduction in the rate of COVID-19 deaths that lasts up to four weeks, while broad policy interventions are associated with a short-term reduction in the rate of deaths.
Between July 2021 and June 2022, males in the United States reported higher death rates per million population than females for both COVID-19 and Long COVID. During this period, the death rate from COVID-19 for males was around 1,312 per million population, while roughly 7.3 men per million people died due to Long COVID. This statistic displays the death rates from COVID-19 and Long COVID per million population in the United States from July 2021 to June 2022, by gender.