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.

Geostatistics analyzes and predicts the values associated with spatial or spatial-temporal phenomena. It incorporates the spatial (and in some cases temporal) coordinates of the data within the analyses. It is a practical means of describing spatial patterns and interpolating values for locations where samples were not taken (and measures the uncertainty of those values, which is critical to informed decision making). This archive contains results of geostatistical analysis of COVID-19 case counts for all available US counties. Test results were obtained with ArcGIS Pro (ESRI). Sources are state health departments, which are scraped and aggregated by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and then pre-processed by MappingSupport.com.

This update of the Zenodo dataset (version 6) consists of three compressed archives containing geostatistical analyses of SARS-CoV-2 testing data. This dataset utilizes many of the geostatistical techniques used in previous versions of this Zenodo archive, but has been significantly expanded to include analyses of up-to-date U.S. COVID-19 case data (from March 24th to September 8^th, 2020):

Archive #1: “1.Geostat. Space-Time analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in the US (Mar24-Sept6).zip” – results of a geostatistical analysis of COVID-19 cases incorporating spatially-weighted hotspots that are conserved over one-week timespans. Results are reported starting from when U.S. COVID-19 case data first became available (March 24^th, 2020) for 25 consecutive 1-week intervals (March 24th through to September 6th, 2020). Hotspots, where found, are reported in each individual state, rather than the entire continental United States.

Archive #2: "2.Geostat. Spatial analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in the US (Mar24-Sept8).zip" – the results from geostatistical spatial analyses only of corrected COVID-19 case data for the continental United States, spanning the period from March 24^th through September 8th, 2020. The geostatistical techniques utilized in this archive includes ‘Hot Spot’ analysis and ‘Cluster and Outlier’ analysis.

Archive #3: "3.Kriging and Densification of SARS-CoV-2 in LA and MA.zip" – this dataset provides preliminary kriging and densification analysis of COVID-19 case data for certain dates within the U.S. states of Louisiana and Massachusetts.

These archives consist of map files (as both static images and as animations) and data files (including text files which contain the underlying data of said map files [where applicable]) which were generated when performing the following Geostatistical analyses: Hot Spot analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) [‘Archive #1’: consecutive weeklong Space-Time Hot Spot analysis; ‘Archive #2’: daily Hot Spot Analysis], Cluster and Outlier analysis (Anselin Local Moran's I) [‘Archive #2’], Spatial Autocorrelation (Global Moran's I) [‘Archive #2’], and point-to-point comparisons with Kriging and Densification analysis [‘Archive #3’].

The Word document provided ("Description-of-Archive.Updated-Geostatistical-Analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2 (version 6).docx") details the contents of each file and folder within these three archives and gives general interpretations of these results.

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

In summer 2020, SARS-CoV-2 was detected on mink farms in Utah. An interagency One Health response was initiated to assess the extent of the outbreak and included sampling animals from or near affected mink farms and testing them for SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS coronaviruses. Among the 365 animals sampled, including domestic cats, mink, rodents, raccoons, and skunks, 261 (72%) of the animals harbored at least one coronavirus at the time. Among the samples which could be further characterized, 126 alphacoronaviruses and 88 betacoronaviruses (including 74 detections of SARS-CoV-2) were identified. Moreover, at least 10% (n=27) of the corona-virus-positive animals were found to be co-infected with more than one coronavirus. Our findings indicate an unexpectedly high prevalence of coronavirus among the domestic and wild animals tested on mink farms and raise the possibility that commercial animal husbandry operations could be potential hot spots for future trans-species viral spillover and the emergence of new pandemic coronaviruses. Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationships of the identified coronaviruses from mink and other animals from mink farms in Utah. The four genera of coronaviruses are highlighted in different colors. AlphaCoV, alkphacoronavirus; BetaCoV, betacoronavirus; DeltaCoV, deltacoronaviruses; and GammaCoV, gammacoronavirus. Type species for the currently recognized subgenera are annotated according to the nomenclature scheme used in this manuscript with the addition of the ICTV subgenus. Additional viruses, including the closest GenBank entry as identified by the BLAST tool, were included to help delineate relationship. Red circles are viruses identified in this study. Panel A. Full phylogenetic tree (A full-size image is included in Supplementary Figure 1). Red arrows designate the group of nearly identical Utah mink coronavirus strains collapsed into the colored triangle in Panel B. Table 1. Coronavirus distribution among species tested. The species are listed by their common names; Total, the total number of animals of each species tested; Negative, number of each species with no coronavirus detected among the tissues tested; Positive, number of animals positive for coronavirus in at least one tissue; % Pos, percentage of coronavirus positives in each species. Table 2. Detailed tissue panel tested for SARS-CoV-2. The distribution of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in the first 96 animals is listed. Tissue, tissue or tissue pools received; Total, total number tested in each category; Negative, number of N1 RT-PCR negatives; Posi-tives, number of N1 RT-PCR positives; % Pos, percentage of tissues positive for corona-virus. Table 3. Summary of coronaviruses identified. The distribution of coronaviruses detected and characterized according to their host is listed. Species, common name of animal species tested; AlphaCoV, number of alphacoronaviruses identified; BetaCoV, number of betacoronaviruses identified; Sequenced, number of viruses identified by sequencing, Unchar, number of coronavirus-positive samples not further characterized. Table 4. SARS-CoV-2 coinfections identified in Utah mammals. The individual animals that are both SARS-CoV-2 positive and infected with a second coronavirus are listed. Animal ID, Unique animal identification number; Common name, common name of animal; Scientific name, scientific name of animal; Sex, F, female, M, male. Unk, un-known; Age, A adult, J juvenile, Unk, unknown; SARS-CoV-2, Neg-N1 RT-PCR nega-tive, Pos-N1 RT-PCR positive, Second strain, genus and common name of the coronavirus, Pan-CoV RT-PCR Equivocal, sample is PCR positive but not further characterized. Supplementary Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationships of the identified coronaviruses from mink farms in Utah. The four genera of coronaviruses are highlighted in different colors. AlphaCoV, alkphacoronavirus; BetaCoV, betacoronavirus; DeltaCoV, deltacoronaviruses; and GammaCoV, gammacoronavirus. Type species for the currently recognized subgenera are annotated according to the nomenclature scheme used in this manuscript with the addition of the ICTV subgenus. Additional viruses, including the closest GenBank entry as identified by the BLAST tool were included to help delineate relationship. Red circles are viruses identified in this study. Supplementary Table 1. List of animals and tissues sampled and RT-PCR test results. Animal ID, unique identifier for each animal; Specimen ID, unique identifier for each tissue; Common name, common name of the animal species; Scientific name, scientific name of the animal species, Sex, F-female, M-male, UNK-unknown; Age, J-juvenile, A-adult, UNK-unknown; Tissue, organ or organ pools tested; Tissue study, X denotes the animals and tissues used in the tissue distribution sub-study; N1 PCR, Ct values from the CDC N1 assay; Pan-CoV PCR, Neg, negative, Pos, positive, Equiv, equivocal; * wild mink. Supplementary Table 2. Summary of coronavirus test results. Animal ID, unique identifier for each animal; Common name, common name of the animal species; Scientific name, scientific name of the animal species, Sex, F-female, M-male, UNK-unknown; Age, J-juvenile, A-adult, UNK-unknown; CoV, Neg-negative, Pos-positive on either one or both RT-PCR tests; SARS-CoV-2, animals positive in the CDC N1 test; AlphaCoV, the tissues positive for alphacoronavirus for each animal is listed; BetaCoV, the tissues positive for betacoronavirus for each animal is listed; C-colon, C/R-colon/rectum pool, H-heart, L-lung, L/S-live/spleen pool, S int-small intestine; Co-infections, Y-yes; PCR only, Y-yes; Virus identified by sequencing, brief name of virus identified.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the influence of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 gene on clinical outcomes is critical for treatment and prevention. Here, we analyzed all high-coverage complete SARS-CoV-2 sequences from GISAID database from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021, to mine the mutation hotspots associated with clinical outcome and developed a model to predict the clinical outcome in different epidemic strains. Exploring the cause of mutation based on RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) and RNA-editing enzyme, mutation was more likely to occur in severe and mild cases than in asymptomatic cases, especially A > G, C > T, and G > A mutations. The mutations associated with asymptomatic outcome were mainly in open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab) and N genes; especially R6997P and V30L mutations occurred together and were correlated with asymptomatic outcome with high prevalence. D614G, Q57H, and S194L mutations were correlated with mild and severe outcome with high prevalence. Interestingly, the single-nucleotide variant (SNV) frequency was higher with high percentage of nt14408 mutation in RdRp in severe cases. The expression of ADAR and APOBEC was associated with clinical outcome. The model has shown that the asymptomatic percentage has increased over time, while there is high symptomatic percentage in Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. These findings suggest that mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome may have a direct association with clinical outcomes and pandemic. Our result and model are helpful to predict the prevalence of epidemic strains and to further study the mechanism of mutation causing severe disease.

As of March 10, 2023, the state with the highest rate of COVID-19 cases was Rhode Island followed by Alaska. Around 103.9 million cases have been reported across the United States, with the states of California, Texas, and Florida reporting the highest numbers of infections.

From an epidemic to a pandemic The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The term pandemic refers to multiple outbreaks of an infectious illness threatening multiple parts of the world at the same time; when the transmission is this widespread, it can no longer be traced back to the country where it originated. The number of COVID-19 cases worldwide is roughly 683 million, and it has affected almost every country in the world.

The symptoms and those who are most at risk Most people who contract the virus will suffer only mild symptoms, such as a cough, a cold, or a high temperature. However, in more severe cases, the infection can cause breathing difficulties and even pneumonia. Those at higher risk include older persons and people with pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. Those aged 85 years and older have accounted for around 27 percent of all COVID deaths in the United States, although this age group makes up just two percent of the total population

Dataset

This dataset was created by Joseph gordon frame

Contents

As of January 1, 2025, Rome (Lazio) was the Italian province which registered the highest number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases in the country. Milan (Lombardy) came second in this ranking, while Naples (Campania) and Turin (Piedmont) followed. These four areas are also the four most populated provinces in Italy. The region of Lombardy was the mostly hit by the spread of the virus, recording almost one sixth of all coronavirus cases in the country. The provinces of Milan and Brescia accounted for a large part of this figure. For a global overview, visit Statista's webpage exclusively dedicated to coronavirus, its development, and its impact.

How to Read the map.This map allows you to visualize the trends over time and cases, recoveries, deaths and testing at the regional health unit. The Map shows the relative state of the COVID-19 outbreak in each region. Colour (red to green) shows the time since a new reported case.

7 Day Hot Spots

The map highlights regions with an active outbreak with a "glowing ball". The size of the ball reflects the average number of new cases in the past 7 days as a rate per 100K population.

High

Low

Important InformationNot all data is reported for all regional health units. Data sources are consulted every 24 hours, however not all organizations report on a daily bases. As this data is cumulative, values carry-forward if updates are not provided. Values can go down due to corrected errors as reported. Data SourcesThe source of the data for each regional health unit is listed in the "SourceURL" field.

Looking for the raw data? You can find it here.

We examined the effect of social distancing on changes in visits to urban hotspot points of interest. In a pandemic situation, urban hotspots could be potential superspreader areas as visits to urban hotspots can increase the risk of contact and transmission of a disease among a population. We mapped origin-destination networks from census block groups to points of interest (POIs), such as restaurants, museums, and schools, in sixteen cities in the United States. We adopted a coarse-grain approach to examine patterns of visits to POIs among hotspots and non-hotspots from January to May 2020. Also, we conducted chi-square tests to identify POIs with significant flux-in changes during the analysis period. The results showed disparate patterns across cities in terms of reduction in hotspot POI visits. Sixteen cities are divided into two categories. In one category, which includes the cities of, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago, we observe a considerable decrease in hotspot POI visits, while in another category, including the cites of, Austin, Houston, and San Diego, the visits to hotspots did not greatly decrease. While all the cities exhibited overall decreasing visits to POIs, one category maintained the proportion of visits to hotspot POIs. The proportion of visits to some POIs (e.g., Restaurants) remained stable during the social distancing period, while some POIs had an increased proportion of visits (e.g., Grocery Stores). We also identified POIs with significant flux-in changes, showing that related businesses were greatly affected by social distancing.

The size and share of the market is categorized based on Application (Police Department, Fire Department, Emergency Medical Service Providers) and Product (Bundled, Standalone) and geographical regions (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, South America, and Middle-East and Africa).

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting routine medical care of cancer patients, including those who have cancer or are undergoing cancer screening. In this study, breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic (BCMP) is reviewed, and the research trends of BCMP are evaluated by quantitative and qualitative evaluation.MethodsIn this study, published studies relating to BCMP from 1 January 2020 to 1 April 2022 were searched from the Web of Science database (WoS). Bibliometric indicators consisted of publications, research hotspots, keywords, authors, journals, institutions, nations, and h-index.ResultsA total of 182 articles investigating BCMP were searched. The United States of America and the University of Rome Tor Vergata were the nation and the institution with the most publications on BCMP. The first three periodicals with leading published BCMP studies were Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Breast, and In Vivo. Buonomo OC was the most prolific author in this field, publishing nine articles (9/182, 4.94%). The co-keywords analysis of BCMP suggests that the top hotspots and trends in research are screening, surgery, rehabilitation, emotion, diagnosis, treatment, and vaccine management of breast cancer during the pandemic. The hotspot words were divided into six clusters, namely, screening for breast cancer patients in the pandemic, breast cancer surgery in the pandemic, recovery of breast cancer patients in the pandemic, motion effect of the outbreak on breast cancer patients, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer patients in the pandemic, and vaccination management for breast cancer patients during a pandemic.ConclusionBCMP has received attention from scholars in many nations over the last 3 years. This study revealed significant contributions to BCMP research by nations, institutions, scholars, and journals. The stratified clustering study provided the current status and future trends of BCMP to help physicians with the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer through the pandemic, and provide a reference for in-depth clinical studies on BCMP.

This feature contain several data layers: 1 depicts the up-to-date COVID-19 cases for Nigeria by states and the 2 shows population density of Nigeria by Local Government Areas; and these were superimposed on each other for easy comparison; 3 is a map of the statistically significant population hot spot and cold spot in Nigeria. All these datasets constitute this well presented COVID-19 dashboard for monitoring Nigeria cases. Data sources include NCDC, WHO, and Africa Geoportal. The COVID-19 data is updated at least once per day, following NCDC update timeline. This layer is created and maintained by DR. NKEKI F. N. and his team (Eugene .A. Atakpiri and Akinde .N. Kolawole) to Support NCDC to fight against the spread of COVID-19 in Nigeria. This layer is opened to the public and free to share. Contact Info: Phone: +23408063131159Email: nkekifndidi@gmail.com

Overview

As coronavirus cases have exploded across the country, states have struggled to obtain sufficient personal protective equipment such as masks, face shields, gloves and ventilators to meet the needs of healthcare workers. FEMA began distributing PPE from the national stockpile as well as PPE obtained from private manufacturers to states in March.

Initially, FEMA distributed materials based primarily on population. By late March, Its methods changed to send more PPE to hotspot locations, and FEMA claimed these decisions were data-driven and need-based. By late spring, the agency was considering requests from states as well.

Although all U.S. states and territories have received some amount of PPE from FEMA, the amounts of PPE states have per capita and per positive COVID-19 case vary widely.

The AP used this data in a story that ran July 7.

Findings

• Overall, low population, rural states have the most PPE per positive case as of mid-June. This generally held true across types of equipment.
• The states that had the highest number of total PPE items per coronavirus case as of mid-May were, in descending order: Alaska, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, and North Dakota. The highest was Alaska with 1,579 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the highest number of total items per case as of mid-June were largely the same states — Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. The highest was Montana with 1,125 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• Conversely, the states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per positive case in mid-May included hotspot states — Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, California, Nebraska, and Iowa. New Jersey was just a couple spots further down. The lowest was Massachusetts with 36 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• The states that had the lowest amounts of PPE per case as of mid-June were largely the same as well — Massachusetts, New York, Iowa, California, and Nebraska. The lowest was Massachusetts with 32 PPE items per coronavirus case.
• When evaluated on a per-capita basis rather than per positive coronavirus case, the picture is different. The District of Columbia received the most PPE per capita in both May and June, although the vast majority of the PPE it received was distributed as of mid-May. Vermont, Kansas, New Jersey, and North Dakota had the next highest numbers of PPE per capita as of both mid-May and mid-June.
• There is no clear pattern of FEMA distribution by party control of states.

About the data

These numbers include material distributed by FEMA and also those sold by private distributors under direction from FEMA. They include materials both delivered to and en route to states.

States have purchased PPE directly in addition to receiving PPE from FEMA or directed there by the agency, and this data only includes the latter categories.

FEMA also distributed and directed the distribution of gear to U.S. territories in addition to states, which are included in FEMA’s release linked below, but not are not included in this data.

FEMA has publicly distributed its breakdown of PPE delivery by state for May and June. FEMA did not provide comprehensive numbers for each state before May.

These numbers are cumulative, meaning that the numbers for May include items of PPE distributed prior to May 14, dating to when the agency began allocations on March 1. The June numbers include the May numbers and any new PPE distributions since then.

The population column, which was used to calculate the numbers of PPE items per state, came from data from the U.S Census Bureau. Since the Census releases annual population data, population data from 2019 was used for each state.

The numbers of coronavirus cases were pulled from the data released daily by Johns Hopkins University as of the dates that FEMA released its distribution numbers — May 14 and June 10.

Caveats

The data includes amounts of gear that had been delivered to the states or were en route as of the reporting dates.

All PPE item numbers above 1 million were rounded to the nearest hundred thousand by FEMA, but numbers lower than that were not rounded.

In some cases, gear headed to a state was rerouted because it was needed more somewhere else or a state decided it did not need it. In some instances, that resulted in states having higher numbers for certain supplies in May than in June.

In response to the impacts of COVID-19, Drive-In WiFi Hotspots provide free temporary, emergency internet access for Washingtonians who do not have broadband service to their homes.

Access is available to all residents with specific emphasis on remote learning for students. Additionally, this service can be used for job searches, telehealth, telework, unemployment filing, and census participation.

The locations listed on this map represent new Drive-In WiFi Hotspot sites located at Washington State University Extension locations, as well as new and existing Washington State Library Drive-In WiFi Hotspots.

Launching primarily as parking lot hotspots in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the free community Wi-Fi is accessible regardless of how users arrive at the locations. Some sites also offer indoor public access during business hours. Everyone using the sites – outside or inside – must practice social distancing and hygiene precautions, including staying in your vehicle or at least six feet from other users and wearing a mask if necessary.

Each hotspot will have its own security protocol. Some will be open and others will have Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) safe security installed.

Broadband equity is not just a rural challenge. The drive-In Wi-Fi hotspot project addresses underserved and economically disadvantaged communities in urban and suburban areas as well.

More information can be found: https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/washington-state-drive-in-wifi-hotspots-location-finder/

As of May 2, 2023, Brazil was the country with the highest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Latin America and the fifth highest in the world, reaching over 37 million patients. By state, São Paulo ranked first, with more than 6.6 million confirmed cases of the disease as of September 21, 2023. Minas Gerais followed, with over 4.2 million confirmed cases of coronavirus.
For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulting from the spread of SARS-CoV-2 spurred devastating health and economic crises around the world. Neutralizing antibodies and licensed vaccines were developed to combat COVID-19, but progress was slow. In addition, variants of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein confer resistance of SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies, nullifying the possibility of human immunity. Therefore, investigations into the RBD mutations that disrupt neutralization through convalescent antibodies are urgently required. In this study, we comprehensively and systematically investigated the binding stability of RBD variants targeting convalescent antibodies and revealed that the RBD residues F456, F490, L452, L455, and K417 are immune-escaping hotspots, and E484, F486, and N501 are destabilizing residues. Our study also explored the possible modes of actions of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. All results are consistent with experimental observations of attenuated antibody neutralization and clinically emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. We identified possible immune-escaping hotspots that could further promote resistance to convalescent antibodies. The results provide valuable information for developing and designing novel monoclonal antibody drugs to combat emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

This directory contains an index.html file with links to the run directories for Figs.8-11 and idl plotting routines with secondary data for the other figures for the paper "Quadratic growth during the COVID-19 pandemic: merging hotspots and reinfections" by Axel Brandenburg (Nordita); see https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.15459.

As of April 2020, 90 percent of UK citizens surveyed believed social distancing measures were necessary during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, while 89 percent of respondents thought that it was necessary to prevent flights coming into the UK from virus hotspots. Although less than two-thirds of respondents thought that closing schools was important in response to the coronavirus outbreak.

The latest number of cases in the UK can be found here. For further information about the coronavirus pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Context

Analysis and Visualization of spread of coronavirus in India.

Content

The dataset raw_data.csv file, contains information about the coronavirus infected patients from time period 2-Feb-2020 to 27-March-2020. It has information of all the states, their districts and cities. The data is very much useful in realising the threats that are being caused by the virus and also the source from where it is being spread in India. Also the travel history of patients and their Current health Status makes it easier to develop a model and predict the covid19 hotspots in the nation.

Acknowledgements

We wouldn't be here without the help of covid19india website. The dataset was obtained from website mentioned.

Inspiration

The cases of coronavirus infected people are increasing, this has caused to serious health calamities across the country. This has led to huge crisis on healthcare and Medicine and also the organisations that work to face and tackle coronavirus. Therefore it is of great importance that the data needs to be analysed and solutions need to be found out by looking for parameters that will help take down the virus.