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.
As of March 2020, 64 percent of consumers in the United States didn't expect that the coronavirus pandemic would change the amount of money that they typically spent on American goods. However, almost a quarter (24 percent) expected that they would spend more on goods made in the USA.
The United States responds to the virus spreading In an attempt to slow the spread of the virus, many states have now begun to temporarily close schools, bars, restaurants, and movie theaters, ban large public gatherings, and encourage workers to work from home. As a growing amount of people feel increasing concern, behavior seems to be changing. People are less likely to go to public spaces such as shopping malls, and are spending more at wholesale club retailers.
Potential effects of COVID-19 Social and economic impacts are already felt by many as day-to-day life slows to a stop in numerous places around the world during work-from-home initiatives and quarantines. International trade, international travel, and the global economy have been struck by flight cancellations, postponement of public events, and falling stocks. Individuals are increasingly fearful that the outbreak will personally affect their financial stability.
For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.
Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada
License information was derived automatically
Together, we can slow the spread of COVID-19 by making a conscious effort to keep a physical distance between each other. Physical distancing is proven to be one of the most effective ways to reduce the spread of illness during an outbreak.
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
As a result of the current health crisis in the country, many sectors of activity are slowing down. With the Covid-19, the players in telecommunications services are not spared. Whether it is fixed or mobile telephony, the various stakeholders face major difficulties. Containment measures, which require undertakings with non-essential activities to stop, have already perceptible consequences. As regards compliance with the requirements dictated by Arcep in terms of the progress of the deployment of optical fibre, the country’s general paralysis already suggests further delays. According to some operators, including SFR via its representative Patrick Drahi, a deficit of a few months is expected. With more than 3000 short-time workers, the red square operator cannot stick to the Arcep forecast. With regard to the infrastructure already in place, the latter are also under severe strain. With teleworking adopted by many companies, the fixed internet network is being sought from all sides. As the Arcep recalls, however, some precautions allow teleworking under the best conditions.
In a 2020 survey, over 43 percent of shipping and freight professionals revealed that they expect a slow recovery from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. During the same survey, over 55 percent of respondents stated that their shipping and supply chain partners were somewhat prepared for the COVID-19 crisis.
As of February 2020, 75 percent of Indonesian respondents believed that the international economy would be greatly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak. Shortly after Indonesia's President confirmed the first two cases in Indonesia at the beginning of March 2020, Indonesia's central bank, Bank Indonesia, said the country’s economic growth could still arise to 5.4 percent despite the ongoing spread of the coronavirus. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Supplement of the paper
“The emergence of high-fitness variants accelerates the slowdown of genome heterogeneity in the coronavirus”
Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus accumulated an important amount of genome variability through mutation and recombination. To test evolutionary trends that could inform us on the adaptive process of the virus to its human host, we compute a genome-wide measure of Sequence Compositional Complexity (SCC) in high-quality coronavirus genomes from across the globe, covering the full span of the pandemic. In early samples, we find no statistical support for any trend in SCC values over time, although the virus genome appears to evolve faster than Brownian Motion expectation. However, in samples taken after the emergence of Variants of Concern with higher transmissibility, and controlling for phylogenetic and sampling effects, we detect a declining trend for SCC and an increasing one for its absolute evolutionary rate. This means that the decline in SCC itself accelerated over time, and that increasing fitness of variant genomes lead to a reduction of their genome sequence heterogeneity.
Supplementary files
File |
Description |
SupplementaryTables S1-S18.xlsx |
The strain name, the collection date, and the SCC values for each analyzed genome. |
SupplementaryTableS19.pdf |
A complete list acknowledging all originating and submitting laboratories for the sequence data in GISAID EpiCoV on which these analyses are based. |
SupplementaryTable S20.pdf |
A complete list acknowledging the authors, originating and submitting laboratories of the genetic sequences we used for the analysis of the Nextstrain sample. |
PhylogeneticTimetrees_NexusFormat.zip |
Phylogenetic timetrees (Nexus format). |
PhylogeneticTimetrees_NewickFormat.zip |
Phylogenetic timetrees (Newick format). |
SCCdata.zip |
SCC data. |
Updated weekly Public Health — Seattle & King County is monitoring changes in key economic, social, and other health indicators resulting from strategies to slow the spread of COVID-19. The metrics below were selected based on studies from previous outbreaks, which have linked strategies such as social distancing, school closures, and business closures to specific outcomes. Individual indicators in the grid below are updated daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on the source of data. Additional data will be added over time.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
This 6MB download is a zip file containing 5 pdf documents and 2 xlsx spreadsheets. Presentation on COVID-19 and the potential impacts on employment
May 2020Waka Kotahi wants to better understand the potential implications of the COVID-19 downturn on the land transport system, particularly the potential impacts on regional economies and communities.
To do this, in May 2020 Waka Kotahi commissioned Martin Jenkins and Infometrics to consider the potential impacts of COVID-19 on New Zealand’s economy and demographics, as these are two key drivers of transport demand. In addition to providing a scan of national and international COVID-19 trends, the research involved modelling the economic impacts of three of the Treasury’s COVID-19 scenarios, to a regional scale, to help us understand where the impacts might be greatest.
Waka Kotahi studied this modelling by comparing the percentage difference in employment forecasts from the Treasury’s three COVID-19 scenarios compared to the business as usual scenario.
The source tables from the modelling (Tables 1-40), and the percentage difference in employment forecasts (Tables 41-43), are available as spreadsheets.
Arataki - potential impacts of COVID-19 Final Report
Employment modelling - interactive dashboard
The modelling produced employment forecasts for each region and district over three time periods – 2021, 2025 and 2031. In May 2020, the forecasts for 2021 carried greater certainty as they reflected the impacts of current events, such as border restrictions, reduction in international visitors and students etc. The 2025 and 2031 forecasts were less certain because of the potential for significant shifts in the socio-economic situation over the intervening years. While these later forecasts were useful in helping to understand the relative scale and duration of potential COVID-19 related impacts around the country, they needed to be treated with care recognising the higher levels of uncertainty.
The May 2020 research suggested that the ‘slow recovery scenario’ (Treasury’s scenario 5) was the most likely due to continuing high levels of uncertainty regarding global efforts to manage the pandemic (and the duration and scale of the resulting economic downturn).
The updates to Arataki V2 were framed around the ‘Slower Recovery Scenario’, as that scenario remained the most closely aligned with the unfolding impacts of COVID-19 in New Zealand and globally at that time.
Find out more about Arataki, our 10-year plan for the land transport system
May 2021The May 2021 update to employment modelling used to inform Arataki Version 2 is now available. Employment modelling dashboard - updated 2021Arataki used the May 2020 information to compare how various regions and industries might be impacted by COVID-19. Almost a year later, it is clear that New Zealand fared better than forecast in May 2020.Waka Kotahi therefore commissioned an update to the projections through a high-level review of:the original projections for 2020/21 against performancethe implications of the most recent global (eg International monetary fund world economic Outlook) and national economic forecasts (eg Treasury half year economic and fiscal update)The treasury updated its scenarios in its December half year fiscal and economic update (HYEFU) and these new scenarios have been used for the revised projections.Considerable uncertainty remains about the potential scale and duration of the COVID-19 downturn, for example with regards to the duration of border restrictions, update of immunisation programmes. The updated analysis provides us with additional information regarding which sectors and parts of the country are likely to be most impacted. We continue to monitor the situation and keep up to date with other cross-Government scenario development and COVID-19 related work. The updated modelling has produced employment forecasts for each region and district over three time periods - 2022, 2025, 2031.The 2022 forecasts carry greater certainty as they reflect the impacts of current events. The 2025 and 2031 forecasts are less certain because of the potential for significant shifts over that time.
Data reuse caveats: as per license.
Additionally, please read / use this data in conjunction with the Infometrics and Martin Jenkins reports, to understand the uncertainties and assumptions involved in modelling the potential impacts of COVID-19.
COVID-19’s effect on industry and regional economic outcomes for NZ Transport Agency [PDF 620 KB]
Data quality statement: while the modelling undertaken is high quality, it represents two point-in-time analyses undertaken during a period of considerable uncertainty. This uncertainty comes from several factors relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including:
a lack of clarity about the size of the global downturn and how quickly the international economy might recover differing views about the ability of the New Zealand economy to bounce back from the significant job losses that are occurring and how much of a structural change in the economy is required the possibility of a further wave of COVID-19 cases within New Zealand that might require a return to Alert Levels 3 or 4.
While high levels of uncertainty remain around the scale of impacts from the pandemic, particularly in coming years, the modelling is useful in indicating the direction of travel and the relative scale of impacts in different parts of the country.
Data quality caveats: as noted above, there is considerable uncertainty about the potential scale and duration of the COVID-19 downturn. Please treat the specific results of the modelling carefully, particularly in the forecasts to later years (2025, 2031), given the potential for significant shifts in New Zealand's socio-economic situation before then.
As such, please use the modelling results as a guide to the potential scale of the impacts of the downturn in different locations, rather than as a precise assessment of impacts over the coming decade.
COVID-19 has spread to most regions and territories around the world. As of May 2, 2023, the number of confirmed cases had reached roughly 687 million.
COVID-19 in the Americas The Americas is one of the regions most impacted by COVID-19. The number of coronavirus cases and deaths are particularly high in the United States and Brazil. The pandemic has had a devastating impact on Latin America, and several nations have recorded a resurgence in cases, highlighting the complexity of easing restrictions while the virus is still a threat. However, mass vaccination programs have been launched in countries including Argentina, Chile, and Panama.
The role of face masks in the prevention of COVID-19 There has been much discussion about the effectiveness of face masks in slowing the spread of the COVID-19 disease. Many governments around the world made it mandatory to wear a form of face mask, particularly in shops and on public transport. Masks alone will not halt the spread of the disease, and they should be used alongside other measures such as social distancing.
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.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. 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 one third of case days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 63 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 6-21 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 6 to 21 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 6-21 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 6-21 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend timeframe.Past five days is less than the past 6-21 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an important trend for any administrative area in an epidemic trend that the rate of spread is slowing.If less than the past 2 days, but not the last 6-21 days, this is still positive, but is not indicating a passage out of the peak timeframe of the daily new cases curve.Past 5 days has only one or two new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 6 to 21 days. Most recent 6-21 days: Represents the full tail of the curve and provides context for the past 2- and 5-day trends.If this is greater than both the 2- and 5-day trends, then a short-term downward trend has begun. Mean of Recent Tail NCD in the context of the Mean of All NCD, and raw counts of cases:Mean of Recent NCD is less than 0.5 cases per 100,000 = high level of controlMean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and fewer than 30 cases indicate continued emergent trend.3. Mean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and greater than 30 cases indicate a change from emergent to spreading trend.Mean of All NCD less than 2.0 per 100,000, and areas that have been in epidemic trends have Mean of Recent NCD of less than 5.0 per 100,000 is a significant indicator of changing trends from epidemic to spreading, now going in the direction of controlled trend.Similarly, in the context of Mean of All NCD greater than 2.0
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Introduction
There are several works based on Natural Language Processing on newspaper reports. Mining opinions from headlines [ 1 ] using Standford NLP and SVM by Rameshbhaiet. Al.compared several algorithms on a small and large dataset. Rubinet. al., in their paper [ 2 ], created a mechanism to differentiate fake news from real ones by building a set of characteristics of news according to their types. The purpose was to contribute to the low resource data available for training machine learning algorithms. Doumitet. al.in [ 3 ] have implemented LDA, a topic modeling approach to study bias present in online news media.
However, there are not many NLP research invested in studying COVID-19. Most applications include classification of chest X-rays and CT-scans to detect presence of pneumonia in lungs [ 4 ], a consequence of the virus. Other research areas include studying the genome sequence of the virus[ 5 ][ 6 ][ 7 ] and replicating its structure to fight and find a vaccine. This research is crucial in battling the pandemic. The few NLP based research publications are sentiment classification of online tweets by Samuel et el [ 8 ] to understand fear persisting in people due to the virus. Similar work has been done using the LSTM network to classify sentiments from online discussion forums by Jelodaret. al.[ 9 ]. NKK dataset is the first study on a comparatively larger dataset of a newspaper report on COVID-19, which contributed to the virus’s awareness to the best of our knowledge.
2 Data-set Introduction
2.1 Data Collection
We accumulated 1000 online newspaper report from United States of America (USA) on COVID-19. The newspaper includes The Washington Post (USA) and StarTribune (USA). We have named it as “Covid-News-USA-NNK”. We also accumulated 50 online newspaper report from Bangladesh on the issue and named it “Covid-News-BD-NNK”. The newspaper includes The Daily Star (BD) and Prothom Alo (BD). All these newspapers are from the top provider and top read in the respective countries. The collection was done manually by 10 human data-collectors of age group 23- with university degrees. This approach was suitable compared to automation to ensure the news were highly relevant to the subject. The newspaper online sites had dynamic content with advertisements in no particular order. Therefore there were high chances of online scrappers to collect inaccurate news reports. One of the challenges while collecting the data is the requirement of subscription. Each newspaper required $1 per subscriptions. Some criteria in collecting the news reports provided as guideline to the human data-collectors were as follows:
The headline must have one or more words directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.
The content of each news must have 5 or more keywords directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.
The genre of the news can be anything as long as it is relevant to the topic. Political, social, economical genres are to be more prioritized.
Avoid taking duplicate reports.
Maintain a time frame for the above mentioned newspapers.
To collect these data we used a google form for USA and BD. We have two human editor to go through each entry to check any spam or troll entry.
2.2 Data Pre-processing and Statistics
Some pre-processing steps performed on the newspaper report dataset are as follows:
Remove hyperlinks.
Remove non-English alphanumeric characters.
Remove stop words.
Lemmatize text.
While more pre-processing could have been applied, we tried to keep the data as much unchanged as possible since changing sentence structures could result us in valuable information loss. While this was done with help of a script, we also assigned same human collectors to cross check for any presence of the above mentioned criteria.
The primary data statistics of the two dataset are shown in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Covid-News-USA-NNK data statistics
No of words per headline
7 to 20
No of words per body content
150 to 2100
Table 2: Covid-News-BD-NNK data statistics No of words per headline
10 to 20
No of words per body content
100 to 1500
2.3 Dataset Repository
We used GitHub as our primary data repository in account name NKK^1. Here, we created two repositories USA-NKK^2 and BD-NNK^3. The dataset is available in both CSV and JSON format. We are regularly updating the CSV files and regenerating JSON using a py script. We provided a python script file for essential operation. We welcome all outside collaboration to enrich the dataset.
3 Literature Review
Natural Language Processing (NLP) deals with text (also known as categorical) data in computer science, utilizing numerous diverse methods like one-hot encoding, word embedding, etc., that transform text to machine language, which can be fed to multiple machine learning and deep learning algorithms.
Some well-known applications of NLP includes fraud detection on online media sites[ 10 ], using authorship attribution in fallback authentication systems[ 11 ], intelligent conversational agents or chatbots[ 12 ] and machine translations used by Google Translate[ 13 ]. While these are all downstream tasks, several exciting developments have been made in the algorithm solely for Natural Language Processing tasks. The two most trending ones are BERT[ 14 ], which uses bidirectional encoder-decoder architecture to create the transformer model, that can do near-perfect classification tasks and next-word predictions for next generations, and GPT-3 models released by OpenAI[ 15 ] that can generate texts almost human-like. However, these are all pre-trained models since they carry huge computation cost. Information Extraction is a generalized concept of retrieving information from a dataset. Information extraction from an image could be retrieving vital feature spaces or targeted portions of an image; information extraction from speech could be retrieving information about names, places, etc[ 16 ]. Information extraction in texts could be identifying named entities and locations or essential data. Topic modeling is a sub-task of NLP and also a process of information extraction. It clusters words and phrases of the same context together into groups. Topic modeling is an unsupervised learning method that gives us a brief idea about a set of text. One commonly used topic modeling is Latent Dirichlet Allocation or LDA[17].
Keyword extraction is a process of information extraction and sub-task of NLP to extract essential words and phrases from a text. TextRank [ 18 ] is an efficient keyword extraction technique that uses graphs to calculate the weight of each word and pick the words with more weight to it.
Word clouds are a great visualization technique to understand the overall ’talk of the topic’. The clustered words give us a quick understanding of the content.
4 Our experiments and Result analysis
We used the wordcloud library^4 to create the word clouds. Figure 1 and 3 presents the word cloud of Covid-News-USA- NNK dataset by month from February to May. From the figures 1,2,3, we can point few information:
In February, both the news paper have talked about China and source of the outbreak.
StarTribune emphasized on Minnesota as the most concerned state. In April, it seemed to have been concerned more.
Both the newspaper talked about the virus impacting the economy, i.e, bank, elections, administrations, markets.
Washington Post discussed global issues more than StarTribune.
StarTribune in February mentioned the first precautionary measurement: wearing masks, and the uncontrollable spread of the virus throughout the nation.
While both the newspaper mentioned the outbreak in China in February, the weight of the spread in the United States are more highlighted through out March till May, displaying the critical impact caused by the virus.
We used a script to extract all numbers related to certain keywords like ’Deaths’, ’Infected’, ’Died’ , ’Infections’, ’Quarantined’, Lock-down’, ’Diagnosed’ etc from the news reports and created a number of cases for both the newspaper. Figure 4 shows the statistics of this series. From this extraction technique, we can observe that April was the peak month for the covid cases as it gradually rose from February. Both the newspaper clearly shows us that the rise in covid cases from February to March was slower than the rise from March to April. This is an important indicator of possible recklessness in preparations to battle the virus. However, the steep fall from April to May also shows the positive response against the attack. We used Vader Sentiment Analysis to extract sentiment of the headlines and the body. On average, the sentiments were from -0.5 to -0.9. Vader Sentiment scale ranges from -1(highly negative to 1(highly positive). There were some cases
where the sentiment scores of the headline and body contradicted each other,i.e., the sentiment of the headline was negative but the sentiment of the body was slightly positive. Overall, sentiment analysis can assist us sort the most concerning (most negative) news from the positive ones, from which we can learn more about the indicators related to COVID-19 and the serious impact caused by it. Moreover, sentiment analysis can also provide us information about how a state or country is reacting to the pandemic. We used PageRank algorithm to extract keywords from headlines as well as the body content. PageRank efficiently highlights important relevant keywords in the text. Some frequently occurring important keywords extracted from both the datasets are: ’China’, Government’, ’Masks’, ’Economy’, ’Crisis’, ’Theft’ , ’Stock market’ , ’Jobs’ , ’Election’, ’Missteps’, ’Health’, ’Response’. Keywords extraction acts as a filter allowing quick searches for indicators in case of locating situations of the economy,
Nearly 250 thousand cars were not manufactured in Central and Eastern Europe due to the downtime caused by the coronavirus outbreak. The most significant losses in car production were suffered by Czechia, which, due to the production stoppage, did not produce nearly 84 thousand cars as of 30 March 2020.
For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Analyses with two intervention points on February 5, 2020 and March 19, 2020, with lags from 0–15 days. Coefficients, lower 95% confidence interval (LCI), upper 95% confidence interval (UCI), and standard errors (SE) are provided for the underlying time trend, two slope and level changes, and a constant. Analyses exclude China.
The Marshall Project, the nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, has partnered with The Associated Press to compile data on the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in prisons across the country. The Associated Press is sharing this data as the most comprehensive current national source of COVID-19 outbreaks in state and federal prisons.
Lawyers, criminal justice reform advocates and families of the incarcerated have worried about what was happening in prisons across the nation as coronavirus began to take hold in the communities outside. Data collected by The Marshall Project and AP shows that hundreds of thousands of prisoners, workers, correctional officers and staff have caught the illness as prisons became the center of some of the country’s largest outbreaks. And thousands of people — most of them incarcerated — have died.
In December, as COVID-19 cases spiked across the U.S., the news organizations also shared cumulative rates of infection among prison populations, to better gauge the total effects of the pandemic on prison populations. The analysis found that by mid-December, one in five state and federal prisoners in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus -- a rate more than four times higher than the general population.
This data, which is updated weekly, is an effort to track how those people have been affected and where the crisis has hit the hardest.
The data tracks the number of COVID-19 tests administered to people incarcerated in all state and federal prisons, as well as the staff in those facilities. It is collected on a weekly basis by Marshall Project and AP reporters who contact each prison agency directly and verify published figures with officials.
Each week, the reporters ask every prison agency for the total number of coronavirus tests administered to its staff members and prisoners, the cumulative number who tested positive among staff and prisoners, and the numbers of deaths for each group.
The time series data is aggregated to the system level; there is one record for each prison agency on each date of collection. Not all departments could provide data for the exact date requested, and the data indicates the date for the figures.
To estimate the rate of infection among prisoners, we collected population data for each prison system before the pandemic, roughly in mid-March, in April, June, July, August, September and October. Beginning the week of July 28, we updated all prisoner population numbers, reflecting the number of incarcerated adults in state or federal prisons. Prior to that, population figures may have included additional populations, such as prisoners housed in other facilities, which were not captured in our COVID-19 data. In states with unified prison and jail systems, we include both detainees awaiting trial and sentenced prisoners.
To estimate the rate of infection among prison employees, we collected staffing numbers for each system. Where current data was not publicly available, we acquired other numbers through our reporting, including calling agencies or from state budget documents. In six states, we were unable to find recent staffing figures: Alaska, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Utah.
To calculate the cumulative COVID-19 impact on prisoner and prison worker populations, we aggregated prisoner and staff COVID case and death data up through Dec. 15. Because population snapshots do not account for movement in and out of prisons since March, and because many systems have significantly slowed the number of new people being sent to prison, it’s difficult to estimate the total number of people who have been held in a state system since March. To be conservative, we calculated our rates of infection using the largest prisoner population snapshots we had during this time period.
As with all COVID-19 data, our understanding of the spread and impact of the virus is limited by the availability of testing. Epidemiology and public health experts say that aside from a few states that have recently begun aggressively testing in prisons, it is likely that there are more cases of COVID-19 circulating undetected in facilities. Sixteen prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not release information about how many prisoners they are testing.
Corrections departments in Indiana, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Wisconsin report coronavirus testing and case data for juvenile facilities; West Virginia reports figures for juvenile facilities and jails. For consistency of comparison with other state prison systems, we removed those facilities from our data that had been included prior to July 28. For these states we have also removed staff data. Similarly, Pennsylvania’s coronavirus data includes testing and cases for those who have been released on parole. We removed these tests and cases for prisoners from the data prior to July 28. The staff cases remain.
There are four tables in this data:
covid_prison_cases.csv
contains weekly time series data on tests, infections and deaths in prisons. The first dates in the table are on March 26. Any questions that a prison agency could not or would not answer are left blank.
prison_populations.csv
contains snapshots of the population of people incarcerated in each of these prison systems for whom data on COVID testing and cases are available. This varies by state and may not always be the entire number of people incarcerated in each system. In some states, it may include other populations, such as those on parole or held in state-run jails. This data is primarily for use in calculating rates of testing and infection, and we would not recommend using these numbers to compare the change in how many people are being held in each prison system.
staff_populations.csv
contains a one-time, recent snapshot of the headcount of workers for each prison agency, collected as close to April 15 as possible.
covid_prison_rates.csv
contains the rates of cases and deaths for prisoners. There is one row for every state and federal prison system and an additional row with the National
totals.
The Associated Press and The Marshall Project have created several queries to help you use this data:
Get your state's prison COVID data: Provides each week's data from just your state and calculates a cases-per-100000-prisoners rate, a deaths-per-100000-prisoners rate, a cases-per-100000-workers rate and a deaths-per-100000-workers rate here
Rank all systems' most recent data by cases per 100,000 prisoners here
Find what percentage of your state's total cases and deaths -- as reported by Johns Hopkins University -- occurred within the prison system here
In stories, attribute this data to: “According to an analysis of state prison cases by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit investigative newsroom dedicated to the U.S. criminal justice system, and The Associated Press.”
Many reporters and editors at The Marshall Project and The Associated Press contributed to this data, including: Katie Park, Tom Meagher, Weihua Li, Gabe Isman, Cary Aspinwall, Keri Blakinger, Jake Bleiberg, Andrew R. Calderón, Maurice Chammah, Andrew DeMillo, Eli Hager, Jamiles Lartey, Claudia Lauer, Nicole Lewis, Humera Lodhi, Colleen Long, Joseph Neff, Michelle Pitcher, Alysia Santo, Beth Schwartzapfel, Damini Sharma, Colleen Slevin, Christie Thompson, Abbie VanSickle, Adria Watson, Andrew Welsh-Huggins.
If you have questions about the data, please email The Marshall Project at info+covidtracker@themarshallproject.org or file a Github issue.
To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.
Unemployment in King County resulting from strategies to slow the spread of COVID-19
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.
The ongoing coronavirus pandemic, along with the preventive measures designed to slow its spread, are putting great stress on India's economy, and affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people, including refugees across the country. To determine the exact social and economic consequences of the crisis, UNDP and UNICEF, are working under the leadership of the UN Resident Coordinators, and in close collaboration with specialized UN agencies, to assess the socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on vulnerable communities. UNHCR led the socio economic impact assessment for refugee population in India. The assessment was conducted in collaboration with UNICEF and in partnership with BOSCO.
As of June 2020, 40,068 refugees and asylum seekers from different nationalities are registered with UNHCR in India (28,053 refugees and 12,015 asylum seekers). Approximately 51% of the population registered with UNHCR lives in Delhi NCR, the remaining population live throughout the country, with bigger groups in Hyderabad, Jammu and Mewat. Rohingya are the largest group of persons of concern to UNHCR in India with 17,772 persons, followed by Afghans (15,806 persons). Of the total population registered with UNHCR, 47% are women and girls while 16% are persons with specific needs.
The survival mechanism for most of the refugees and asylum seekers is mainly based on a daily income that is immensely challenged with the ongoing lockdown and restriction of movement introduced by the central and state governments. These restrictions make it impossible for asylum seekers and refugees to reach the location of their informal employment or daily income generating activities, or to receive customers for their goods and services. Their income and possible savings have dried up leaving them with no means to adequately provide for their families, including in the areas of food, shelter and medicine
National
Individuals and households
All refugees registered by UNHCR in India.
Sample survey data [ssd]
Clustered random sampling, with clusters divided by region (Delhi, outside Delhi), and legal status (Asylum seekers and Refugees).
Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]
Questionnaires included 9 modules: 1. General information 2. Awareness of COVID outbreak 3. Current work situation and impact on household income 4. Social protection at times of lockdown 5. Life at times of lockdown 6. Scenario of work during lockdown relaxation/after lockdown 7. Protection 8. Education/Children's Protection/SGBV 9. General questions
Data was cleaned and anonymized for licensed use.
Abstract: In March 2020, shortly after the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, Facebook (the company is now rebranded as Meta) announced steps to stop the spread of COVID-19 and vaccine-related misinformation. This entailed identifying and removing false and misleading content that could contribute to “imminent physical harm”. For other types of misinformation the company’s fact-checking network was mobilised and automated moderation systems ramped up to “reduce its distribution”. In this paper we ask how effective this approach has been in stopping the spread of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in the Australian social media landscape? To address this question we analyse the performance of 18 Australian right-wing and anti-vaccination Facebook pages, posts and commenting sections collected over 2 years until July 2021. We use CrowdTangle’s engagement metrics and time series analysis to map key policy announcements (between Jan 2020 and July 2021) against page performance. This is combined with content analysis of comments parsed from 2 pages, and a selection of posts that continued to overperform during this timeframe. The results showed that the suppression strategy was partially effective, in that the performance of many previously high performing pages showed steady decline between 2019 and 2021. Nonetheless, some pages not only slipped through the net but overperformed, proving this strategy to be light-touch, selective and inconsistent. The content analysis shows that labelling and fact-checking of content and shadowbanning responses were resisted by the user community who employed a range of avoidance tactics to stay engaged on the platform, while also migrating some conversations to less moderated platforms.
This is the data repository for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Visual Dashboard operated by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE). Also, Supported by ESRI Living Atlas Team and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (JHU APL). Ref: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19 Daily reports (csse_covid_19_daily_reports) This folder contains daily case reports. All timestamps are in UTC (GMT+0). File naming convention MM-DD-YYYY.csv in UTC. Field description Province/State: China - province name; US/Canada/Australia/ - city name, state/province name; Others - name of the event (e.g., "Diamond Princess" cruise ship); other countries - blank. Country/Region: country/region name conforming to WHO (will be updated). Last Update: MM/DD/YYYY HH:mm (24 hour format, in UTC). Confirmed: the number of confirmed cases. For Hubei Province: from Feb 13 (GMT +8), we report both clinically diagnosed and lab-confirmed cases. For lab-confirmed cases only (Before Feb 17), please refer to who_covid_19_situation_reports. For Italy, diagnosis standard might be changed since Feb 27 to "slow the growth of new case numbers." (Source) Deaths: the number of deaths. Recovered: the number of recovered cases. Update frequency Files after Feb 1 (UTC): once a day around 23:59 (UTC). Files on and before Feb 1 (UTC): the last updated files before 23:59 (UTC). Sources: archived_data and dashboard. Data sources Refer to the mainpage. Why create this new folder? Unifying all timestamps to UTC, including the file name and the "Last Update" field. Pushing only one file every day. All historic data is archived in archived_data. Time series summary (csse_covid_19_time_series) This folder contains daily time series summary tables, including confirmed, deaths and recovered. All data are from the daily case report. Field descriptioin Province/State: same as above. Country/Region: same as above. Lat and Long: a coordinates reference for the user. Date fields: M/DD/YYYY (UTC), the same data as MM-DD-YYYY.csv file.
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.