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 the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, 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.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.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.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020: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 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. 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

The COVID Tracking Project collects information from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 other US territories to provide the most comprehensive testing data we can collect for the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. We attempt to include positive and negative results, pending tests, and total people tested for each state or district currently reporting that data.

Testing is a crucial part of any public health response, and sharing test data is essential to understanding this outbreak. The CDC is currently not publishing complete testing data, so we’re doing our best to collect it from each state and provide it to the public. The information is patchy and inconsistent, so we’re being transparent about what we find and how we handle it—the spreadsheet includes our live comments about changing data and how we’re working with incomplete information.

From here, you can also learn about our methodology, see who makes this, and find out what information states provide and how we handle it.

The MIDAS Online Portal for COVID-19 Modeling Research is a clearinghouse for sharing datasets, published estimates on epidemiological characteristics (both peer-reviewed and non-), and software for dashboard monitoring, data processing, modeling, and visualization related to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic (formerly referred to as 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease). Information in the portal has been selected from reputable scientific sources and from the computational modeling community within MIDAS, the Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study whose coordination center is located at the University of Pittsburgh.

Public-access data collections are shared via the MIDAS Github repository. Peer-reviewed parameter estimates have been compiled separately from non-peer-reviewed parameter estimates, and both are shared via the Github repository. Software is hosted at each creator's own Github repository (or another site) and is not maintained by the MIDAS portal. This is a developing resource and is subject to change. Direct links to all resources are available from the portal linked from this record.

Analysis of ‘COVID-19 Coronavirus Dataset’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/vignesh1694/covid19-coronavirus on 14 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Context

A SARS-like virus outbreak originating in Wuhan, China, is spreading into neighboring Asian countries, and as far afield as Australia, the US a and Europe.

On 31 December 2019, the Chinese authorities reported a case of pneumonia with an unknown cause in Wuhan, Hubei province, to the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s China Office. As more and more cases emerged, totaling 44 by 3 January, the country’s National Health Commission isolated the virus causing fever and flu-like symptoms and identified it as a novel coronavirus, now known to the WHO as 2019-nCoV.

The following dataset shows the numbers of spreading coronavirus across the globe.

Content

Sno - Serial number Date - Date of the observation Province / State - Province or state of the observation Country - Country of observation Last Update - Recent update (not accurate in terms of time) Confirmed - Number of confirmed cases Deaths - Number of death cases Recovered - Number of recovered cases

Acknowledgements

Thanks to John Hopkins CSSE for the live updates on Coronavirus and data streaming. Source: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19 Dashboard: https://public.tableau.com/profile/vignesh.coumarane#!/vizhome/DashboardToupload/Dashboard12

Inspiration

Inspired by the following work: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

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, tests, and associated deaths from COVID-19 that have been reported among Connecticut residents. 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 daily COVID-19 update. The case rate per 100,000 includes probable and confirmed cases. Probable and confirmed are defined using the CSTE case definition, which is available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf 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. 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 examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 CO

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.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.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020: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 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. 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

Data published on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported through NHS Pathways and 111 online Dashboard shows the total number of NHS Pathways triages through 111 and 999, and online assessments in 111 online which have received a potential COVID-19 final disposition. This data is based on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported by members of the public to NHS Pathways through NHS 111 or 999 and 111 online, and is not based on the outcomes of tests for coronavirus. This is not a count of people.

Content

Widely available data on confirmed cases only becomes meaningful when it can be interpreted in light of how much a country is testing. This is why Our World in Data built the global database on COVID-19 testing [1]. The additional smoothing and per capita rates make different countries (somewhat) comparable.

Our World in Data also had a good overview of global cause of death two years ago [2] I shared that data as well for additional comparisons.

Acknowledgements

[1] Max Roser, Hannah Ritchie, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Joe Hasell (2020) - "Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19)". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

[2] Hannah Ritchie (2018) - "Causes of Death". Published online at OurWorldInData.org. https://ourworldindata.org/causes-of-death

Inspiration

• First and second wave differences in Europe
• Global Forecasting for total 2020 numbers
• Covid death toll compared to main cause of death

Overview

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.

Methodology and Caveats

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.

About the Data

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.

Queries

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

Attribution

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.”

Contributors

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.

Questions

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.

The coronavirus pandemic brought major changes to dining behaviors among restaurant-goers in the United States. Restaurant closures and social distancing measures resulted in an increasing demand for online food delivery, both directly through a restaurant's website or using a third-party delivery service. In 2020, the online restaurant delivery sector's share of the restaurant market was predicted to be ** percent, before the pandemic this figure was forecast at **** percent. The post-coronavirus market share was expected to rise as much as ** percent in 2025.

The MIDAS (Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study) Online Portal for COVID-19 Modeling Research is a collection of publicly-available COVID-19 resources to support dashboard monitoring, data processing, modeling, and visualization efforts. Collections listed in the portal include case counts and case line lists with documented metadata, peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed parameter estimates, and software created by MIDAS community members. Datasets and parameter estimates are maintained and stored in the MIDAS Github repository; software is hosted by their respective creators on Github or a personal webpage.

Please cite the following paper when using this dataset:

N. Thakur, “A Large-Scale Dataset of Twitter Chatter about Online Learning during the Current COVID-19 Omicron Wave,” Journal of Data, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 109, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.3390/data7080109

Abstract

The COVID-19 Omicron variant, reported to be the most immune evasive variant of COVID-19, is resulting in a surge of COVID-19 cases globally. This has caused schools, colleges, and universities in different parts of the world to transition to online learning. As a result, social media platforms such as Twitter are seeing an increase in conversations, centered around information seeking and sharing, related to online learning. Mining such conversations, such as Tweets, to develop a dataset can serve as a data resource for interdisciplinary research related to the analysis of interest, views, opinions, perspectives, attitudes, and feedback towards online learning during the current surge of COVID-19 cases caused by the Omicron variant. Therefore this work presents a large-scale public Twitter dataset of conversations about online learning since the first detected case of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in November 2021. The dataset is compliant with the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter and the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles for scientific data management.

Data Description

The dataset comprises a total of 52,984 Tweet IDs (that correspond to the same number of Tweets) about online learning that were posted on Twitter from 9th November 2021 to 13th July 2022. The earliest date was selected as 9th November 2021, as the Omicron variant was detected for the first time in a sample that was collected on this date. 13th July 2022 was the most recent date as per the time of data collection and publication of this dataset.

The dataset consists of 9 .txt files. An overview of these dataset files along with the number of Tweet IDs and the date range of the associated tweets is as follows. Table 1 shows the list of all the synonyms or terms that were used for the dataset development.

Filename: TweetIDs_November_2021.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 1283, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: November 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021)

Filename: TweetIDs_December_2021.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 10545, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: December 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021)

Filename: TweetIDs_January_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 23078, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: January 1, 2022 to January 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_February_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 4751, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_March_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3434, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: March 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_April_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3355, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: April 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_May_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3120, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: May 1, 2022 to May 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_June_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 2361, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_July_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 1057, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: July 1, 2022 to July 13, 2022)

The dataset contains only Tweet IDs in compliance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter. The Tweet IDs need to be hydrated to be used. For hydrating this dataset the Hydrator application (link to download and a step-by-step tutorial on how to use Hydrator) may be used.

Table 1. List of commonly used synonyms, terms, and phrases for online learning and COVID-19 that were used for the dataset development

Terminology

List of synonyms and terms

COVID-19

Omicron, COVID, COVID19, coronavirus, coronaviruspandemic, COVID-19, corona, coronaoutbreak, omicron variant, SARS CoV-2, corona virus

online learning

online education, online learning, remote education, remote learning, e-learning, elearning, distance learning, distance education, virtual learning, virtual education, online teaching, remote teaching, virtual teaching, online class, online classes, remote class, remote classes, distance class, distance classes, virtual class, virtual classes, online course, online courses, remote course, remote courses, distance course, distance courses, virtual course, virtual courses, online school, virtual school, remote school, online college, online university, virtual college, virtual university, remote college, remote university, online lecture, virtual lecture, remote lecture, online lectures, virtual lectures, remote lectures

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

Analysis of ‘COVID-19 Tests, Cases, and Deaths (By Town)’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/32a9484b-f6cb-4ba2-ac23-8495915e9e0e on 13 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

COVID-19 cases, tests, and associated deaths from COVID-19 that have been reported among Connecticut residents. 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 daily COVID-19 update.

The case rate per 100,000 includes probable and confirmed cases. Probable and confirmed are defined using the CSTE case definition, which is available online: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/2020ps/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID-19.pdf

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.

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 examiner) using their best clinical judgment. Additionally, all COVID-19 deaths, including suspected or related, are required to be reported to OCME. On April 4, 2020, CT DPH and OCME released a joint memo to providers and facilities within Connecticut providing guidelines for certifying deaths due to COVID-19 that were consistent with the CDC’s guidelines and a reminder of the required reporting to OCME.25,26 As of July 1, 2021, OCME had reviewed every case reported and performed additional investigation on about one-third of reported deaths to better ascertain if COVID-19 did or did not cause or contribute to the death. Some of these investigations resulted in the OCME performing postmortem swabs for PCR testing on individuals whose deaths were suspected to be due to COVID-19, but antemortem diagnosis was unable to be made.31 The OCME issued or re-issued about 10% of COVID-19 death certificates and, when appropriate, removed COVID-19 from the death certificate. For standardization and tabulation of mortality statistics, written cause of death statements made by the certifiers on death certificates are sent to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the CDC which assigns cause of death codes according to the International Causes of Disease 10th Revision (ICD-10) classification system.25,26 COVID-19 deaths in this report are defined as those for which the death certificate has an ICD-10 code of U07.1 as either a primary (underlying) or a contributing cause of death. More information on COVID-19 mortality can be found at the following link: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Mortality/Mortality-Statistics

Data are reported daily, with timestamps indicated in the daily briefings posted at: portal.ct.gov/coronavirus. Data are subject to future revision as reporting changes.

Starting in July 2020, this dataset will be updated every weekday.

Additional notes: Due to an issue with the town-level data dated 1/17/2021, the data was temporarily unavailable; as of 11:19 AM on 1/19/2021 the data has been restored.

As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.

A delay in the data pull schedule occurred on 06/23/2020. Data from 06/22/2020 was processed on 06/23/2020 at 3:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed with the data for 06/23/2020.

A network outage on 05/19/2020 resulted in a change in the data pull schedule. Data from 5/19/2020 was processed on 05/20/2020 at 12:00 PM. Data from 5/20/2020 was processed on 5/20/2020 8:30 PM. The normal data cycle resumed on 05/20/2020 with the 8:30 PM data pull. As

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

As global communities responded to COVID-19, we heard from public health officials that the same type of aggregated, anonymized insights we use in products such as Google Maps would be helpful as they made critical decisions to combat COVID-19. These Community Mobility Reports aimed to provide insights into what changed in response to policies aimed at combating COVID-19. The reports charted movement trends over time by geography, across different categories of places such as retail and recreation, groceries and pharmacies, parks, transit stations, workplaces, and residential.

This statistic presents the distribution of the amount of time football fans spent per week watching live football matches online, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK). With the exception of the respondents that rejected watching live football matches online the largest share of respondents reportedly watched between *** hours of football online; with ** percent of respondents indicting they spent this long watching football online before the COVID-19 and ** percent indicating as such during the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a survey from March 2020, the majority of the Danish population followed updates regarding the coronavirus on a daily basis. The most popular news sources were news broadcasts on tradtional TV, as well as watching and streaming press conferences, at 65 percent of respondents each. Online news websites were the third most used news source for following updates about the coronavirus.

The first coronavirus case in Denmark was confirmed on February 27, 2020. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

This dataset gives a cursory glimpse at the overall sentiment trend of the public discourse regarding the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter. The live scatter plot of this dataset is available as The Overall Trend block at https://live.rlamsal.com.np. The trend graph reveals multiple peaks and drops that need further analysis. The n-grams during those peaks and drops can prove beneficial for better understanding the discourse. The dataset will be updated weekly and will continue until the development of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Tweets Dataset is ongoing.

COVID-19Plots and analysis relating to the coronavirus pandemic. Includes five sets of plots and associated R code to generate them.1) HeatmapsUpdated every few days - heatmaps of COVID-19 case and death trajectories for Local Authorities (or equivalent) in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Germany.2) All cause mortalityUpdated on Tuesday (for England & Wales), Wednesday (for Scotland) and Friday (for Northern Ireland) - analysis and plots of weekly all-cause deaths in 2020 compared to previous years by country, age, sex and region. Also a set of international comparisons using data from mortality.org3) ExposuresNo longer updated - mapping of potential COVID-19 mortality exposure at local levels (LSOAs) in England based on the age-sex structure of the population and levels of poor health.There is also a Shiny app which creates slightly lower resolution versions of the same plots online, which you can find here: https://victimofmaths.shinyapps.io/covidmapper/, on GitHub https://github.com/VictimOfMaths/COVIDmapper and uploaded to this record4) Index of Multiple Deprivation No longer updated - preliminary analysis of the inequality impacts of COVID-19 based on Local Authority level cases and levels of deprivation. 5) Socioeconomic inequalities. No longer updated (unless ONS release more data) - Analysis of published ONS figures of COVID-19 and other cause mortality in 2020 compared to previous years by deprivation decile.Latest versions of plots and associated analysis can be found on Twitter: https://twitter.com/victimofmathsThis work is described in more detail on the UK Data Service Impact and Innovation Lab blog: https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/visualising-high-risk-areas-for-covid-19-mortality/Adapted from data from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.1.0.http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/