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.

Updates

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

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

• April 9, 2020

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

• April 20, 2020

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

• April 29, 2020

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

• September 1st, 2020

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

• February 12, 2021

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

• February 16, 2021

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

  Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Queries

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

• Filter cases by state here

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

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

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

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

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

Interactive

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

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

Interactive Embed Code

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

Caveats

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

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

Attribution

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

The COVID-19 dashboard includes data on city/town COVID-19 activity, confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, confirmed and probable deaths related to COVID-19, and the demographic characteristics of cases and deaths.

This dataset contains numbers of COVID-19 outbreaks and associated cases, categorized by setting, reported to CDPH since January 1, 2021.

AB 685 (Chapter 84, Statutes of 2020) and the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (Title 8, Subchapter 7, Sections 3205-3205.4) required non-healthcare employers in California to report workplace COVID-19 outbreaks to their local health department (LHD) between January 1, 2021 – December 31, 2022. Beginning January 1, 2023, non-healthcare employer reporting of COVID-19 outbreaks to local health departments is voluntary, unless a local order is in place. More recent data collected without mandated reporting may therefore be less representative of all outbreaks that have occurred, compared to earlier data collected during mandated reporting. Licensed health facilities continue to be mandated to report outbreaks to LHDs.

LHDs report confirmed outbreaks to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) via the California Reportable Disease Information Exchange (CalREDIE), the California Connected (CalCONNECT) system, or other established processes. Data are compiled and categorized by setting by CDPH. Settings are categorized by U.S. Census industry codes. Total outbreaks and cases are included for individual industries as well as for broader industrial sectors.

The first dataset includes numbers of outbreaks in each setting by month of onset, for outbreaks reported to CDPH since January 1, 2021. This dataset includes some outbreaks with onset prior to January 1 that were reported to CDPH after January 1; these outbreaks are denoted with month of onset “Before Jan 2021.” The second dataset includes cumulative numbers of COVID-19 outbreaks with onset after January 1, 2021, categorized by setting. Due to reporting delays, the reported numbers may not reflect all outbreaks that have occurred as of the reporting date; additional outbreaks may have occurred that have not yet been reported to CDPH.

While many of these settings are workplaces, cases may have occurred among workers, other community members who visited the setting, or both. Accordingly, these data do not distinguish between outbreaks involving only workers, outbreaks involving only residents or patrons, or outbreaks involving both.

Several additional data limitations should be kept in mind:

• Outbreaks are classified as “Insufficient information” for outbreaks where not enough information was available for CDPH to assign an industry code.

• Some sectors, particularly congregate residential settings, may have increased testing and therefore increased likelihood of outbreak recognition and reporting. As a result, in congregate residential settings, the number of outbreak-associated cases may be more accurate.

• However, in most settings, outbreak and case counts are likely underestimates. For most cases, it is not possible to identify the source of exposure, as many cases have multiple possible exposures.

• Because some settings have been at times been closed or open with capacity restrictions, numbers of outbreak reports in those settings do not reflect COVID-19 transmission risk.

• The number of outbreaks in different settings will depend on the number of different workplaces in each setting. More outbreaks would be expected in settings with many workplaces compared to settings with few workplaces.

Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

This process is collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provide the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. CDC may retrospectively update counts to correct data quality issues.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Important note: The counts reflected during a given time period in this dataset may not match the counts reflected for the same time period in the archived dataset noted above. Discrepancies may exist due to differences between county and state COVID-19 case surveillance and reconciliation efforts.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s

As a result of COVID-19, customers are increasingly looking for digital, non-touch based interactions with organizations, given concerns about physical interactions. The survey shows that even post pandemic customers across the world will still be increasing their use of touchless interfaces, such as facial recognitions, touchless interfaces, apps, etc. For instance, ** percent of respondents in China expected to increase touchless interactions during the pandemic, and ** percent of them showed willingness to keep doing the same after the pandemic.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

COVID-19 Health Code Market Outlook

The global COVID-19 Health Code market size was valued at USD 4.5 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 10.8 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.2% from 2024 to 2032. The significant growth factor driving this market includes the ongoing global efforts to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing reliance on digital health tools to manage public health crises.

The adoption of health codes has been particularly driven by the need for efficient contact tracing and health monitoring. Governments and healthcare providers worldwide have recognized the importance of utilizing digital solutions to quickly identify and isolate COVID-19 cases, thus preventing widespread transmission. The integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into health code systems has further enhanced their effectiveness, making them indispensable tools in managing the pandemic.

Furthermore, the growing acceptance of digital health solutions among the general population is a significant growth factor for the COVID-19 Health Code market. As people become more accustomed to using mobile applications and digital platforms for health monitoring and reporting, the reliance on health codes is expected to increase. This trend is supported by the increasing penetration of smartphones and internet connectivity globally, enabling more people to access and utilize these digital health tools.

The implementation of health code systems has also been driven by the travel and tourism industry, which has been heavily impacted by the pandemic. Health codes have become a crucial component in ensuring safe and secure travel, providing travelers with the necessary health status verification to gain entry into different countries and regions. This has led to the widespread adoption of health codes by airlines, travel agencies, and other stakeholders in the travel and tourism sector.

Regional outlook for the COVID-19 Health Code market reveals significant variations in adoption and growth rates across different regions. North America and Europe have been at the forefront of adopting digital health solutions, driven by strong healthcare infrastructure and high levels of technological advancement. In contrast, regions such as Asia Pacific and Latin America are witnessing rapid growth due to increasing government initiatives and investments in digital health technologies. The Middle East & Africa region is also expected to see substantial growth, supported by efforts to strengthen healthcare systems and improve public health outcomes.

Component Analysis

The COVID-19 Health Code market is segmented by component into software, hardware, and services. Each component plays a critical role in the overall functionality and effectiveness of health code systems. The software segment encompasses the digital platforms and applications used for contact tracing, health monitoring, and data management. This segment is expected to witness significant growth due to the increasing demand for sophisticated and user-friendly digital solutions. The integration of AI and ML algorithms into health code software has enhanced their predictive capabilities, enabling more accurate and timely identification of COVID-19 cases.

The hardware segment includes devices such as smartphones, tablets, and other digital tools used to access and utilize health code applications. This segment is driven by the proliferation of mobile devices and the increasing adoption of wearable health monitors. The integration of health code functionalities into existing hardware devices has made it easier for users to access and use these tools, thereby driving market growth. Additionally, the development of specialized hardware devices designed specifically for health code applications is expected to further boost this segment.

Services form a crucial component of the COVID-19 Health Code market, encompassing a range of activities such as installation, maintenance, training, and support. The demand for these services is driven by the need for seamless integration of health code systems into existing healthcare and public health infrastructures. Service providers play a vital role in ensuring the effective deployment and operation of health code systems, offering technical support and training to users. The increasing complexity of health code applications and the need for ongoing updates and maintenance are expected to drive the growth of the services segment.

<b

China COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase data was reported at 17.000 Person in 10 May 2020. This records an increase from the previous number of 14.000 Person for 09 May 2020. China COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase data is updated daily, averaging 51.000 Person from Jan 2020 (Median) to 10 May 2020, with 112 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 15,152.000 Person in 12 Feb 2020 and a record low of 1.000 Person in 08 May 2020. China COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Health Commission. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GZ: COVID-19: No of Patient.

This blog post was published by Jack Bastian on March 26th, 2021.

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

The global COVID-19 diagnosis market is projected to reach USD XXX million by 2033, with a CAGR of XX% during the forecast period 2025-2033. The market is driven by the increasing incidence of COVID-19, the rising demand for early and accurate diagnosis, and the growing adoption of molecular diagnostic tests. The market is segmented into two main types of tests: RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction) and isothermal nucleic acid amplification (INAAT). RT-PCR is the most commonly used test, as it is highly accurate and sensitive. However, it is also more expensive and time-consuming than INAAT. INAAT is a newer technology that is becoming increasingly popular, as it is faster and less expensive than RT-PCR. The market is also segmented by application, with hospitals and laboratories being the two main end-users. Hospitals are expected to account for the larger share of the market, as they are more likely to have the necessary equipment and expertise to perform COVID-19 tests. Laboratories are expected to play an increasingly important role in the market, as they are able to offer a wider range of testing services. With the global COVID-19 pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems worldwide, the demand for accurate and reliable diagnostic tests has skyrocketed. The market for COVID-19 diagnosis has experienced significant growth, with advancements in technology and innovation driving the development of novel and efficient testing methods.

COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Fujian data was reported at 736.000 Person in 08 Jan 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 599.000 Person for 07 Jan 2023. COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Fujian data is updated daily, averaging 7.000 Person from Aug 2021 (Median) to 08 Jan 2023, with 507 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,234.000 Person in 06 Jan 2023 and a record low of 0.000 Person in 06 Mar 2022. COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Fujian data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Health Commission. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GZ: COVID-19: No of Patient.

During a March 2020 survey of social media users in the United States, **** percent of respondents stated that if confined to their homes during the coronavirus, they would use Instagram more during that period. YouTube and Facebook were also popular social platforms that users were estimating to increase their usage during physical distancing at home. Many counties and cities in the United States have called upon residents to stay at home during the global coronavirus pandemic and subsequently, internet users turn to digital video and video-on-demand platforms to keep them entertained. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

According to Cognitive Market Research, the global COVID-19 diagnostics market size will be USD 33562.6 million in 2025. It will expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 22.10% from 2025 to 2033.

North America held the major market share for more than 40% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 13425.04 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.3% from 2025 to 2033.
Europe accounted for a market share of over 30% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 10068.78 million.
Asia Pacific held a market share of around 23% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 7719.40 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.1% from 2025 to 2033.
Latin America had a market share of more than 5% of the global revenue with a market size of USD 1678.13 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.5% from 2025 to 2033.
Middle East and Africa had a market share of around 2% of the global revenue and was estimated at a market size of USD 671.25 million in 2025 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21.8% from 2025 to 2033.
The hospitals category led the COVID-19 diagnostics market.

Market Dynamics of COVID-19 Diagnostics Market

Key Drivers for COVID-19 Diagnostics Market

Growing Coronavirus Disease Frequency to Boost Market Growth

The need for COVID-19 diagnostic tools and techniques has increased as a result of the abrupt increase in the infectious coronavirus illness that caused a worldwide epidemic. In addition to raising security issues and necessitating the diagnosis and isolation of infected individuals, the increasing number of potential infections and the requirement to verify test findings have led to a rise in interest in more kits, which is anticipated to propel market expansion. The sales of kits and reagents used to identify coronavirus infections are likely to rise as a result of these causes. Furthermore, increasing R&D efforts is likely to fuel market expansion. For instance, In August 2022, Thermo Fisher Scientific, the global leader in academic services, revealed the release of its newest assurance of quality tool, the Thermo Scientific AcroMetrix Coronavirus (COVID-19) RNA Management, to monitor and verify the COVID-19 molecular diagnostic procedures

(Source: https://newsroom.thermofisher.com/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Thermo-Fisher-Scientific-Launches-New-AcroMetrix-Coronavirus-2019-COVID-19-RNA-Control-RUO-03-31-2020/default.aspx/)

Innovative Technology Integrating in Diagnosis to Drive Market Growth

The COVID-19 diagnostics market is developing as a result of the use of technological methods, such as artificial intelligence and cloud-based platforms. Tools with AI capabilities evaluate test data more quickly and precisely, lowering the possibility of human mistakes. Digital platforms have also made it easier to gather data for epidemiological investigations, trace contacts, and share results remotely. The ability of AI to identify COVID-19 infection from lung X-rays with a reliability that surpasses proving its usefulness in diagnostics was demonstrated in research that has appeared in Nature. Consequently, the growing use of cutting-edge technologies in diagnostics drives the growth of the COVID-19 diagnostics market.

Restraint Factor for the COVID-19 Diagnostics Market

Inadequate Facilities for Healthcare, will Limit Market Growth

The expansion of the COVID-19 diagnostics market is largely restricted by insufficient medical infrastructures, particularly in frontier regions. Complicated and pure reagents, including digestive enzymes, primers, and instruments, are essential for conducting studies in clinical labs. Shortages of these reagents have been caused by a number of circumstances, including hoarding, export restrictions, and an abrupt increase in demand. Furthermore, these reagents are produced by restricted enterprises, which results in a lack of supply because of insufficient manufacturing resources. Consequently, it is projected that the inadequate global reagent demand-to-supply ratio would negatively impact the overall diagnostic rate and hinder market expansion.

Market Trends in COVID-19 Diagnostics Market

The Absolute Importance of Test Kits in Medical Facilities

The global expansion of the coronavirus has increased the demand for coronavirus testing equipment. Coronav...

COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Yunnan data was reported at 736.000 Person in 08 Jan 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 129.000 Person for 07 Jan 2023. COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Yunnan data is updated daily, averaging 3.000 Person from Aug 2021 (Median) to 08 Jan 2023, with 507 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 736.000 Person in 08 Jan 2023 and a record low of 0.000 Person in 26 Oct 2022. COVID-19: Confirmed Case: New Increase: Yunnan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Health Commission. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GZ: COVID-19: No of Patient.

According to Cognitive Market Research, the global AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID 19 and Epidemic market size is USD XX million in 2024. It will expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.00% from 2024 to 2031.

North America held the major market share for more than 40% of the global revenue with a market size of USD XX million in 2024 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.2% from 2024 to 2031.
Europe accounted for a market share of over 30% of the global revenue with a market size of USD XX million.
Asia Pacific held a market share of around 23% of the global revenue with a market size of USD XX million in 2024 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.0% from 2024 to 2031.
Latin America had a market share for more than 5% of the global revenue with a market size of USD XX million in 2024 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.4% from 2024 to 2031.
Middle East and Africa hada market share of around 2% of the global revenue and was estimated at a market size of USD XX million in 2024 and will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.7% from 2024 to 2031.
The Public Emergency application category is the fastest-growing segment in this market. This rapid growth is attributed to the increasing need for AI-driven solutions in managing public health crises and emergency response.

Market Dynamics of AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID 19 and Epidemic Market

Key Drivers for AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID 19 and Epidemic Market

AI Advancements in Response to COVID-19 to Increase the Demand Globally

AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 and Epidemic Market has witnessed a surge in innovation and development, primarily driven by the urgent need to combat the pandemic. AI technologies have been instrumental in various aspects of the COVID-19 response, including drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiological modeling. AI-powered platforms have accelerated the screening of potential drug candidates, significantly reducing the time required for traditional drug discovery processes. Furthermore, AI algorithms have been crucial in predicting the spread of the virus, aiding healthcare systems in planning and resource allocation.

Increased Focus on Healthcare Automation to Propel Market Growth

Another key driver in the AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 and Epidemic Market is the increased focus on healthcare automation. The pandemic has highlighted the need for efficient and automated healthcare processes to handle the influx of patients and the strain on healthcare systems. AI technologies such as robotic process automation (RPA) and chatbots have been deployed to streamline administrative tasks, enhance patient communication, and improve overall healthcare service delivery. This trend towards healthcare automation is expected to drive the demand for AI solutions in the healthcare sector, including those related to epidemic management.

Restraint Factor for the AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID 19 and Epidemic Market

Limited Accessibility and Affordability to Limit the Sales

One significant restraint in the AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 and Epidemic Market is the limited accessibility and affordability of AI-based solutions, particularly in developing and underdeveloped regions. The high cost associated with AI technologies, including software development, implementation, and maintenance, poses a barrier to entry for many healthcare facilities and governments, hindering widespread adoption. Additionally, the lack of skilled professionals to operate AI systems further limits their effectiveness in combating epidemics. Addressing these challenges through cost-effective solutions and training programs will be crucial in realizing the full potential of AI in fighting infectious diseases.

Impact of Covid-19 on the AI to Novel Coronavirus COVID 19 and Epidemic Market

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly accelerated the adoption and development of AI technologies in the fight against the novel coronavirus and other epidemics. AI has played a crucial role in various aspects of the pandemic response, including early detection and diagnosis, drug discovery, contact tracing, and vaccine development. AI-powered tools such as machine learning models and natural language processing have been used to analyze vast amounts of data, including genomic sequences, clinical records, and epidemiological data, to identify patt...

This dataset contains large files which can be used to reproduce the results in McDonald, D.J., Bien, J., Green, A., Hu, A.J., DeFries, N., Hyun, S., Oliveira, N.L., Sharpnack, J., Tang, J., Tibshirani, R., Ventura, V., Wasserman, L., and Tibshirani, R.J. “Can Auxiliary Indicators Improve COVID-19 Forecasting and Hotspot Prediction?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.22.21259346

Short-term forecasts of traditional streams from public health reporting (such as cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) are a key input to public health decision-making during a pandemic. Since early 2020, our research group has worked with data partners to collect, curate, and make publicly available numerous real-time COVID-19 indicators, providing multiple views of pandemic activity in the U.S. This paper studies the utility of five such indicators---derived from de-identified medical insurance claims, self-reported symptoms from online surveys, and COVID-related Google search activity---from a forecasting perspective. For each indicator, we ask whether its inclusion in an autoregressive (AR) model leads to improved predictive accuracy relative to the same model excluding it. Such an AR model, without external features, is already competitive with many top COVID-19 forecasting models in use today. Our analysis reveals that (a) inclusion of each of these five indicators improves on the overall predictive accuracy of the AR model; (b) predictive gains are in general most pronounced during times in which COVID cases are trending in "flat" or "down" directions; (c) one indicator, based on Google searches, seems to be particularly helpful during "up" trends.

Complete descriptions as well as code are available from https://github.com/cmu-delphi/covidcast-pnas/ and are permanently accessible at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5639567.

This material is based on work supported by gifts from Facebook, Google.org, the McCune Foundation, and Optum.

CN: COVID-19: Confirmed Case: Local: New Increase: at-risk People Screening: Jinan data was reported at 1.000 Person in 13 Dec 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.000 Person for 12 Dec 2022. CN: COVID-19: Confirmed Case: Local: New Increase: at-risk People Screening: Jinan data is updated daily, averaging 0.000 Person from Nov 2022 (Median) to 13 Dec 2022, with 43 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 40.000 Person in 08 Dec 2022 and a record low of 0.000 Person in 12 Dec 2022. CN: COVID-19: Confirmed Case: Local: New Increase: at-risk People Screening: Jinan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Jinan Municipality Health Commission. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GZ: COVID-19: Key City Local Daily New Increase.

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