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.
https://www.etalab.gouv.fr/licence-ouverte-open-licencehttps://www.etalab.gouv.fr/licence-ouverte-open-licence
Public Health France’s mission is to improve and protect the health of populations. During the health crisis linked to the COVID-19 outbreak, Santé publique France is responsible for monitoring and understanding the dynamics of the epidemic, anticipating the various scenarios and putting in place actions to prevent and limit the transmission of this virus on national territory.
The new screening information system (SI-DEP), which has been in operation since 13 May 2020, is a secure platform where the results of the laboratory tests carried out by all city and hospital laboratories for SARS-COV2 are systematically recorded.
The creation of this information system is authorised for a period of 6 months from the end of the state of health emergency by application of Decree No 2020-551 of 12 May 2020 on the information systems referred to in Article 11 of Law No 2020-546 of 11 May 2020 extending the state of health emergency and supplementing its provisions.
This dataset provides information at the departmental and regional level: — the daily and weekly incidence rate per age group; — the daily and weekly standardised incidence rate; — the sliding standardised incidence rate.
This dataset provides information at the national level: — the daily and weekly incidence rate by age group and sex; — the daily and weekly standardised incidence rate; — the sliding standardised incidence rate.
The incidence rate corresponds to the number of positive tests per 100,000 inhabitants. It shall be calculated as follows: (100000 * number of positive cases)/Population
Accuracy: — From 29/08 onwards, laboratory data indicators (SI-DEP) show rates of incidence, positivity and screening adjusted for screenings conducted at airports upon arrival of international flights. — For more information, see the methodological note available in the resources. Limits: — Only the biological tests of persons for whom the residence department could be located are shown on the maps. Persons whose department could not be traced in the SIDEP data are counted only at the whole French level. As a result, the sum of the tests indicated in the departments or regions is less than the number of tests indicated in France. — The time limit for repeating tests may exceed 9 days in some cases. The indicators are adjusted daily according to the receipt of the results.
Since 8 December, after verifying the quality of the reported data, all results of RT-PCR or Antigenic tests have been included in the production of national and territorial epidemiological indicators (incidence rates, positivity rates and screening rates) relevant to the monitoring of the COVID-19 outbreak. On the other hand, the epidemic is prolonging in time and screening capacities have increased, leading to an increasing frequency of people tested several times. Thus, an adjustment of the methods of splitting for patients benefiting from repeated tests and therefore the definition of the persons tested was necessary. Public Health France, in its patient-centred epidemiological approach, has therefore adapted its methods to ensure that these indicators reflect, in particular, the proportion of infected people among the population tested. These developments have no impact on the trends and interpretation of the dynamics of the epidemic, which remain the same. More precise test data (impact and positivity) are also published by Santé publique France (SI-DEP data).
Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.
April 9, 2020
April 20, 2020
April 29, 2020
September 1st, 2020
February 12, 2021
new_deaths
column.February 16, 2021
The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.
The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.
This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.
The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.
To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.
Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic
Filter cases by state here
Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac
Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true
Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.
Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here
Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.
The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.
@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)
<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>
Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here
This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project
The first two cases of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy were recorded between the end of January and the beginning of February 2020. Since then, the number of cases in Italy increased steadily, reaching over 26.9 million as of January 8, 2025. The region mostly hit by the virus in the country was Lombardy, counting almost 4.4 million cases. On January 11, 2022, 220,532 new cases were registered, which represented the biggest daily increase in cases in Italy since the start of the pandemic. The virus originated in Wuhan, a Chinese city populated by millions and located in the province of Hubei. More statistics and facts about the virus in Italy are available here.For a global overview, visit Statista's webpage exclusively dedicated to coronavirus, its development, and its impact.
https://www.usa.gov/government-workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
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,
Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.
The difficulties of death figures
This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.
Where are these numbers coming from?
The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.
https://www.usa.gov/government-workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
This public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties. This dataset contains the same values used to display information available on the COVID Data Tracker at: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view?list_select_state=all_states&list_select_county=all_counties&data-type=CommunityLevels The data are updated weekly.
CDC looks at the 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 — to determine the COVID-19 community level. The COVID-19 community level is 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 is classified as low, medium, or high. COVID-19 Community Levels can 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.
See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/community-levels.html for more information.
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.
For more details on the Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 thresholds, see COVID-19 Public Health Risk Measures: Data Notes (Updated 4/13/22). https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/phri_tcm1148-434773.pdf
Note: 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.
The outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, saw infection cases spread throughout the Asia-Pacific region. By April 13, 2024, India had faced over 45 million coronavirus cases. South Korea followed behind India as having had the second highest number of coronavirus cases in the Asia-Pacific region, with about 34.6 million cases. At the same time, Japan had almost 34 million cases. At the beginning of the outbreak, people in South Korea had been optimistic and predicted that the number of cases would start to stabilize. What is SARS CoV 2?Novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS CoV 2, is a disease which causes respiratory problems which can lead to difficulty breathing and pneumonia. The illness is similar to that of SARS which spread throughout China in 2003. After the outbreak of the coronavirus, various businesses and shops closed to prevent further spread of the disease. Impacts from flight cancellations and travel plans were felt across the Asia-Pacific region. Many people expressed feelings of anxiety as to how the virus would progress. Impact throughout Asia-PacificThe Coronavirus and its variants have affected the Asia-Pacific region in various ways. Out of all Asia-Pacific countries, India was highly affected by the pandemic and experienced more than 50 thousand deaths. However, the country also saw the highest number of recoveries within the APAC region, followed by South Korea and Japan.
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
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 dataset summarizes counts and rates of cumulative COVID-19 cases by cities in Santa Clara County. Source: California Reportable Disease Information Exchange
This dataset is updated every Thursday.
After entering Italy, the coronavirus (COVID-19) spread fast. The strict lockdown implemented by the government during the Spring 2020 helped to slow down the outbreak. However, the country had to face four new harsh waves of contagion. As of January 1, 2025, the total number of cases reported by the authorities reached over 26.9 million. The north of the country was mostly hit, and the region with the highest number of cases was Lombardy, which registered almost 4.4 million of them. The north-eastern region of Veneto and the southern region of Campania followed in the list. When adjusting these figures for the population size of each region, however, the picture changed, with the region of Veneto being the area where the virus had the highest relative incidence. Coronavirus in Italy Italy has been among the countries most impacted by the coronavirus outbreak. Moreover, the number of deaths due to coronavirus recorded in Italy is significantly high, making it one of the countries with the highest fatality rates worldwide, especially in the first stages of the pandemic. In particular, a very high mortality rate was recorded among patients aged 80 years or older. Impact on the economy The lockdown imposed during the Spring 2020, and other measures taken in the following months to contain the pandemic, forced many businesses to shut their doors and caused industrial production to slow down significantly. As a result, consumption fell, with the sectors most severely hit being hospitality and tourism, air transport, and automotive. Several predictions about the evolution of the global economy were published at the beginning of the pandemic, based on different scenarios about the development of the pandemic. According to the official results, it appeared that the coronavirus outbreak had caused Italy’s GDP to shrink by approximately nine percent in 2020.
Dataset aims to facilitate a state by state comparison of potential risk factors that may heighten Covid 19 transmission rates or deaths. It includes state by state estimates of: covid 19 positives/deaths, flu/pneumonia deaths, major city population densities, available hospital resources, high risk health condition prevalance, population over 60, and means of work transportation rates.
The Data Includes:
1) Covid 19 Outcome Stats:
Covid_Death : Covid Deaths by State
Covid_Positive : Covid Positive Tests by State
2) US Major City Population Density by State: CBSA_Major_City_max_weighted_density
3) KFF Estimates of Total Hospital Beds by State:
Kaiser_Total_Hospital_Beds
4) 2018 Season Flu and Pneumonia Death Stats:
FLUVIEW_TOTAL_PNEUMONIA_DEATHS_Season_2018
FLUVIEW_TOTAL_INFLUENZA_DEATHS_Season_2018
5)US Total Rates of Flu Hospitalization by Underlying Condition:
Fluview_US_FLU_Hospitalization_Rate_....
6) State by State BRFSS Prevalance Rates of Conditions Associated with Higher Flu Hospitalization Rates
BRFSS_Diabetes_Prevalance
BRFSS_Asthma_Prevalance
BRFSS_COPD_Prevalance
BRFSS_Obesity BMI Prevalance
BRFSS_Other_Cancer_Prevalance
BRFSS_Kidney_Disease_Prevalance
BRFSS_Obesity BMI Prevalance
BRFSS_2017_High_Cholestoral_Prevalance
BRFSS_2017_High_Blood_Pressure_Prevalance
Census_Population_Over_60
7)State by state breakdown of Means of Work Transpotation:
COMMUTE_Census_Worker_Public_Transportation_Rate
Links to data sources:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/
https://covidtracking.com/data/
https://gis.cdc.gov/GRASP/Fluview/FluHospRates.html https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-address-coronavirus/#stateleveldata
Tables: ACSST1Y2018.S1811 ACSST1Y2018.S0102
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2012/dec/c2010sr-01-density.html
https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html
I hope to show the existence of correlations that warrant a deeper county by county analysis to identify areas of increased risk requiring increased resource allocation or increased attention to preventative measures.
As of March 10, 2023, the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases was California. Almost 104 million cases have been reported across the United States, with the states of California, Texas, and Florida reporting the highest numbers.
From an epidemic to a pandemic The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The term pandemic refers to multiple outbreaks of an infectious illness threatening multiple parts of the world at the same time. When the transmission is this widespread, it can no longer be traced back to the country where it originated. The number of COVID-19 cases worldwide has now reached over 669 million.
The symptoms and those who are most at risk Most people who contract the virus will suffer only mild symptoms, such as a cough, a cold, or a high temperature. However, in more severe cases, the infection can cause breathing difficulties and even pneumonia. Those at higher risk include older persons and people with pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. People aged 85 years and older have accounted for around 27 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the United States, although this age group makes up just two percent of the U.S. population
Open Government Licence - Canada 2.0https://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada
License information was derived automatically
This dataset reports the daily reported number of the 7-day moving average rates of Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status and by age group. Learn how the Government of Ontario is helping to keep Ontarians safe during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak. Effective November 14, 2024 this page will no longer be updated. Information about COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses is available on Public Health Ontario’s interactive respiratory virus tool: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Infectious-Disease/Respiratory-Virus-Tool Data includes: * Date on which the death occurred * Age group * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those not fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those fully vaccinated * 7-day moving average of the last seven days of the death rate per 100,000 for those vaccinated with at least one booster ##Additional notes As of June 16, all COVID-19 datasets will be updated weekly on Thursdays by 2pm. As of January 12, 2024, data from the date of January 1, 2024 onwards reflect updated population estimates. This update specifically impacts data for the 'not fully vaccinated' category. On November 30, 2023 the count of COVID-19 deaths was updated to include missing historical deaths from January 15, 2020 to March 31, 2023. CCM is a dynamic disease reporting system which allows ongoing update to data previously entered. As a result, data extracted from CCM represents a snapshot at the time of extraction and may differ from previous or subsequent results. Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19 data, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes and current totals being different from previously reported cases and deaths. Observed trends over time should be interpreted with caution for the most recent period due to reporting and/or data entry lags. The data does not include vaccination data for people who did not provide consent for vaccination records to be entered into the provincial COVaxON system. This includes individual records as well as records from some Indigenous communities where those communities have not consented to including vaccination information in COVaxON. “Not fully vaccinated” category includes people with no vaccine and one dose of double-dose vaccine. “People with one dose of double-dose vaccine” category has a small and constantly changing number. The combination will stabilize the results. Spikes, negative numbers and other data anomalies: Due to ongoing data entry and data quality assurance activities in Case and Contact Management system (CCM) file, Public Health Units continually clean up COVID-19, correcting for missing or overcounted cases and deaths. These corrections can result in data spikes, negative numbers and current totals being different from previously reported case and death counts. Public Health Units report cause of death in the CCM based on information available to them at the time of reporting and in accordance with definitions provided by Public Health Ontario. The medical certificate of death is the official record and the cause of death could be different. Deaths are defined per the outcome field in CCM marked as “Fatal”. Deaths in COVID-19 cases identified as unrelated to COVID-19 are not included in the Deaths involving COVID-19 reported. Rates for the most recent days are subject to reporting lags All data reflects totals from 8 p.m. the previous day. This dataset is subject to change.
In Chad, COVID-19 is expected to affect households in many ways. First, governments might reduce social transfers to households due to the decline in revenue arising from the potential COVID-19 economic recession. Second households deriving income from vulnerable sectors such as tourism and related activities will likely face risk of unemployment or loss of income. Third an increase in prices of imported goods can also negatively impact household welfare, as a direct consequence of the increase of these imported items or as indirect increase of prices of local good manufactured using imported inputs. In this context, there is a need to produce high frequency data to help policy makers in monitoring the channels by which the pandemic affects households and assessing its distributional impact. To do so, the sample of the longitudinal survey will be a sub-sample of the 2018/19 Enquête sur la Consommation des Ménages et le Secteur Informel au Tchad (Ecosit 4) in Chad.
This has the advantage of conducting cost effectively welfare analysis without collecting new consumption data. The 30 minutes questionnaires covered many modules, including knowledge, behavior, access to services, food security, employment, safety nets, shocks, coping, etc. Data collection is planned for four months (four rounds) and the questionnaire is designed with core modules and rotating modules.
The main objectives of the survey are to: • Identify type of households directly or indirectly affected by the pandemic; • Identify the main channels by which the pandemic affects households; • Provide relevant data on income and socioeconomic indicators to assess the welfare impact of the pandemic.
National coverage, including Ndjamena (Capital city), other urban and rural
The survey covered only households of the 2018/19 Enquête sur la Consommation des Ménages et le Secteur Informel au Tchad (ECOSIT 4) which excluded populations in prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.
Sample survey data [ssd]
The Chad COVID-19 impact monitoring survey is a high frequency Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI). The survey’s sample was drawn from the Enquête sur la Consommation des Ménages et le Secteur Informel au Tchad (Ecosit 4) which was conducted in 2018-2019. ECOSIT 4 is a survey with a sample size of 7,493 household’s representative at national, regional and by urban/rural. During the survey, each household was asked to provide a phone number of at least one member or a non-household member (e.g. friends or neighbors) so that they can be contacted for follow-up questions. The sampling of the high frequency survey aimed at having representative estimates by national and area of residence: Ndjamena (capital city), other urban and rural area. The minimum sample size was 2,000 for which 1,748 households (87.5%) were successfully interviewed at the national level. To account for non-response and attrition and given that this survey was the first experience of INSEED, 2,833households were initially selected, among them 1,832 households have been reached. The 1,748 households represent the final sample and will be contacted for the next three rounds of the survey.
None
Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]
The questionnaire is in French and has been administrated in French and local languages. The length of an interview varies between 20 and 30 minutes. The questionnaires consisted of the following sections: 1- Household Roster 2- Knowledge of COVID-19 3- Behavior and Social Distancing 4- Access to Basic Services 5- Employment and Income 6- Prices and Food Security 7- Other Impacts of COVID-19 8- Income Loss 9- Coping/Shocks 10- Social Safety Nets 11- Fragility 12. Gender based Violence (for the fourth wave) 13. Vaccine (for the fourth wave)
At the end of data collection, the raw dataset was cleaned by the INSEED with the support of the WB team. This included formatting, and correcting results based on monitoring issues, enumerator feedback and survey changes.
The minimum sample expected is 2,000 households covering Ndjamena, other urban and rural areas. Overall, the survey has been completed for 1,748 households that is about 87.5 % of the expected minimal sample size at the national level. This provide reliable estimates at national and area of residence level.
Note: This COVID-19 data set is no longer being updated as of December 1, 2023. Access current COVID-19 data on the CDPH respiratory virus dashboard (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Respiratory-Viruses/RespiratoryDashboard.aspx) or in open data format (https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/respiratory-virus-dashboard-metrics).
As of August 17, 2023, data is being updated each Friday.
For death data after December 31, 2022, California uses Provisional Deaths from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). Prior to January 1, 2023, death data was sourced from the COVID-19 registry. The change in data source occurred in July 2023 and was applied retroactively to all 2023 data to provide a consistent source of death data for the year of 2023.
As of May 11, 2023, data on cases, deaths, and testing is being updated each Thursday. Metrics by report date have been removed, but previous versions of files with report date metrics are archived below.
All metrics include people in state and federal prisons, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, US Marshal detention facilities, and Department of State Hospitals facilities. Members of California's tribal communities are also included.
The "Total Tests" and "Positive Tests" columns show totals based on the collection date. There is a lag between when a specimen is collected and when it is reported in this dataset. As a result, the most recent dates on the table will temporarily show NONE in the "Total Tests" and "Positive Tests" columns. This should not be interpreted as no tests being conducted on these dates. Instead, these values will be updated with the number of tests conducted as data is received.
https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/privacy-policyhttps://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/privacy-policy
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
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...
https://www.globaldata.com/privacy-policy/https://www.globaldata.com/privacy-policy/
First reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, now more than 846,200 confirmed cases of COVID-19 are spread across 187 countries worldwide. The US and several countries in Europe such as Italy, Spain, and Belgium have continued to see a decrease in daily cases. Russia, Brazil, and Latin American countries are seeing increasing trends. India has also seen an increase in the number of new cases reported despite strict distancing measures taken early on.
Special populations analysis covered in the report include the following:
COVID-19 in children may result in systemic multisystem syndrome with severe outcomes.
Childhood routine vaccination rates drop during pandemic.
COVID-19’s impact in pregnant women unclear, though most cases are asymptomatic.
The COVID-19 pandemic could cause an increase in the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Complications of opioid addiction will be challenging for the management of disease during the COVID-19 pandemic. Read More
CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
Several nations are currently experiencing a significant increase in coronavirus (COVID-19), including Indonesia. A total of 34,874,744 confirmed cases with 1,097,497 deaths (case fatality rate (CFR) 3.1%) were reported in 216 countries based on data from World Health Organization. COVID-19 remains public health problem around the world. It is possible the climate could affect the transmission of COVID-19. The wind is one of the climate factors besides temperature, humidity, and rainfall. Wind speed data can be used to study the spread of COVID-19 cases.
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.