As of April 24, 2022, the coronavirus (COVID-19) recovery rate in Morocco stood at 98.6 percent. The rate of recovery has remained above 80 percent since December 2020. The highest rates were recorded in December 2021, while the lowest was in August 2021.

As of May 2, 2023, the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had been confirmed in almost every country in the world. The virus had infected over 687 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had reached almost 6.87 million. The most severely affected countries include the U.S., India, and Brazil.

COVID-19: background information COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus that had not previously been identified in humans. The first case was detected in the Hubei province of China at the end of December 2019. The virus is highly transmissible and coughing and sneezing are the most common forms of transmission, which is similar to the outbreak of the SARS coronavirus that began in 2002 and was thought to have spread via cough and sneeze droplets expelled into the air by infected persons.

Naming the coronavirus disease Coronaviruses are a group of viruses that can be transmitted between animals and people, causing illnesses that may range from the common cold to more severe respiratory syndromes. In February 2020, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and the World Health Organization announced official names for both the virus and the disease it causes: SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, respectively. The name of the disease is derived from the words corona, virus, and disease, while the number 19 represents the year that it emerged.

As of May 2, 2023, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had been confirmed in almost every country and territory around the world. There had been roughly 687 million cases and 6.86 million deaths.

Vaccine approval in the United States The United States has recorded more coronavirus infections and deaths than any other country in the world. The regulatory agency in the country authorized three COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were approved in December 2020, while the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was approved in February 2021. As of April 26, 2023, the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in the U.S. had reached 675 million.

The difference between vaccines and antivirals Medications can help with the symptoms of viruses, but it is the role of the immune system to take care of them over time. However, the use of vaccines and antivirals can help the immune system in doing its job. The most tried and tested vaccine method is to inject an inactive or weakened form of a virus, encouraging the immune system to produce protective antibodies. The immune system keeps the virus in its memory, and if the real one appears, the body will recognize it and attack it more efficiently. Antivirals are designed to help target viruses, limiting their ability to reproduce and spread to other cells. They are used by patients who are already infected by a virus and can make the infection less severe.

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.

Methodology for predicting hospital admissions and evaluating recovery rates for coronavirus disease in Japan

BackgroundThymosin alpha 1 (Tα1) is widely used to treat patients with COVID-19 in China; however, its efficacy remains unclear. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of Tα1 as a COVID-19 therapy.MethodsWe performed a multicenter cohort study in five tertiary hospitals in the Hubei province of China between December 2019 and March 2020. The patient non-recovery rate was used as the primary outcome.ResultsAll crude outcomes, including non-recovery rate (65/306 vs. 290/1,976, p = 0.003), in-hospital mortality rate (62/306 vs. 271/1,976, p = 0.003), intubation rate (31/306 vs. 106/1,976, p = 0.001), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) incidence (104/306 vs. 499/1,976, p = 0.001), acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence (26/306 vs. 66/1,976, p < 0.001), and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (14.9 ± 12.7 vs. 8.7 ± 8.2 days, p < 0.001), were significantly higher in the Tα1 treatment group. After adjusting for confounding factors, Tα1 use was found to be significantly associated with a higher non-recovery rate than non-Tα1 use (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.1, p = 0.028). An increased risk of non-recovery rate associated with Tα1 use was observed in the patient subgroups with maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores ≥2 (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.4–2.9, p = 0.024), a record of ICU admission (OR 5.4, 95%CI 2.1–14.0, p < 0.001), and lower PaO2/FiO2 values (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.1–3.4, p = 0.046). Furthermore, later initiation of Tα1 use was associated with a higher non-recovery rate.ConclusionTα1 use in COVID-19 patients was associated with an increased non-recovery rate, especially in those with greater disease severity.

Since the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy started in February 2020, the number of cases has increased daily. However, the vast majority of people who contracted the virus have recovered. As of January 8, 2025, the number of individuals who recovered from coronavirus in Italy reached over 26.5 million. Conversely, the number of deaths also kept increasing, reaching over 198.6 thousand. When looking at the regional level, the region with the highest number of recoveries was Lombardy. The region, however, registered the highest number of coronavirus cases in the country. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

This study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19. The PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles from their inception to 25 September 2022. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the clinical efficacy and safety of IL-1 blockade in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were included. This meta-analysis included seven RCTs. No significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups (7.7 vs. 10.5%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–1.22; I2 = 18%). However, the study group was at significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with the control group (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.86; I2 = 24%). Finally, the risk of adverse events was similar between the two groups. IL-1 blockade does not provide increased survival benefits in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but it may reduce the need for MV. Furthermore, it is a safe agent for use in the treatment of COVID-19.> This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19.Based on the analysis of six RCTs, no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups.The study group using IL1 was associated with a significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation compared with the control group.The risk of adverse events was similar between the study and the control groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-1 (IL-1) blockade for patients with COVID-19. Based on the analysis of six RCTs, no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 was observed between the IL-1 blockade and control groups. The study group using IL1 was associated with a significantly lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation compared with the control group. The risk of adverse events was similar between the study and the control groups.

Among COVID-19 patients in the United States from February 12 to March 16, 2020, estimated case-fatality rates were highest for adults aged 85 years and older. Younger people appeared to have milder symptoms, and there were no deaths reported among persons aged 19 years and under.

Tracking the virus in the United States The outbreak of a previously unknown viral pneumonia was first reported in China toward the end of December 2019. The first U.S. case of COVID-19 was recorded in mid-January 2020, confirmed in a patient who had returned to the United States from China. The virus quickly started to spread, and the first community-acquired case was confirmed one month later in California. Overall, there had been approximately 4.5 million coronavirus cases in the country by the start of August 2020.

U.S. health care system stretched California, Florida, and Texas are among the states with the most coronavirus cases. Even the best-resourced hospitals in the United States have struggled to cope with the crisis, and certain areas of the country were dealt further blows by new waves of infections in July 2020. Attention is rightly focused on fighting the pandemic, but as health workers are redirected to care for COVID-19 patients, the United States must not lose sight of other important health care issues.

Trends for COVID-19 mortality and recovery rates per Spanish autonomous community, 2020.

BEA has been researching the use of card transaction data as an early barometer of spending in the United States. Since the emergence of COVID-19, dramatic and fast-moving changes to the U.S. economy have increased the public and policymakers' need for more frequent and timely economic data. In response, BEA is presenting these estimates using daily payment card data to measure the effects of the pandemic on spending, updated approximately every two weeks. Note that these payment card transactions are not necessarily representative of total spending in an industry and the data have other limitations, described below. The estimates in these charts and tables are not a substitute for BEA's monthly and quarterly official data, which are grounded in well-tested and proven methodologies. An event study methodology is used to estimate the difference (in percentage points) in spending from the typical level (relative to the day of week, month, and annual trends) prior to the pandemic declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020.

United States recorded 16306656 Coronavirus Recovered since the epidemic began, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, United States reported 797346 Coronavirus Deaths. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for the United States Coronavirus Recovered.

The COVID-19 Vulnerability and Recovery Index uses Tract and ZIP Code-level data* to identify California communities most in need of immediate and long-term pandemic and economic relief. Specifically, the Index is comprised of three components — Risk, Severity, and Recovery Need with the last scoring the ability to recover from the health, economic, and social costs of the pandemic. Communities with higher Index scores face a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and death and a longer uphill economic recovery. Conversely, those with lower scores are less vulnerable.

The Index includes one overarching Index score as well as a score for each of the individual components. Each component includes a set of indicators we found to be associated with COVID-19 risk, severity, or recovery in our review of existing indices and independent analysis. The Risk component includes indicators related to the risk of COVID-19 infection. The Severity component includes indicators designed to measure the risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. The Recovery Need component includes indicators that measure community needs related to economic and social recovery. The overarching Index score is designed to show level of need from Highest to Lowest with ZIP Codes in the Highest or High need categories, or top 20th or 40th percentiles of the Index, having the greatest need for support.

The Index was originally developed as a statewide tool but has been adapted to LA County for the purposes of the Board motion. To distinguish between the LA County Index and the original Statewide Index, we refer to the revised Index for LA County as the LA County ARPA Index.

*Zip Code data has been crosswalked to Census Tract using HUD methodology

Indicators within each component of the LA County ARPA Index are:Risk: Individuals without U.S. citizenship; Population Below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL); Overcrowded Housing Units; Essential Workers Severity: Asthma Hospitalizations (per 10,000); Population Below 200% FPL; Seniors 75 and over in Poverty; Uninsured Population; Heart Disease Hospitalizations (per 10,000); Diabetes Hospitalizations (per 10,000)Recovery Need: Single-Parent Households; Gun Injuries (per 10,000); Population Below 200% FPL; Essential Workers; Unemployment; Uninsured PopulationData are sourced from US Census American Communities Survey (ACS) and the OSHPD Patient Discharge Database. For ACS indicators, the tables and variables used are as follows:

Indicator

ACS Table/Years

Numerator

Denominator

Non-US Citizen

B05001, 2019-2023

b05001_006e

b05001_001e

Below 200% FPL

S1701, 2019-2023

s1701_c01_042e

s1701_c01_001e

Overcrowded Housing Units

B25014, 2019-2023

b25014_006e + b25014_007e + b25014_012e + b25014_013e

b25014_001e

Essential Workers

S2401, 2019-2023

s2401_c01_005e + s2401_c01_011e + s2401_c01_013e + s2401_c01_015e + s2401_c01_019e + s2401_c01_020e + s2401_c01_023e + s2401_c01_024e + s2401_c01_029e + s2401_c01_033e

s2401_c01_001

Seniors 75+ in Poverty

B17020, 2019-2023

b17020_008e + b17020_009e

b17020_008e + b17020_009e + b17020_016e + b17020_017e

Uninsured

S2701, 2019-2023

s2701_c05_001e

NA, rate published in source table

Single-Parent Households

S1101, 2019-2023

s1101_c03_005e + s1101_c04_005e

s1101_c01_001e

Unemployment

S2301, 2019-2023

s2301_c04_001e

NA, rate published in source table

The remaining indicators are based data requested and received by Advancement Project CA from the OSHPD Patient Discharge database. Data are based on records aggregated at the ZIP Code level:

Indicator

Years

Definition

Denominator

Asthma Hospitalizations

2017-2019

All ICD 10 codes under J45 (under Principal Diagnosis)

American Community Survey, 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05

Gun Injuries

2017-2019

Principal/Other External Cause Code "Gun Injury" with a Disposition not "Died/Expired". ICD 10 Code Y38.4 and all codes under X94, W32, W33, W34, X72, X73, X74, X93, X95, Y22, Y23, Y35 [All listed codes with 7th digit "A" for initial encounter]

American Community Survey, 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05

Heart Disease Hospitalizations

2017-2019

ICD 10 Code I46.2 and all ICD 10 codes under I21, I22, I24, I25, I42, I50 (under Principal Diagnosis)

American Community Survey, 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05

Diabetes (Type 2) Hospitalizations

2017-2019

All ICD 10 codes under E11 (under Principal Diagnosis)

American Community Survey, 2015-2019, 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05

For more information about this dataset, please contact egis@isd.lacounty.gov.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, with cytokine storm leading to exaggerating immune response, multi-organ dysfunction and death. Melatonin has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects and its effect on COVID-19 clinical outcomes is controversial. This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of melatonin on COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without any language or publication year limitations from inception to 15 Nov 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using melatonin as therapy in COVID-19 patients were included. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes included were the recovery rate of clinical symptoms, changes in the inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR). A random-effects model was applied for meta-analyses, and further subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.ResultsA total of nine RCTs with 718 subjects were included. Five studies using melatonin with the primary outcome were analyzed, and the pooled results showed no significant difference in mortality between melatonin and control groups with high heterogeneity across studies identified (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–1.11, p = 0.14, I2 = 82%). However, subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant effects in patients aged under 55 years (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62–0.82, p < 0.01) and in patients treated for more than 10 days (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.53, p = 0.01). The recovery rate of clinical symptoms and changes in CRP, ESR, and NLR were not statistically significant. No serious adverse effects were reported from melatonin use.ConclusionIn conclusion, based on low certainty of evidence, the study concluded that melatonin therapy does not significantly reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients, but there are possible benefits in patients under 55 years or treated for more than 10 days. With a very low certainty of evidence, we found no significant difference in the recovery rate of COVID-19 related symptoms or inflammatory markers in current studies. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to determine the possible efficacy of melatonin on COVID-19 patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022351424.

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

Abstract Introduction Sudden olfactory dysfunction is a new symptom related to COVID-19, with little data on its duration or recovery rate. Objective To characterize patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially their recovery data. Methods An online survey was conducted by the Brazilian Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Cervico-Facial Surgery, and Brazilian Academy of Rhinology, including doctors who assessed sudden olfactory dysfunction patients starting after February 1st, 2020. Participants were posteriorly asked by e-mail to verify data on the recovery of sudden olfactory loss and test for COVID-19 at the end of the data collection period. Results 253 sudden olfactory dysfunction patients were included, of which 59.1% were females with median age of 36 years, with a median follow-up period of 31 days. 183 patients (72.3%) had been tested for COVID-19, and of those 145 (79.2%) tested positive. Patients that tested positive for COVID-19 more frequently showed non-specific inflammatory symptoms (89.7% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.02), a lower rate of total recovery of sudden olfactory dysfunction (52.6% vs. 70.3%; p = 0.05) and a longer duration to achieve total recovery (15 days vs. 10 days; p = 0.0006) than the ones who tested negative for COVID-19. Considering only positive-COVID-19 patients, individuals with sudden hyposmia completely recovered more often than the ones with sudden anosmia (68.4% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.04). Conclusion Positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden olfactory dysfunction showed lower total recovery rate and longer duration than negative-COVID-19 patients. Additionally, total recovery was seen more frequently in positive-COVID-19 patients with sudden hyposmia than the ones with sudden anosmia.

Results of the prediction of number of confirmed cases on February 3rd.

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

1. COVID-19 confirmed case, death, case fatality rate and cumulative recovery rate data of Bangladesh
2. COVID-19 virus Genomics data

Monthly COVID-19 death rates per 100,000 population stratified by age group, race/ethnicity, sex, and region, with race/ethnicity by age group and age group by race/ethnicity double stratification