According to a survey conducted in Europe in 2021, 71 percent of respondents in Hungary viewed COVID-related restrictions in their country as about right, the highest share across the European countries surveyed On the other hand, 52 percent of Swedish respondents thought restrictions in their country were not strict enough, while 42 percent of respondents in Poland regarded restrictions as too strict.

In 2021, 41 percent of respondents in Hungary reported they felt free in terms of leading their life as they see fit despite the COVID-19 related restrictions in their country, the highest share the European countries surveyed. On the other hand, 49 percent of respondents in German said they did not feel free as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.

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

Earlier this year, Dr. Hoffman and Dr. Fafard published a book chapter on the efficacy and legality of border closures enacted by governments in response to changing COVID-19 conditions. The authors concluded border closures are at best, regarded as powerful symbolic acts taken by governments to show they are acting forcefully, even if the actions lack an epidemiological impact and breach international law. This COVID-19 travel restriction project was developed out of a necessity and desire to further examine the empirical implications of border closures. The current dataset contains bilateral travel restriction information on the status of 179 countries between 1 January 2020 and 8 June 2020. The data was extracted from the ‘international controls’ column from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). The data in the ‘international controls’ column outlined a country’s change in border control status, as a response to COVID-19 conditions. Accompanying source links were further verified through random selection and comparison with external news sources. Greater weight is given to official national government sources, then to provincial and municipal news-affiliated agencies. The database is presented in matrix form for each country-pair and date. Subsequently, each cell is represented by datum Xdmn and indicates the border closure status on date d by country m on country n. The coding is as follows: no border closure (code = 0), targeted border closure (= 1), and a total border closure (= 99). The dataset provides further details in the ‘notes’ column if the type of closure is a modified form of a targeted closure, either as a land or port closure, flight or visa suspension, or a re-opening of borders to select countries. Visa suspensions and closure of land borders were coded separately as de facto border closures and analyzed as targeted border closures in quantitative analyses. The file titled ‘BTR Supplementary Information’ covers a multitude of supplemental details to the database. The various tabs cover the following: 1) Codebook: variable name, format, source links, and description; 2) Sources, Access dates: dates of access for the individual source links with additional notes; 3) Country groups: breakdown of EEA, EU, SADC, Schengen groups with source links; 4) Newly added sources: for missing countries with a population greater than 1 million (meeting the inclusion criteria), relevant news sources were added for analysis; 5) Corrections: external news sources correcting for errors in the coding of international controls retrieved from the OxCGRT dataset. At the time of our study inception, there was no existing dataset which recorded the bilateral decisions of travel restrictions between countries. We hope this dataset will be useful in the study of the impact of border closures in the COVID-19 pandemic and widen the capabilities of studying border closures on a global scale, due to its interconnected nature and impact, rather than being limited in analysis to a single country or region only. Statement of contributions: Data entry and verification was performed mainly by GL, with assistance from MJP and RN. MP and IW provided further data verification on the nine countries purposively selected for the exploratory analysis of political decision-making.

About seven in ten people surveyed in a recent multi-country poll support air travel restrictions from their country to China in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. This statistic shows the percentage of respondents in selected countries worldwide who strongly or somewhat support the following as of February 9, 2020: Airlines from my country should stop flying to China.

This data has been collected from various sources and is displayed in this online dashboard: https://geonode.wfp.org/travel Mobile version: https://geonode.wfp.org/travel_mobile

The data is divided in two datasets:

• COVID-19 restrictions by country: This dataset shows current travel restrictions. Information is collected from various sources: IATA, media, national sources, WFP internal or any other.

• COVID-19 airline restrictions information: This dataset shows restrictions taken by individual airlines or country. Information is collected again from various sources including WFP internal and public sources.

The data displayed is a collaborative effort and anybody with more accurate/updated information is highly encouraged to contact WFP GIS unit for Emergencies at the following email address: hq.gis@wfp.org

A recent survey from IPSOS found that nearly two thirds of respondents from Japan and India strongly or somewhat agreed that restrictions on travel and self-isolation would not stop the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), compared to only one third of Canadians. This statistic shows the percentage of respondents worldwide who felt that travel restrictions and self-isolation would not stop the spread of COVID-19 as of March 21, 2020, by country.

As of May 2, 2023, the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had spread to almost every country in the world, and more than 6.86 million people had died after contracting the respiratory virus. Over 1.16 million of these deaths occurred in the United States.

Waves of infections Almost every country and territory worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 disease. At the end of 2021 the virus was once again circulating at very high rates, even in countries with relatively high vaccination rates such as the United States and Germany. As rates of new infections increased, some countries in Europe, like Germany and Austria, tightened restrictions once again, specifically targeting those who were not yet vaccinated. However, by spring 2022, rates of new infections had decreased in many countries and restrictions were once again lifted.

What are the symptoms of the virus? It can take up to 14 days for symptoms of the illness to start being noticed. The most commonly reported symptoms are a fever and a dry cough, leading to shortness of breath. The early symptoms are similar to other common viruses such as the common cold and flu. These illnesses spread more during cold months, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that temperature impacts the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Medical advice should be sought if you are experiencing any of these symptoms.

The time it takes for the number of COVID-19 deaths to double varies by country. The doubling rate in the United States was 139 days as of December 13, 2020. In comparison, the number of confirmed deaths in Australia doubled from 450 to 908 in the space of 117 days between August 18 and December 13, 2020.

COVID-19: We are all in this together The commitment of civilians to follow basic hygiene measures and maintain social distancing must continue. The wellbeing of populations cannot be jeopardized, and young people must also engage in the response. In Australia, the 20- to 29-year-old age group accounts for the highest number of COVID-19 cases. With lockdown restrictions lifted, many people have returned to their regular routines and jumped back into socializing. However, there are concerns about complacency and suggestions that young adults could be driving spikes in coronavirus cases.

Receive coronavirus warnings on your smartphone It is of paramount importance that countries keep a vigilant eye on the spread of the coronavirus. One way of doing so is to invest in track and trace surveillance systems. Electronic tools are not essential, but many countries are using contact-tracing smartphone apps to make the tracking of cases more efficient. In June 2020, a contact-tracing app was rolled out across Japan, and it received nearly eight million downloads in the first month. A COVID-19 alert app was also launched in Canada at the end of July 2020. The smartphone software is initially being piloted in Ontario, but it will soon be possible for people in other provinces to use the app and report a diagnosis.

COVID-19 Travel Restriction Monitoring - Using secondary data sources, such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA), media reports and information direct from IOM missions, this platform maps and analyzes the various country, territories and areas imposing restrictions, and those with restrictions being imposed upon them, all categorized by restriction type. All analyses is presented at country level.

According to a survey among Indians in March 2020, about 34 percent thought incoming travel should be limited for the month following the survey period. This included the opinion that travelers into India should only be allowed if they had a "coronavirus free" certificate from the country of departure or boarding port. With the outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) in late 2019, countries across the world have implemented entry restrictions, quarantine measures and travel advisories to help contain the virus. As of March 13, 2020, the Indian government suspended existing visas with exceptions until April 15, 2020. The country went into lockdown on March 25, the largest in the world, restricting 1.3 billion people.

For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Fact and Figures page.

The file contains population data for each country that we have studied. The 2018 population data were used in combination with the data of χ2 to calculate the fraction of COVID-19 cases per country. The file was obtained from the World Bank data repository [22]. (CSV)

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.

The Database of Government Actions on COVID-19 in Developing Countries collates and tracks national policies and actions in response to the pandemic, with a focus on developing countries.

The database provides information for 20 Global South countries – plus 6 Global North countries for reference – that Dalberg staff are either based in or know well. The database content is drawn from publicly available information combined, crucially, with on-the-ground knowledge of Dalberg staff.

The database contains a comprehensive set of 100 non-pharmaceutical interventions – organized in a framework intended to make it easy to observe common variations between countries in the scope and extent of major interventions. Interventions we are tracking include:
• Health-related: strengthening of healthcare systems, detection and isolation of actual / possible cases, quarantines
• Policy-related: government coordination and legal authorization, public communications and education, movement restrictions
• Distancing and hygiene: social distancing measures, movement restrictions, decontamination of physical spaces
• Economic measures: economic and social measures, logistics / supply chains and security.

We hope the database will be a useful resource for several groups of users: (i) governments and policymakers looking for a quick guide to actions taken by different countries—including a range of low- and middle-income countries, (ii) policy analysts and researchers studying the data to identify patterns of actions taken and compare the effectiveness of different interventions in curbing the pandemic, and (iii) media and others seeking to quickly access facts about the actions taken by governments in the countries covered in the database.

Comments on the data can be submitted to covid.database.comments@dalberg.com
Questions can be submitted to covid.database.questions@dalberg.com

www.dalberg.com

Objective Daily COVID-19 data reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) may provide the basis for political ad hoc decisions including travel restrictions. Data reported by countries, however, is heterogeneous and metrics to evaluate its quality are scarce. In this work, we analyzed COVID-19 case counts provided by WHO and developed tools to evaluate country-specific reporting behaviors. Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, COVID-19 data reported daily to WHO from 3rd January 2020 until 14th June 2021 were analyzed. We proposed the concepts of binary reporting rate and relative reporting behavior and performed descriptive analyses for all countries with these metrics. We developed a score to evaluate the consistency of incidence and binary reporting rates. Further, we performed spectral clustering of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behavior to identify salient patterns in these metrics. Results Our final analysis included 222 countries and regions. Reporting scores varied between -0.17, indicating discrepancies between incidence and binary reporting rate, and 1.0 suggesting high consistency of these two metrics. Median reporting score for all countries was 0.71 (IQR 0.55 to 0.87). Descriptive analyses of the binary reporting rate and relative reporting behavior showed constant reporting with a slight “weekend effect” for most countries, while spectral clustering demonstrated that some countries had even more complex reporting patterns. Conclusion The majority of countries reported COVID-19 cases when they did have cases to report. The identification of a slight “weekend effect” suggests that COVID-19 case counts reported in the middle of the week may represent the best data basis for political ad hoc decisions. A few countries, however, showed unusual or highly irregular reporting that might require more careful interpretation. Our score system and cluster analyses might be applied by epidemiologists advising policymakers to consider country-specific reporting behaviors in political ad hoc decisions. Methods Data collection COVID-19 data was downloaded from WHO. Using a public repository, we have added the countries' full names to the WHO data set using the two-letter abbreviations for each country to merge both data sets. The provided COVID-19 data covers January 2020 until June 2021. We uploaded the final data set used for the analyses of this paper. Data processing We processed data using a Jupyter Notebook with a Python kernel and publically available external libraries. This upload contains the required Jupyter Notebook (reporting_behavior.ipynb) with all analyses and some additional work, a README, and the conda environment yml (env.yml).

This paper presents a novel dataset of non-pharmaceutical interventions adopted by Italian authorities to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic at the national and local levels. The dataset follows the structure of the Oxford Coronavirus Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT; Hale et al. in Nat Human Behav 5:529–538, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8, 2021)). We include several novelties with respect to the original source. First, we tailor the classification of provisions to the measures adopted in Italy. Second, we collect detailed information on local restrictions in the country, including lockdowns and school closures. Third, we apply a bottom-up approach to construct population-weighted average stringency indexes (Italian Stringency Indexes, ItSIs) at the provincial, regional, and country-wide levels. While expanding the geographical coverage of the stringency indicators, we preserve the comparability of the ItSIs with the original stringency index published in the OxCGRT. As an application, we show that the correlations of our ItSI with community mobility indicators and various measures of economic activity are higher than those obtained with the OxCGRT indicator.

Updates

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

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

• April 9, 2020

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

• April 20, 2020

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

• April 29, 2020

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

• September 1st, 2020

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

• February 12, 2021

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

• February 16, 2021

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

  Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Queries

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

• Filter cases by state here

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

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

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

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

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

Interactive

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

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

Interactive Embed Code

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

Caveats

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

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

Attribution

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

The primary interrupted-series analyses evaluated all targeted and total border closures by country-level intervention points. As robustness checks, Dickey-Fuller tests were run for every time series, with none exceeding the 5% critical value of the t-distribution for a unit root. Cumby-Huizinga general tests were run to correct results for each lag found to have serial autocorrelation present for all global and country interrupted time-series.

The COVID-19 pandemic began impacting Europe in early 2020, posing significant challenges for individuals requiring care. This group is particularly susceptible to severe COVID-19 infections and depends on regular health care services. In this article, we examine the situation of European care recipients aged 50 years and older 18 months after the pandemic outbreak and compare it to the initial phase of the pandemic. In the descriptive section, we illustrate the development of (unmet) care needs and access to health care throughout the pandemic. Additionally, we explore regional variations in health care receipt across Europe. In the analytical section, we shed light on the mid- and long-term health consequences of COVID-19-related restrictions on accessing health care services by making comparisons between care recipients and individuals without care needs. We conducted an analysis using data from the representative Corona Surveys of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Our study examines changes in approximately 3,400 care-dependent older Europeans (aged 50+) interviewed in 2020 and 2021, comparing them with more than 45,000 respondents not receiving care. The dataset provides a cross-national perspective on care recipients across 27 European countries and Israel. Our findings reveal that in 2021, compared to the previous year, difficulties in obtaining personal care from someone outside the household were significantly reduced in Western and Southern European countries. Access to health care services improved over the course of the pandemic, particularly with respect to medical treatments and appointments that had been canceled by health care institutions. However, even 18 months after the COVID-19 outbreak, a considerable number of treatments had been postponed either by respondents themselves or by health care institutions. These delayed medical treatments had adverse effects on the physical and mental health of both care receivers and individuals who did not rely on care.