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,

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.

This dataset contains all information to reproduce our experiment to produce a high-resolution global map (0.1°) of infection-rate risk for COVID-19, based on temperature, precipitation, and CO2.

The produced risk index map predicts most of the areas with an actual high risk (87% accuracy), which are characterized by a moderate-high level of CO2, moderate-low temperatures, and a moderate level of precipitation. With respect to our previous model (https://zenodo.org/record/3945495#.YG7UEugzaUk) - which had a coarser 0.5° resolution - this new model is much more accurate at predicting real-world scenarios that reported both high and low infection rates in 2020 (80% accuracy).

Explanation of data and images:

comparisonvert.png -> Visualisation of the output produced by our model: (a) distribution of high-infection-rate areas using the MaxEnt balanced threshold (0.008), (b) probability peak areas (0.13 threshold), (c) overlap between low infection rate countries extracted from real data and our risk map, and (d) highlight of low infection rate countries not predicted by our model
countries_high_rate.csv-> high-infection-rate countries
countries_low_rate.csv-> low-infection-rate countries
countries_low_rate_mispredicted.csv-> low-infection-rate countries mispredicted by our model
covid_derivatives.csv-> extracted average derivatives of world countries
gp.asc-> MaxEnt distribution
LowDerivativeRegions.png->low-infection-rate countries - image
MaxEnt distribution.png->distribution of high-infection-rate areas using the MaxEnt balanced threshold (0.008) - image
MaxEnt peaks.png-> MaxEnt probability peak areas (0.13 threshold)
Precipitation.png->Average precipitation 2000-2005
RiskMap.png-> New high-infection-rate risk map based on a 0.1° resolution MaxEnt model
RiskMap05.png->our previous risk map based on a 0.5° resolution MaxEnt model
riskmapcomparison.png-> Visual comparison between (a) our new high-infection-rate risk map based on a 0.1° resolution MaxEnt model and (b) our previous risk map based on a 0.5° resolution MaxEnt model.
RiskMapOverlap_mispredicted.png->highlight of low infection rate countries not predicted by our model
Temperature.png->Average Surface Air Temperature 2000-2005
time_series_covid19_confirmed_global.csv->World COVID-19 reports up to April 2021

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.

Univariable associations between ZCTA-level COVID-19 risk and potential predictors in the Greater St. Louis Area, Missouri (USA).

The exposure risk score equally weights three components: 1) population density, 2) proximity to others in the household and 3) water, sanitation, and hygiene. Three indicators are equally weighted within the proximity to others in the household component: intergenerational households (household has a child less than eleven years old and a person above 60 years old), average number of household members per sleeping room, and adults aged 15 to 49 employed in essential occupations (health professions, construction, manufacturing, transport, sales, textiles, protective services). Five indicators are equally weighted within the water, sanitation, and hygiene component: soap for hand washing inside the home is unavailable, water for handwashing inside the home is unavailable, household must walk 30 or more minutes roundtrip to collect drinking water, household shares toilet with other households or does not have a toilet, and household does not have piped-in drinking water. Population density is defined as population at the 1km squared level. Indicators within components are combined with z-scores at the 1km squared grid level.Source: Fraym 2020The Fraym platform weaves together the latest satellite imagery and geostatistical datasets with professionally enumerated household surveys. This allows for the disaggregation and re-aggregation of large datasets to cover any geographically bounded area. Indicators are drawn and harmonized from a wide variety of household surveys and other data sources. These include the following sources:USAID: Demographic and health surveysUnited Nations: UN population division databaseWorld Bank: Enterprise surveys, living standards, global index surveys, and respective country statisticsNational Statistical Offices: National censuses and surveys covering population, businesses, health, housing, agriculture, and other areasInternational Monetary Fund: World economic outlook databases and respective country statisticsNational Air and Space Administration: Remote sensing satellite data, such as vegetation, temperature, and precipitationUSGS: Landscan, Google Earth, GeoData Institute, OSMWorldPop: Population density by age groups

This is the Zenodo archive for the manuscript "Likely community transmission of COVID-19 infections between neighboring, persistent hotspots in Ontario, Canada" (Mucaki EJ, Shirley BC and Rogan PK. F1000Research 2021, 10:1312, DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.75891.1). This study aimed to produce community-level geo-spatial mapping of patterns and clusters of symptoms, and of confirmed COVID-19 cases, in near real-time in order to support decision-making. This was accomplished by area-to-area geostatistical analysis, space-time integration, and spatial interpolation of COVID-19 positive individuals. This archive will contain data and image files from this study, which were too numerous to be included in the manuscript for this study. It also provides all program files pertaining to the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox (Geostatistical analysis software package to be used in ArcGIS), as well as all other scripts described in this manuscript and other software developed (cluster, outlier, streak identification and pairing)..

We also provide a guide which provides a general description of the contents of the four sections in this archive (Documentation_for_Sections_of_Zenodo_Archive.docx). If you have any intent to utilize the data provided in Section 3, we greatly advise you to review this document as it describes the output of all geostatistical analyses performed in this study in detail.

Data Files:

Section 1. "Section_1.Tables_S1_S7.Figures_S1_S11.zip"

This section contains all additional tables and figures described in the manuscript "Likely community transmission of COVID-19 infections between neighboring, persistent hotspots in Ontario, Canada". Additional tables S1 to S7 are presented in an Excel document. These 7 tables provide summary statistics of various geostatistical tests described in the study (“Section 1 – Tables S1-S4”) and lists all identified single and paired high-case cluster streaks (“Section 1 – Tables S5-S7”). This section also contains 11 additional figures referred to in the manuscript (“Section 1 – Figures S1-S11”) both individually and within a Word document which describes them.

Section 2. "Section_2.Localized_Hotspot_Lists.zip"

All localized hotspots (identified through kriging analysis) were catalogued for each municipality evaluated (Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor/Essex). These files indicate the FSA in which the hotspot was identified, the date in which it was identified (utilizing 3-day case data at the postal code level), the amount of cases which occurred within the FSA within these 3 dates, the range of cases interpolated by kriging analysis (between 5-10, 10-15, 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, 40-50, >50), and whether or not the FSA was deemed a hotspot by Gi* relative to the rest of Ontario on any of the three dates evaluated. Please see Section 4 for map images of these localized hotspots.

Section 3. "Section_3.All-Data_Files.Kriging_GiStar_Local_and_GlobalMorans.2020_2021"

Section 3 – All output files from the geostatistical tests performed in this study are provided in this section. This includes the output from Ontario-wide FSA-level Gi* and Cluster and Outlier analyses, and PC-level Cluster and Outlier, Spatial Autocorrelation, and kriging analysis of 6 municipal regions. It also includes kriging analysis of 7 other municipal regions adjacent to Toronto (Ajax, Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Pickering, Richmond Hill and Vaughan). This section also provides data files from our analyses of stratified case data (by age, gender, and at-risk condition). All coordinates presented in these data files are given in “PCS_Lambert_Conformal_Conic” format. Case values between 1-5 were masked (appear as “NA”).

Section 4. "Section_4.All_Map_Images_of_Geostat_Analyses.zip"

Sets of image files which map the results of our geostatistical analyses onto a map of Ontario or within the municipalities evaluated (Hamilton, Kitchener/Waterloo, London, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor/Essex) are provided. This includes: Kriging analysis (PC-level), Local Moran's I cluster and outlier analysis (FSA and PC-level), normal and space-time Gi* analysis, and all images for all analyses performed on stratified data (by age, gender and at-risk condition). Kriging contour maps are also included for 7 other municipal regions adjacent to Toronto (Ajax, Brampton, Markham, Mississauga, Pickering, Richmond Hill and Vaughan).

Software:

This Zenodo archive also provides all program files pertaining to the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox (Geostatistical analysis software package to be used in ArcGIS), as well as all other scripts described in this manuscript. This geostatistical toolbox was developed by CytoGnomix Inc., London ON, Canada and is distributed freely under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3.0. It can be easily modified to accommodate other Canadian provinces and, with some additional effort, other countries.

This distribution of the Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox does not include postal code (PC) boundary files (which are required for some of the tools included in the toolbox). The PC boundary shapefiles used to test the toolbox were obtained from DMTI (https://www.dmtispatial.com/canmap/) through the Scholar's Geoportal at the University of Western Ontario (http://geo2.scholarsportal.info/). The distribution of these files (through sharing, sale, donation, transfer, or exchange) is strictly prohibited. However, any equivalent PC boundary shape file should suffice, provided it contains polygon boundaries representing postal code regions (see guide for more details).

Software File 1. "Software.GeostatisticalEpidemiologyToolbox.zip"

The Geostatistical Epidemiology Toolbox is a set of custom Python-based geoprocessing tools which function as any built-in tool in the ArcGIS system. This toolbox implements data preprocessing, geostatistical analysis and post-processing software developed to evaluate the distribution and progression of COVID-19 cases in Canada. The purpose of developing this toolbox is to allow external users without programming knowledge to utilize the software scripts which generated our analyses and was intended to be used to evaluate Canadian datasets. While the toolbox was developed for evaluating the distribution of COVID-19, it could be utilized for other purposes.

The toolbox was developed to evaluate statistically significant distributions of COVID-19 case data at Canadian Forward Sortation Area (FSA) and Postal Code-level in the province of Ontario utilizing geostatistical tools available through the ArcGIS system. These tools include: 1) Standard Gi* analysis (finds areas where cases are significantly spatially clustered), 2) spacetime based Gi* analysis (finds areas where cases are both spatially and temporally clustered), 3) cluster and outlier analysis (determines if high case regions are an regional outlier or part of a case cluster), 4) spatial autocorrelation (determines the cases in a region are clustered overall) and, 5) Empirical Bayesian Kriging analysis (creates contour maps which define the interpolation of COVID-19 cases in measured and unmeasured areas). Post-processing tools are included that import these all of the preceding results into the ArcGIS system and automatically generate PNG images.

This archive also includes a guide ("UserManual_GeostatisticalEpidemiologyToolbox_CytoGnomix.pdf") which describes in detail how to set up the toolbox, how to format input case data, and how to use each tool (describing both the relevant input parameters and the structure of the resultant output files).

Software File 2: “Software.Additional_Programs_for_Cluster_Outlier_Streak_Idendification_and_Pairing.zip"

In the manuscript associated with this archive, Perl scripts were utilized to evaluate postal code-level Cluster and Outlier analysis to identify significantly, highly clustered postal codes over consecutive periods (i.e., high-case cluster “streaks”). The identified streaks are then paired to those in close proximity, based on the neighbors of each postal code from PC centroid data ("paired streaks"). Multinomial logistic regression models were then derived in the R programming language to measure the correlation between the number of cases reported in each paired streak, the interval of time separating each streak, and the physical distance between the two postal codes. Here, we provide the 3 Perl scripts and the R markdown file which perform these tasks:

“Ontario_City_Closest_Postal_Code_Identification.pl”

Using an input file with postal code coordinates (by centroid), this program identifies the nearest neighbors to all postal codes for a given municipal region (the name of this region is entered on the command line). Postal code centroids were calculated in ArcGIS using the “Calculate Geometry” function against DMTI postal code boundary files (not provided). Input from other sources could be used, however, as long as the input includes a list of coordinates with a unique label associated with a particular municipality.

The output of this program (for the same municipal region being evaluated) is required for the following two Perl

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major crisis for governments and populations. The public’s risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors are key factors that play a vital role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Our scoping review aims to map the early evidence on risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors of general and high-risk adult populations towards COVID-19.Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted of peer-reviewed articles in five databases on studies conducted during the early stages of COVID-19. Thirty-one studies meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised and analyzed.Results: The levels of risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors towards COVID-19 were moderate to high in both general and high-risk adult populations. Adults were knowledgeable about preventive behaviors. Our review identified hand-washing and avoiding crowded places as dominant preventive behaviors. Being a female, older, more educated, and living in urban areas was associated with better knowledge of COVID-19 and appropriate preventive behaviors.Conclusion: This review offers a first understanding of risk perceptions, knowledge and behaviors of adult populations during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Needing to answer the question of “where” sat at the forefront of everyone’s mind, and using a geographic information system (GIS) for real-time surveillance transformed possibly overwhelming data into location intelligence that provided agencies and civic leaders with valuable insights.This book highlights best practices, key GIS capabilities, and lessons learned during the COVID-19 response that can help communities prepare for the next crisis.GIS has empowered:Organizations to use human mobility data to estimate the adherence to social distancing guidelinesCommunities to monitor their health care systems’ capacity through spatially enabled surge toolsGovernments to use location-allocation methods to site new resources (i.e., testing sites and augmented care sites) in ways that account for at-risk and vulnerable populationsCommunities to use maps and spatial analysis to review case trends at local levels to support reopening of economiesOrganizations to think spatially as they consider “back-to-the-workplace” plans that account for physical distancing and employee safety needsLearning from COVID-19 also includes a “next steps” section that provides ideas, strategies, tools, and actions to help jump-start your own use of GIS, either as a citizen scientist or a health professional. A collection of online resources, including additional stories, videos, new ideas and concepts, and downloadable tools and content, complements this book.Now is the time to use science and data to make informed decisions for our future, and this book shows us how we can do it.Dr. Este GeraghtyDr. Este Geraghty is the chief medical officer and health solutions director at Esri where she leads business development for the Health and Human Services sector.Matt ArtzMatt Artz is a content strategist for Esri Press. He brings a wide breadth of experience in environmental science, technology, and marketing.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major crisis for governments and populations. The public’s risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors are key factors that play a vital role in the transmission of infectious diseases. Our scoping review aims to map the early evidence on risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors of general and high-risk adult populations towards COVID-19.Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted of peer-reviewed articles in five databases on studies conducted during the early stages of COVID-19. Thirty-one studies meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised and analyzed.Results: The levels of risk perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors towards COVID-19 were moderate to high in both general and high-risk adult populations. Adults were knowledgeable about preventive behaviors. Our review identified hand-washing and avoiding crowded places as dominant preventive behaviors. Being a female, older, more educated, and living in urban areas was associated with better knowledge of COVID-19 and appropriate preventive behaviors.Conclusion: This review offers a first understanding of risk perceptions, knowledge and behaviors of adult populations during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Urban slums are hotspots of infectious diseases like COVID-19 as was seen in the waves of 2020 and 2021. One of the primary reasons why slums are disproportionately affected is their location in inaccessible and uninhabitable zones, crowded and poorly ventilated living spaces, unsanitary conditions and common facilities (water taps, common toilets, etc.). Staying at home during pandemics is hardly an option for slum dwellers as it often means giving up work and even basic necessities. This paper aims to understand the habitat vulnerabilities of slums in the two Indian megacities of Pune and Surat which were the worst hit during both waves. The study is done at the level of wards, which is the smallest administrative boundary, taking the habitat vulnerability (congestion and access to basic services). To identify the explanatory variables which increase the vulnerability of slums to infectious diseases, literature study is done on the triggering factors which affect habitat vulnerability derived from common characteristics and definitions of slum. The aim of the research is to categorize the slums into 3 levels of risk zones and map them subsequently. This study will help in formulating a model to prioritize the allocation of sparse resources in developing countries to tackle the habitat vulnerabilities of the slum dwellers especially during health emergencies of contagious diseases like COVID-19.

Data was analyzed for each area in the city limits, assessed against the key questions below, and assigned a risk score (5:Highest Risk à 0: No Risk).Do Black, Hispanic and Native American populations together make up more than 70% of the community?Does the area have 15% or more of its families at or below 100% of the federal poverty level?Do less than 50% of the area’s households own the home they live in?Is the area rated “High” on the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, Socioeconomic Level?Are more than 12% of the area’s residents 65 or older?This map is used in the second tab of this dashboard - https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=1f95208936ba485e8b40f26a1e641860This map also feeds this dashboard's second tab: https://dallasgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=0a564464fa1c40ed807f468ad870007d

ObjectiveThis study aimed to map the existing literature to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among refugees, immigrants, and other migrant populations.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, APA PsycInfo and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) was conducted up to 31 January 2023 to identify the relevant English peer-reviewed observational studies. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, selected studies, and extracted data.ResultsWe identified 34 cross-sectional studies, primarily conducted in high income countries (76%). Lower vaccine acceptance was associated with mistrust in the host countries’ government and healthcare system, concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, limited knowledge of COVID-19 infection and vaccines, lower COVID-19 risk perception, and lower integration level in the host country. Female gender, younger age, lower education level, and being single were associated with lower vaccine acceptance in most studies. Additionally, sources of information about COVID-19 and vaccines and previous history of COVID-19 infection, also influence vaccine acceptance. Vaccine acceptability towards COVID-19 booster doses and various vaccine brands were not adequately studied.ConclusionsVaccine hesitancy and a lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines have become significant public health concerns within migrant populations. These findings may help in providing information for current and future vaccine outreach strategies among migrant populations.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to map the existing literature to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among refugees, immigrants, and other migrant populations.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus, APA PsycInfo and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) was conducted up to 31 January 2023 to identify the relevant English peer-reviewed observational studies. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, selected studies, and extracted data.ResultsWe identified 34 cross-sectional studies, primarily conducted in high income countries (76%). Lower vaccine acceptance was associated with mistrust in the host countries’ government and healthcare system, concerns about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, limited knowledge of COVID-19 infection and vaccines, lower COVID-19 risk perception, and lower integration level in the host country. Female gender, younger age, lower education level, and being single were associated with lower vaccine acceptance in most studies. Additionally, sources of information about COVID-19 and vaccines and previous history of COVID-19 infection, also influence vaccine acceptance. Vaccine acceptability towards COVID-19 booster doses and various vaccine brands were not adequately studied.ConclusionsVaccine hesitancy and a lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines have become significant public health concerns within migrant populations. These findings may help in providing information for current and future vaccine outreach strategies among migrant populations.

AMHDI and NHI associated with COVID-19 cases, comorbidities and deaths in elderly people with and without SARS by Administrative District, from 2021 to 2023.