Data from the state on statistics & counts of COVID-19 data by zipcode. This data is updated and maintained by the North Carolina GIS Department. It is typically updated manually once a day. Any questions please call the Onslow County GIS Department at 1-910-937-1190, Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm.

North Carolina NC COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by ZIP Code. This base web map was created for the NC COVID-19 web application. Data provided by NCDHHS department. Any questions please call the Onslow County GIS Department at 1-910-937-1190, Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm.

This file contains COVID-19 death counts and rates by month and year of death, jurisdiction of residence (U.S., HHS Region) and demographic characteristics (sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, and age/race and Hispanic origin). United States death counts and rates include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1. Number of deaths reported in this file are the total number of COVID-19 deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and may not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of deaths occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the file. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Data timeliness varies by state. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. The ten (10) United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions include the following jurisdictions. Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey, New York; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. Rates were calculated using the population estimates for 2021, which are estimated as of July 1, 2021 based on the Blended Base produced by the US Census Bureau in lieu of the April 1, 2020 decennial population count. The Blended Base consists of the blend of Vintage 2020 postcensal population estimates, 2020 Demographic Analysis Estimates, and 2020 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting File (see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-v2021.pdf). Rate are based on deaths occurring in the specified week and are age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population using the direct method (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf). These rates differ from annual age-adjusted rates, typically presented in NCHS publications based on a full year of data and annualized weekly age-adjusted rates which have been adjusted to allow comparison with annual rates. Annualization rates presents deaths per year per 100,000 population that would be expected in a year if the observed period specific (weekly) rate prevailed for a full year. Sub-national death counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS data confidentiality standards. Rates based on death counts less than 20 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS standards of reliability as specified in NCHS Data Presentation Standards for Proportions (available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf.).

The COVID-19 pandemic lockdown worldwide provided a unique research opportunity for ecologists to investigate the human-wildlife relationship under abrupt changes in human mobility, also known as Anthropause. Here we chose 15 common non-migratory bird species with different levels of synanthrope and we aimed to compare how human mobility changes could influence the occupancy of fully synanthropic species such as House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) versus casual to tangential synanthropic species such as White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis). We extracted data from the eBird citizen science project during three study periods in the spring and summer of 2020 when human mobility changed unevenly across different counties in North Carolina. We used the COVID-19 Community Mobility reports from Google to examine how community mobility changes towards workplaces, an indicator of overall human movements at the county level, could influence bird occupancy. Methods The data source we used for bird data was eBird, a global citizen science project run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. We used the COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports by Google to represent the pause of human activities at the county level in North Carolina. These data are publicly available and were last updated on 10/15/2022. We used forest land cover data from NC One Map that has a high resolution (1-meter pixel) raster data from 2016 imagery to represent canopy cover at each eBird checklist location. We also used the raster data of the 2019 National Land Cover Database to represent the degree of development/impervious surface at each eBird checklist location. All three measurements were used for the highest resolution that was available to use. We downloaded the eBird Basic Dataset (EBD) that contains the 15 study species from February to June 2020. We also downloaded the sampling event data that contains the checklist efforts information. First, we used the R package Auk (version 0.6.0) in R (version 4.2.1) to filter data in the following conditions: (1) Date: 02/19/2020 - 03/29/2020; (2) Checklist type: stationary; (3) Complete checklist; (4) Time: 07:00 am - 06:00 pm; (5) Checklist duration: 5-20 mins; (6) Location: North Carolina. After filtering data, we used the zero fill function from Auk to create detection/non-detection data of each study species in NC. Then we used the repeat visits filter from Auk to filter eBird checklist locations where at least 2 checklists (max 10 checklists) have been submitted to the same location by the same observer, allowing us to create a hierarchical data frame where both detection and state process can be analyzed using Occupancy Modeling. This data frame was in a matrix format that each row represents a sampling location and the columns represent the detection and non-detection of the 2-10 repeat sampling events. For the Google Community Mobility data, we chose the “Workplaces” categoriy of mobility data to analyze the Anthropause effect because it was highly relevant to the pause of human activities in urban areas. The mobility data from Google is a percentage change compared to a baseline for each day. A baseline day represents a normal value for the day of the week from the 5-week period (01/03/2020-02/06/2020). For example, a mobility value of -30.0 for Wake County on Apr 15, 2020, means the overall mobility in Wake County on that day decreased by 30% compared to the baseline day a few months ago. Because the eBird data we used covers a wider range of dates rather than each day, we took the average value of mobility before lockdown, during lockdown, and after lockdown in each county in NC. For the environmental variables, we calculated the values in ArcGIS Pro (version 3.1.0). We created a 200 m buffer at each eligible eBird checklist location. For the forest cover data, we used “Zonal Statistics as Table” to extract the percentage of forest cover at each checklist location’s 200-meter circular buffer. For the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data, we combined low-intensity, medium-intensity, and high-intensity development as development covers and used “Summarize Within” to extract the percentage of development cover using the polygon version of NLCD. We used a correlation matrix of the three predictors (workplace mobility, percent forest cover, and percent development cover) and found no co-linearity. Thus, these three predictors plus the interaction between workplace mobility and percent development cover were the site covariates of the Occupancy Models. For the detection covariates, four predictors were considered including time of observation, checklist duration, number of observers, and workplace mobility. These detection covariates were also not highly correlated. We then merged all data into an unmarked data frame using the “unmarked” R package (version 1.2.5). The unmarked data frame has eBird sampling locations as sites (rows in the data frame) and repeat checklists at the same sampling locations as repeat visits (columns in the data frame).

The COVID Tracking Project collects information from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 other US territories to provide the most comprehensive testing data we can collect for the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. We attempt to include positive and negative results, pending tests, and total people tested for each state or district currently reporting that data.

Testing is a crucial part of any public health response, and sharing test data is essential to understanding this outbreak. The CDC is currently not publishing complete testing data, so we’re doing our best to collect it from each state and provide it to the public. The information is patchy and inconsistent, so we’re being transparent about what we find and how we handle it—the spreadsheet includes our live comments about changing data and how we’re working with incomplete information.

From here, you can also learn about our methodology, see who makes this, and find out what information states provide and how we handle it.