https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/blob/master/LICENSEhttps://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/blob/master/LICENSE
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 the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, 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.
From before to during the coronavirus pandemic, the share of respondents who made purchases via livestream increased by an average of 76 percentage points worldwide. Of the regions included in the study, Europe saw the highest growth during this period, with livestream shoppers growing by 86 percentage points. The Middle East followed with 76, while North America recorded a usage spike of about 68 percentage points.
Summary This layer has been DEPRECATED. (last updated 12/1/2021). Was formerly a weekly update.
The Outbreak-Associated Cases in Congregate Living data dashboard on coronavirus.maryland.gov was redesigned on 11/17/21 to align with other outbreak reporting. Visit https://opendata.maryland.gov/dataset/MD-COVID-19-Congregate-Outbreak/ey5n-qn5s to view Outbreak-Associated Cases in Congregate Living data as reported after 11/17/21.
Confirmed COVID-19 cases among Maryland residents who live and work in congregate living facilities in Maryland for the reporting period.
Description The MD COVID-19 - Total Cases in Congregate Facility Settings data layer is a total of positive COVID-19 test results have been reported to MDH in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, group homes of 10 or more and state and local facilities for the reporting period. Data are reported to MDH by local health departments, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Department of Juvenile Services. To appear on the list, facilities report at least one confirmed case of COVID-19 over the prior 14 days. Facilities are removed from the list when health officials determine 14 days have passed with no new cases and no tests pending. The list provides a point-in-time picture of COVID-19 case activity among these facilities. Numbers reported for each facility listed reflect totals ever reported for cases. Data are updated once weekly.
Terms of Use The Spatial Data, and the information therein, (collectively the "Data") is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed, implied, or statutory. The user assumes the entire risk as to quality and performance of the Data. No guarantee of accuracy is granted, nor is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. In no event shall the State of Maryland be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages of any kind. The State of Maryland does not accept liability for any damages or misrepresentation caused by inaccuracies in the Data or as a result to changes to the Data, nor is there responsibility assumed to maintain the Data in any manner or form. The Data can be freely distributed as long as the metadata entry is not modified or deleted. Any data derived from the Data must acknowledge the State of Maryland in the metadata.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Eurofound's e-survey 'Living, working and COVID-19' captures how the pandemic impacts living and working in Europe. The survey looks at quality of life and well-being, with questions ranging from life satisfaction, happiness and optimism, to health and levels of trust in institutions. Respondents are also asked about their work situation, their work–life balance and level of teleworking during COVID-19. The survey also assesses the impact of the pandemic on people’s living conditions and financial situation.
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
Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.
The difficulties of death figures
This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.
Where are these numbers coming from?
The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.
https://www.iza.org/wc/dataverse/IIL-1.0.pdfhttps://www.iza.org/wc/dataverse/IIL-1.0.pdf
WageIndicator is interviewing people around the world to discover what makes the Coronavirus lockdown easier (or tougher), and what is the COVID-19 effect on our jobs, lives and mood. WageIndicator shows coronavirus-induced changes in living and working conditions in over 110 countries on the basis of answers on the following questions among others in the Corona survey: Is your work affected by the corona crisis? Are precautionary measures taken at the workplace? Do you have to work from home? Has your workload increased/decreased? Have you lost your job/work/assignments? The survey contains questions about the home situation of respondents as well as about the possible manifestation of the corona disease in members of the household. Also the effect of having a pet in the house in corona-crisis times is included.
From the Web site: The COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition is a collaborative private-industry response to novel coronavirus. Our mission is to save lives by providing real-time learning to preserve healthcare delivery and protect people. We’re brought together the best, brightest minds, assets and insights from across private industry to coordinate a response. We’re sharing resources, sharing plans, and working together.
COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an
Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.
The Young Lives survey is an innovative long-term project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty in four developing countries. The study is being conducted in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam and has tracked the lives of 12,000 children over a 20-year period, through 5 (in-person) survey rounds (Round 1-5) and, with the latest survey round (Round 6) conducted over the phone in 2020 and 2021 as part of the Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey.The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey Calls 1-5 Constructed Files, 2020-2021 includes variables collected consistently across the 5 phone calls. One main constructed data file is available for each of the four countries. These are presented in a panel format and contain 96 original and constructed variables, with the majority comparable across all five calls.
Users should refer to documentation available for the main Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey studies available under SN 8678 (Calls 1-3) and SN 9008 (Calls 4-5). A user guide for this study will be added at a later date.
The constructed data files include information on the following:
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
At the height of the coronavirus pandemic, on the last day of March 2020, Wikipedia in all languages broke a record for most traffic in a single day. Since the breakout of the Covid-19 pandemic at the start of January, tens if not hundreds of millions of people have come to Wikipedia to read - and in some cases also contribute - knowledge, information and data about the virus to an ever-growing pool of articles. Our study focuses on the scientific backbone behind the content people across the world read: which sources informed Wikipedia’s coronavirus content, and how was the scientific research on this field represented on Wikipedia. Using citation as readout we try to map how COVID-19 related research was used in Wikipedia and analyse what happened to it before and during the pandemic. Understanding how scientific and medical information was integrated into Wikipedia, and what were the different sources that informed the Covid-19 content, is key to understanding the digital knowledge echosphere during the pandemic. To delimitate the corpus of Wikipedia articles containing Digital Object Identifier (DOI), we applied two different strategies. First we scraped every Wikipedia pages form the COVID-19 Wikipedia project (about 3000 pages) and we filtered them to keep only page containing DOI citations. For our second strategy, we made a search with EuroPMC on Covid-19, SARS-CoV2, SARS-nCoV19 (30’000 sci papers, reviews and preprints) and a selection on scientific papers form 2019 onwards that we compared to the Wikipedia extracted citations from the english Wikipedia dump of May 2020 (2’000’000 DOIs). This search led to 231 Wikipedia articles containing at least one citation of the EuroPMC search or part of the wikipedia COVID-19 project pages containing DOIs. Next, from our 231 Wikipedia articles corpus we extracted DOIs, PMIDs, ISBNs, websites and URLs using a set of regular expressions. Subsequently, we computed several statistics for each wikipedia article and we retrive Atmetics, CrossRef and EuroPMC infromations for each DOI. Finally, our method allowed to produce tables of citations annotated and extracted infromations in each wikipadia articles such as books, websites, newspapers.Files used as input and extracted information on Wikipedia's COVID-19 sources are presented in this archive.See the WikiCitationHistoRy Github repository for the R codes, and other bash/python scripts utilities related to this project.
As of 10/22/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated and has been replaced with a new dataset, which can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2 This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity). A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case. These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities. These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well. With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).
SummaryTotal ever COVID-19 cases and deaths at Maryland congregate living facilities.DescriptionDeprecated as of November 17, 2021.The Outbreak-Associated Cases in Congregate Living data dashboard on coronavirus.maryland.gov was redesigned on 11/17/21 to align with other outbreak reporting. Visit MD COVID-19 Congregate Outbreaks to view Outbreak-Associated Cases in Congregate Living data as reported after 11/17/21.The MD COVID-19 Congregate Cases and Deaths total Summary data layer is the cumulative total of COVID-19 cases and deaths that have occured in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, group homes of 10 or more and state and local facilities. Data are reported to MDH by local health departments, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Department of Juvenile Services and are updated once weekly.COVID-19 is a disease caused by a respiratory virus first identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China in December 2019. COVID-19 is a new virus that hasn't caused illness in humans before. Worldwide, COVID-19 has resulted in thousands of infections, causing illness and in some cases death. Cases have spread to countries throughout the world, with more cases reported daily. The Maryland Department of Health reports daily on COVID-19 cases by county.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Bilingual (EN-PT) COVID-19-related corpus acquired from the website (https://www.voltairenet.org/) of Voltaire Network (1st May 2020).
The map data and summary statistics data are sourced from Johns Hopkins University and Esri’s Living Atlas. The charts are being sourced from a database created by Timmons Group GIS that leverages the temporal data provided by JHU on github.
Why did we do this?
How did we do this?
The raw data from JHU does not support the temporal charting at the State level or County level, so we created a data pipeline to leverage JHU’s source data files and transforms their raw data into our data model
Key features:
Check out our other ArcGIS Dashboard powered by the new ArcGIS Experience Builder to explore the COVID-19 curves at the country level around the world - Explore the COVID-19 Curve
For additional information, please contact:
TO DOWNLOAD THE DATASET, CLICK ON THE "Download" BUTTONThis is the weekly information that is used in the public CoVID-19 Surveillance, Trends, and Progress and Warnings Dashboards. Each field is updated weekly since the first date the data was tracked. The Surveillance Dashboard is live and available here.Currently the following fields are being reported weekly:Reported DateCurrent Testing CapacityEstimated Active CasesEstimated Recovered CasesAverage Daily CasesCases per 100,000 population (moving average)Weekly change in cases per 100,000 populationThis data reflects information provided by the City of San Antonio Metro Health Department, and is released weekly by 7 pm on Monday evenings; on the City of San Antonio CoVID-19 website.
This dataset shows daily confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19 in New York City by date of specimen collection. Total cases has been calculated as the sum of daily confirmed and probable cases. Seven-day averages of confirmed, probable, and total cases are also included in the dataset. A person is classified as a confirmed COVID-19 case if they test positive with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT, also known as a molecular test; e.g. a PCR test). A probable case is a person who meets the following criteria with no positive molecular test on record: a) test positive with an antigen test, b) have symptoms and an exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case, or c) died and their cause of death is listed as COVID-19 or similar. As of June 9, 2021, people who meet the definition of a confirmed or probable COVID-19 case >90 days after a previous positive test (date of first positive test) or probable COVID-19 onset date will be counted as a new case. Prior to June 9, 2021, new cases were counted ≥365 days after the first date of specimen collection or clinical diagnosis. Any person with a residence outside of NYC is not included in counts. Data is sourced from electronic laboratory reporting from the New York State Electronic Clinical Laboratory Reporting System to the NYC Health Department. All identifying health information is excluded from the dataset.
These data are used to evaluate the overall number of confirmed and probable cases by day (seven day average) to track the trajectory of the pandemic. Cases are classified by the date that the case occurred. NYC COVID-19 data include people who live in NYC. Any person with a residence outside of NYC is not included.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Bilingual (EN-ES) corpus acquired from the website https://antibiotic.ecdc.europa.eu/
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
The popularity of virtual concerts increased as a result of the social distancing requirements of the coronavirus pandemic. We aimed to examine how the characteristics of virtual concerts and the characteristics of the participants influenced their experiences of social connection and kama muta (often labeled “being moved”). We hypothesized that concert liveness and the salience of the coronavirus would influence social connection and kama muta. We collected survey responses on a variety of concert and personal characteristics from 307 participants from 13 countries across 4 continents. We operationalized social connection as a combination of feelings and behaviors and kama muta was measured using the short kama muta scale (Zickfeld et al., 2019). We found that (1) social connection and kama muta were related and predicted by empathic concern, (2) live concerts produced more social connection, but not kama muta, than pre-recorded concerts, and (3) the salience of the coronavirus during concerts predicted kama muta and this effect was completely mediated by social connection. Exploratory analyses also examined the influence of social and physical presence, motivations for concert attendance, and predictors of donations. This research contributes to the understanding of how people can connect socially and emotionally in virtual environments.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
License information was derived automatically
Bilingual (EN-CA) corpus acquired from Wikipedia on health and COVID-19 domain (2nd May 2020)
https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/blob/master/LICENSEhttps://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data/blob/master/LICENSE
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 the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, 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.