In the past four centuries, the population of the Thirteen Colonies and United States of America has grown from a recorded 350 people around the Jamestown colony in Virginia in 1610, to an estimated 346 million in 2025. While the fertility rate has now dropped well below replacement level, and the population is on track to go into a natural decline in the 2040s, projected high net immigration rates mean the population will continue growing well into the next century, crossing the 400 million mark in the 2070s. Indigenous population Early population figures for the Thirteen Colonies and United States come with certain caveats. Official records excluded the indigenous population, and they generally remained excluded until the late 1800s. In 1500, in the first decade of European colonization of the Americas, the native population living within the modern U.S. borders was believed to be around 1.9 million people. The spread of Old World diseases, such as smallpox, measles, and influenza, to biologically defenseless populations in the New World then wreaked havoc across the continent, often wiping out large portions of the population in areas that had not yet made contact with Europeans. By the time of Jamestown's founding in 1607, it is believed the native population within current U.S. borders had dropped by almost 60 percent. As the U.S. expanded, indigenous populations were largely still excluded from population figures as they were driven westward, however taxpaying Natives were included in the census from 1870 to 1890, before all were included thereafter. It should be noted that estimates for indigenous populations in the Americas vary significantly by source and time period. Migration and expansion fuels population growth The arrival of European settlers and African slaves was the key driver of population growth in North America in the 17th century. Settlers from Britain were the dominant group in the Thirteen Colonies, before settlers from elsewhere in Europe, particularly Germany and Ireland, made a large impact in the mid-19th century. By the end of the 19th century, improvements in transport technology and increasing economic opportunities saw migration to the United States increase further, particularly from southern and Eastern Europe, and in the first decade of the 1900s the number of migrants to the U.S. exceeded one million people in some years. It is also estimated that almost 400,000 African slaves were transported directly across the Atlantic to mainland North America between 1500 and 1866 (although the importation of slaves was abolished in 1808). Blacks made up a much larger share of the population before slavery's abolition. Twentieth and twenty-first century The U.S. population has grown steadily since 1900, reaching one hundred million in the 1910s, two hundred million in the 1960s, and three hundred million in 2007. Since WWII, the U.S. has established itself as the world's foremost superpower, with the world's largest economy, and most powerful military. This growth in prosperity has been accompanied by increases in living standards, particularly through medical advances, infrastructure improvements, clean water accessibility. These have all contributed to higher infant and child survival rates, as well as an increase in life expectancy (doubling from roughly 40 to 80 years in the past 150 years), which have also played a large part in population growth. As fertility rates decline and increases in life expectancy slows, migration remains the largest factor in population growth. Since the 1960s, Latin America has now become the most common origin for migrants in the U.S., while immigration rates from Asia have also increased significantly. It remains to be seen how immigration restrictions of the current administration affect long-term population projections for the United States.

The Bureau of the Census has released Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent data. The file includes the following population items: sex, age, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, and household and family characteristics. Housing items include occupancy status and tenure (whether the unit is owner or renter occupied). SF1 does not include information on incomes, poverty status, overcrowded housing or age of housing. These topics will be covered in Summary File 3. Data are available for states, counties, county subdivisions, places, census tracts, block groups, and, where applicable, American Indian and Alaskan Native Areas and Hawaiian Home Lands. The SF1 data are available on the Bureau's web site and may be retrieved from American FactFinder as tables, lists, or maps. Users may also download a set of compressed ASCII files for each state via the Bureau's FTP server. There are over 8000 data items available for each geographic area. The full listing of these data items is available here as a downloadable compressed data base file named TABLES.ZIP. The uncompressed is in FoxPro data base file (dbf) format and may be imported to ACCESS, EXCEL, and other software formats. While all of this information is useful, the Office of Community Planning and Development has downloaded selected information for all states and areas and is making this information available on the CPD web pages. The tables and data items selected are those items used in the CDBG and HOME allocation formulas plus topics most pertinent to the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the Consolidated Plan, and similar overall economic and community development plans. The information is contained in five compressed (zipped) dbf tables for each state. When uncompressed the tables are ready for use with FoxPro and they can be imported into ACCESS, EXCEL, and other spreadsheet, GIS and database software. The data are at the block group summary level. The first two characters of the file name are the state abbreviation. The next two letters are BG for block group. Each record is labeled with the code and name of the city and county in which it is located so that the data can be summarized to higher-level geography. The last part of the file name describes the contents . The GEO file contains standard Census Bureau geographic identifiers for each block group, such as the metropolitan area code and congressional district code. The only data included in this table is total population and total housing units. POP1 and POP2 contain selected population variables and selected housing items are in the HU file. The MA05 table data is only for use by State CDBG grantees for the reporting of the racial composition of beneficiaries of Area Benefit activities. The complete package for a state consists of the dictionary file named TABLES, and the five data files for the state. The logical record number (LOGRECNO) links the records across tables.

Until the 1800s, population growth was incredibly slow on a global level. The global population was estimated to have been around 188 million people in the year 1CE, and did not reach one billion until around 1803. However, since the 1800s, a phenomenon known as the demographic transition has seen population growth skyrocket, reaching eight billion people in 2023, and this is expected to peak at over 10 billion in the 2080s.

Context

The United States have recently become the country with the most reported cases of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). This dataset contains daily updated number of reported cases & deaths in the US on the state and county level, as provided by the Johns Hopkins University. In addition, I provide matching demographic information for US counties.

Content

The dataset consists of two main csv files: covid_us_county.csv and us_county.csv. See the column descriptions below for more detailed information. In addition, I've added US county shape files for geospatial plots: us_county.shp/dbf/prj/shx.

• covid_us_county.csv: COVID-19 cases and deaths which will be updated daily. The data is provided by the Johns Hopkins University through their excellent github repo. I combined the separate "confirmed cases" and "deaths" files into a single table, removed a few (I think to be) redundant geo identifier columns, and reshaped the data into long format with a single date column. The earliest recorded cases are from 2020-01-22.

• us_counties.csv: Demographic information on the US county level based on the (most recent) 2014-18 release of the Amercian Community Survey. Derived via the great tidycensus package.

Column Description

COVID-19 dataset covid_us_county.csv:

• fips: County code in numeric format (i.e. no leading zeros). A small number of cases have NA values here, but can still be used for state-wise aggregation. Currently, this only affect the states of Massachusetts and Missouri.

• county: Name of the US county. This is NA for the (aggregated counts of the) territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.

• state: Name of US state or territory.

• state_code: Two letter abbreviation of US state (e.g. "CA" for "California"). This feature has NA values for the territories listed above.

• lat and long: coordinates of the county or territory.

• date: Reporting date.

• cases & deaths: Cumulative numbers for cases & deaths.

Demographic dataset us_counties.csv:

• fips, county, state, state_code: same as above. The county names are slightly different, but mostly the difference is that this dataset has the word "County" added. I recommend to join on fips.

• male & female: Population numbers for male and female.

• population: Total population for the county. Provided as convenience feature; is always the sum of male + female.

• female_percentage: Another convenience feature: female / population in percent.

• median_age: Overall median age for the county.

Acknowledgements

Data provided for educational and academic research purposes by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE).

Licence

The github repo states that:

This GitHub repo and its contents herein, including all data, mapping, and analysis, copyright 2020 Johns Hopkins University, all rights reserved, is provided to the public strictly for educational and academic research purposes. The Website relies upon publicly available data from multiple sources, that do not always agree. The Johns Hopkins University hereby disclaims any and all representations and warranties with respect to the Website, including accuracy, fitness for use, and merchantability. Reliance on the Website for medical guidance or use of the Website in commerce is strictly prohibited.

Version history

• In version 1, a small number of cases had values of `county == "Unassigned". Those have been superseded.
• Version 5: added US county shape files

Main Topics: Each household record is followed by a record for each individual residing in the household. Information on individuals includes demographic characteristics, occupation, literacy, nativity, ethnicity, and fertility. This dataset has two levels. The first level contains 44 variables and one record per case for each of 88,814 households. The second level contains 30 variables and one record per case for each of 366,239 individuals residing in those households. The data contain blanks and alphabetic characters. This dataset is also available at: http://www.ipums.umn.edu/ The sampling design employed was a 1-in-250 stratified random sample, self-weighted. No information recorded

Japan Total Population ( Average Figures Taken on First of Each Month) data was reported at 14,031.000 Person th in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 14,012.000 Person th for 2022. Japan Total Population ( Average Figures Taken on First of Each Month) data is updated yearly, averaging 13,705.000 Person th from Mar 2012 (Median) to 2023, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 14,051.000 Person th in 2021 and a record low of 13,189.000 Person th in 2012. Japan Total Population ( Average Figures Taken on First of Each Month) data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statistics of Tokyo. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Japan – Table JP.A118: SNA 2008: Benchmark year=2015: TM: Related Indicators.

The world's population first reached one billion people in 1805, and reached eight billion in 2022, and will peak at almost 10.2 billion by the end of the century. Although it took thousands of years to reach one billion people, it did so at the beginning of a phenomenon known as the demographic transition; from this point onwards, population growth has skyrocketed, and since the 1960s the population has increased by one billion people every 12 to 15 years. The demographic transition sees a sharp drop in mortality due to factors such as vaccination, sanitation, and improved food supply; the population boom that follows is due to increased survival rates among children and higher life expectancy among the general population; and fertility then drops in response to this population growth. Regional differences The demographic transition is a global phenomenon, but it has taken place at different times across the world. The industrialized countries of Europe and North America were the first to go through this process, followed by some states in the Western Pacific. Latin America's population then began growing at the turn of the 20th century, but the most significant period of global population growth occurred as Asia progressed in the late-1900s. As of the early 21st century, almost two-thirds of the world's population lives in Asia, although this is set to change significantly in the coming decades. Future growth The growth of Africa's population, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, will have the largest impact on global demographics in this century. From 2000 to 2100, it is expected that Africa's population will have increased by a factor of almost five. It overtook Europe in size in the late 1990s, and overtook the Americas a few years later. In contrast to Africa, Europe's population is now in decline, as birth rates are consistently below death rates in many countries, especially in the south and east, resulting in natural population decline. Similarly, the population of the Americas and Asia are expected to go into decline in the second half of this century, and only Oceania's population will still be growing alongside Africa. By 2100, the world's population will have over three billion more than today, with the vast majority of this concentrated in Africa. Demographers predict that climate change is exacerbating many of the challenges that currently hinder progress in Africa, such as political and food instability; if Africa's transition is prolonged, then it may result in further population growth that would place a strain on the region's resources, however, curbing this growth earlier would alleviate some of the pressure created by climate change.

The statistic shows the development of the world population from 1950 to 2050. The world population was around 7.38 billion people in 2015.

The global population

As shown above, the total number of people living on Earth has more than doubled since the 1950s, and continues to increase. A look at the development of the world population since the beginning of the Common Era shows that such a surge in numbers is unprecedented. The first significant rise in population occurred during the 14th century, after the Black Death had killed approximately 25 million people worldwide. Subsequently, the global population increased slowly but steadily until it reached record numbers between 1950 and 2000.

The majority of the global population lives on the Asian continent, as a statistic of the world population by continent shows. In around 100 years, it is estimated that population levels on the African continent will have reached similar levels to those we see in Asia today. As for a forecast of the development of the world population, the figures are estimated to have reached more than 10 billion by the 22nd century.

Growing population numbers pose an increasing risk to the planet, since rocketing numbers equal increased consumption of food and resources. Scientists worry that natural resources, such as oil, and food resources will become scarce, endangering the human race and, even more so, the world’s ecosystem. Nowadays, the number of undernourished / starving people worldwide has decreased slightly, but forecasts paint a darker picture.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the population of Early by gender across 18 age groups. It lists the male and female population in each age group along with the gender ratio for Early. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Early by gender and age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group for both Men and Women in Early. Additionally, it can be used to see how the gender ratio changes from birth to senior most age group and male to female ratio across each age group for Early.

Key observations

Largest age group (population): Male # 0-4 years (70) | Female # 55-59 years (41). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Scope of gender :

Please note that American Community Survey asks a question about the respondents current sex, but not about gender, sexual orientation, or sex at birth. The question is intended to capture data for biological sex, not gender. Respondents are supposed to respond with the answer as either of Male or Female. Our research and this dataset mirrors the data reported as Male and Female for gender distribution analysis.

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Early population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Early is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Early is shown in the following column.
• Gender Ratio: Also known as the sex ratio, this column displays the number of males per 100 females in Early for each age group.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Early Population by Gender. You can refer the same here

Population estimates for the Roman empire, by European region (thousands).

A. SUMMARY This dataset includes San Francisco COVID-19 tests by race/ethnicity and by date. This dataset represents the daily count of tests collected, and the breakdown of test results (positive, negative, or indeterminate). Tests in this dataset include all those collected from persons who listed San Francisco as their home address at the time of testing. It also includes tests that were collected by San Francisco providers for persons who were missing a locating address. This dataset does not include tests for residents listing a locating address outside of San Francisco, even if they were tested in San Francisco.

The data were de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected). If a person tested multiple times on the same date, only one test is included from that date. When there are multiple tests on the same date, a positive result, if one exists, will always be selected as the record for the person. If a PCR and antigen test are taken on the same day, the PCR test will supersede. If a person tests multiple times on the same day and the results are all the same (e.g. all negative or all positive) then the first test done is selected as the record for the person.

The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco.

When a person gets tested for COVID-19, they may be asked to report information about themselves. One piece of information that might be requested is a person's race and ethnicity. These data are often incomplete in the laboratory and provider reports of the test results sent to the health department. The data can be missing or incomplete for several possible reasons:

• The person was not asked about their race and ethnicity.
• The person was asked, but refused to answer.
• The person answered, but the testing provider did not include the person's answers in the reports.
• The testing provider reported the person's answers in a format that could not be used by the health department.

For any of these reasons, a person's race/ethnicity will be recorded in the dataset as “Unknown.”

B. NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY The different values for Race/Ethnicity in this dataset are "Asian;" "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" "White;" "Multi-racial;" "Other;" and “Unknown."

The Race/Ethnicity categorization increases data clarity by emulating the methodology used by the U.S. Census in the American Community Survey. Specifically, persons who identify as "Asian," "Black or African American," "American Indian or Alaska Native," "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander," "White," "Multi-racial," or "Other" do NOT include any person who identified as Hispanic/Latino at any time in their testing reports that either (1) identified them as SF residents or (2) as someone who tested without a locating address by an SF provider. All persons across all races who identify as Hispanic/Latino are recorded as “"Hispanic or Latino/a, all races." This categorization increases data accuracy by correcting the way “Other” persons were counted. Previously, when a person reported “Other” for Race/Ethnicity, they would be recorded “Unknown.” Under the new categorization, they are counted as “Other” and are distinct from “Unknown.”

If a person records their race/ethnicity as “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other” for their first COVID-19 test, then this data will not change—even if a different race/ethnicity is reported for this person for any future COVID-19 test. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first exception is if a person’s race/ethnicity value is reported as “Unknown” on their first test and then on a subsequent test they report “Asian;” "Black or African American;" "Hispanic or Latino/a, all races;" "American Indian or Alaska Native;" "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;" or "White”, then this subsequent reported race/ethnicity will overwrite the previous recording of “Unknown”. If a person has only ever selected “Unknown” as their race/ethnicity, then it will be recorded as “Unknown.” This change provides more specific and actionable data on who is tested in San Francisco.

The second exception is if a person ever marks “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” for race/ethnicity then this choice will always overwrite any previous or future response. This is because it is an overarching category that can include any and all other races and is mutually exclusive with the other responses.

A person's race/ethnicity will be recorded as “Multi-racial” if they select two or more values among the following choices: “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “Other.” If a person selects a combination of two or more race/ethnicity answers that includes “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races” then they will still be recorded as “Hispanic or Latino/a, all races”—not as “Multi-racial.”

C. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED COVID-19 laboratory test data is based on electronic laboratory test reports. Deduplication, quality assurance measures and other data verification processes maximize accuracy of laboratory test information.

D. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 5:00AM Pacific Time each day. Redundant runs are scheduled at 7:00AM and 9:00AM in case of pipeline failure.

E. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

Due to the high degree of variation in the time needed to complete tests by different labs there is a delay in this reporting. On March 24, 2020 the Health Officer ordered all labs in the City to report complete COVID-19 testing information to the local and state health departments.

In order to track trends over time, a user can analyze this data by sorting or filtering by the "specimen_collection_date" field.

Calculating Percent Positivity: The positivity rate is the percentage of tests that return a positive result for COVID-19 (positive tests divided by the sum of positive and negative tests). Indeterminate results, which could not conclusively determine whether COVID-19 virus was present, are not included in the calculation of percent positive. When there are fewer than 20 positives tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the positivity rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Calculating Testing Rates: To calculate the testing rate per 10,000 residents, divide the total number of tests collected (positive, negative, and indeterminate results) for the specified race/ethnicity by the total number of residents who identify as that race/ethnicity (according to the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimate), then multiply by 10,000. When there are fewer than 20 total tests for a given race/ethnicity and time period, the testing rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.

Read more about how this data is updated and validated daily: https://sf.gov/information/covid-19-data-questions

F. CHANGE LOG

• 1/12/2024 - This dataset will stop updating as of 1/12/2024
• 6/21/2023 - A small number of additional COVID-19 testing records were released as part of our ongoing data cleaning efforts. An update to the race or ethnicity designation among a subset of testing records was simultaneously released.
• 1/31/2023 - updated “population_estimate” column to reflect the 2020 Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) San Francisco Population estimates.
• 1/31/2023 - renamed column “last_updated_at” to “data_as_of”.
• 3/23/2022 - ‘Native American’ changed to ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ to align with the census.
• 2/10/2022 - race/ethnicity categorization was changed. See section NOTE ON RACE/ETHNICITY for additional information.
• 4/16/2021 - dataset updated to refresh with a five-day data lag.

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued on 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.

The surveillance case definition for COVID-19, a nationally notifiable disease, was first described in a position statement from the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which was later revised. However, there is some variation in how jurisdictions implemented these case definitions. More information on how CDC collects COVID-19 case surveillance data can be found at FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, data were reported from state and local health departments through a robust process with the following steps:

• Aggregate county-level counts were obtained indirectly, via automated overnight web collection, or directly, via a data submission process.
• If more than one official county data source existed, CDC used a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source to retrieve the highest case and death counts, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• A CDC data team reviewed counts for congruency prior to integration and set up alerts to monitor for discrepancies in the data.
• CDC routinely compiled these data and post the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data were aggregated to obtain state- and territory- specific totals.
• Counting of cases and deaths is based on date of report and not on the date of symptom onset. CDC calculates rates in these data by using population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).
• COVID-19 aggregate case and death data are organized in a time series that includes cumulative number of cases and deaths as reported by a jurisdiction on a given date. New case and death counts are calculated as the week-to-week change in cumulative counts of cases and deaths reported (i.e., newly reported cases and deaths = cumulative number of cases/deaths reported this week minus the cumulative total reported the prior week.

This process was collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provided the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. Throughout data collection, CDC retrospectively updated counts to correct known data quality issues.

Description This archived public use dataset focuses on the cumulative and weekly case and death rates per 100,000 persons within various sociodemographic factors across all states and their counties. All resulting data are expressed as rates calculated as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 persons in counties meeting various classification criteria using the US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (2019 Vintage).

Each county within jurisdictions is classified into multiple categories for each factor. All rates in this dataset are based on classification of counties by the characteristics of their population, not individual-level factors. This applies to each of the available factors observed in this dataset. Specific factors and their corresponding categories are detailed below.

Population-level factors Each unique population factor is detailed below. Please note that the “Classification” column describes each of the 12 factors in the dataset, including a data dict

BY: Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data was reported at 0.000 % in 2012. BY: Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data is updated yearly, averaging 0.000 % from Dec 2012 (Median) to 2012, with 1 observations. BY: Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Belarus – Table BY.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Women who were first married by age 15 refers to the percentage of women ages 20-24 who were first married by age 15.; ; Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS); ;

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only. The recommended dataset to use in its place is https://data.cityofchicago.org/Health-Human-Services/COVID-19-Vaccination-Coverage-Region-HCEZ-/5sc6-ey97.

COVID-19 vaccinations administered to Chicago residents by Healthy Chicago Equity Zones (HCEZ) based on the reported address, race-ethnicity, and age group of the person vaccinated, as provided by the medical provider in the Illinois Comprehensive Automated Immunization Registry Exchange (I-CARE).

Healthy Chicago Equity Zones is an initiative of the Chicago Department of Public Health to organize and support hyperlocal, community-led efforts that promote health and racial equity. Chicago is divided into six HCEZs. Combinations of Chicago’s 77 community areas make up each HCEZ, based on geography. For more information about HCEZs including which community areas are in each zone see: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Health-Human-Services/Healthy-Chicago-Equity-Zones/nk2j-663f

Vaccination Status Definitions:

·People with at least one vaccine dose: Number of people who have received at least one dose of any COVID-19 vaccine, including the single-dose Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

·People with a completed vaccine series: Number of people who have completed a primary COVID-19 vaccine series. Requirements vary depending on age and type of primary vaccine series received.

·People with a bivalent dose: Number of people who received a bivalent (updated) dose of vaccine. Updated, bivalent doses became available in Fall 2022 and were created with the original strain of COVID-19 and newer Omicron variant strains.

Weekly cumulative totals by vaccination status are shown for each combination of race-ethnicity and age group within an HCEZ. Note that each HCEZ has a row where HCEZ is “Citywide” and each HCEZ has a row where age is "All" so care should be taken when summing rows.

Vaccinations are counted based on the date on which they were administered. Weekly cumulative totals are reported from the week ending Saturday, December 19, 2020 onward (after December 15, when vaccines were first administered in Chicago) through the Saturday prior to the dataset being updated.

Population counts are from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-year estimates.

Coverage percentages are calculated based on the cumulative number of people in each population subgroup (age group by race-ethnicity within an HCEZ) who have each vaccination status as of the date, divided by the estimated number of people in that subgroup.

Actual counts may exceed population estimates and lead to >100% coverage, especially in small race-ethnicity subgroups of each age group within an HCEZ. All coverage percentages are capped at 99%.

All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received and it is, in fact, very common for recent dates to be incomplete and to be updated as time goes on. At any given time, this dataset reflects data currently known to CDPH.

Numbers in this dataset may differ from other public sources due to when data are reported and how City of Chicago boundaries are defined.

CDPH uses the most complete data available to estimate COVID-19 vaccination coverage among Chicagoans, but there are several limitations that impact its estimates. Data reported in I-CARE only includes doses administered in Illinois and some doses administered outside of Illinois reported historically by Illinois providers. Doses administered by the federal Bureau of Prisons and Department of Defense are also not currently reported in I-CARE. The Veterans Health Administration began reporting doses in I-CARE beginning September 2022. Due to people receiving vaccinations that are not recorded in I-CARE that can be linked to their record, such as someone receiving a vaccine dose in another state, the number of people with a completed series or a booster dose is underesti

HDP_survey.csv and HDP_plots.csv *** ## Associated Data Paper The complete metadata for these data sets, including detailed descriptions of why and how the data were collected and validated, are in the following Data Paper: Bruna,E.M., M.Uriarte, M.Rosa Darrigo, P.Rubim, C.F.Jurinitz, E.R.Scott, O.Ferreira da Silva, & W.John Kress. 2023. Demography of the understory herb Heliconia acuminata (Heliconiaceae) in an experimentally fragmented tropical landscape. Ecology. ## Overview This file comprises 11 years (1998-2009) of demographic data from populations of the Amazonian understory herb Heliconia acuminata (LC Rich.) found at Brazil's Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project (BDFFP). The dataset comprises >66,000 plant x year records of 8586 plants, including 3464 seedlings established after the first census. Seven populations were in experimentally isolated fragments (one in each of four 1-ha fragments and one in each of three 10-ha fragments), with the remaining six populations in continuous forest. Each population was in a 50xx 100 m permanent plot, with the distance between plots ranging from 500 m-60 km. The plants in each plot were censused annually, at which time we recorded, identified, marked, and measured new seedlings, identified any previously marked plants that died, and recorded the size of surviving individuals. Each plot was also surveyed 4-5 times during the flowering season to identify reproductive plants and record the number of inflorescences each produced. This data set describes the demographic plots in which surveys were conducted (HDP_plots.csv) and the demographic survey data (HDP_survey.csv). ## Description of the data and file structure: HDP_survey.csv * Format and storage mode: ASCII text, comma delimited. No compression scheme used. * Header information: The first row of the file contains the variable names. * Variables: -- plot_id: Plot in which plant is located (values: FF1-FF7\, CF1-CF6) -- subplot: Subplot in which plant is located (values: A1-E10 except in CF3\, where F6-J101) -- plant_id: Unique ID no. assigned to plant (values: range = 1-8660\, units: number\, precision: 1) -- tag_number: Number on tag attached to plant (values: range = 1-3751\, units: number\, precision: 1) -- year: Calendar year of survey (values: range = 1998-2009\, units: year\, precision: 1)) -- shts: No. of shoots when surveyed (values: range = 0-24\, units: shoots\, precision: 1\, NA: data missing) -- ht: Plant height when surveyed (values: range = 0-226\, units: cm\, precision: 1\, NA: data missing) -- infl: No. of inflorescences (if flowering) (values: range = 1-7\, units: shoots\, precision: 1\, NA: data missing) -- recorded_sdlg: New seedling (values: TRUE\, FALSE) -- adult_no_tag: Established (i.e.\, post-seedling) individual without tag (values: TRUE\, FALSE) -- treefall_status: Plant found under fallen tree crown\, branches\, or leaf litter at time of survey (values: branch = under fallen tree limbs tree = under tree crown or fallen trees litter = under accumulated leaf-litter NA = not relevant or no observation recorded) -- census_status: Plant status in a census (values: measured = alive\, measured dead = died prior to census missing = not found during census) ## Description of the data and file structure: HDP_plots.csv * Format and storage mode: ASCII text, comma delimited. No compression scheme used. * Header information: The first row of the file contains the variable names. * Variables: -- plot_id: Code used to identify a plot (Values: FF1-FF7 = plots in fragments\, CF1-CF6 = plots in continuous forest) -- habitat: Habitat in which a plot is located (Values: one = 1-ha fragment\, ten = 10-ha fragment\, forest = continuous forest) -- ranch: Ranch in which a plot is located (Values: porto alegre\, esteio\, dimona) -- bdffp_no: BDFFPs Reserve ID Number (Values: 1104\, 1202\, 1301\, 1501\, 2107\, 2108\, 2206\, 3209\, 3402\, NA) -- yr_isolated: for fragments\, the year they were initially isolated by felling (and in some cases burning) the trees surrounding them ## Describe relationships between data files, missing data codes, other abbreviations used. Be as descriptive as possible. * Missing values are represented with NA. ## Sharing/Access information * Though we welcome opportunities to collaborate with interested users, there are no restrictions on the use this data set. However, we do request that those using the data for teaching or research inform us of how they are doing so and cite the Bruna et al. Data Paper in Ecology and this Dryad archive. * Any publication using the data must include a BDFFP Technical Series Number in the Acknowledgments. Authors can request this series number upon the acceptance of their article by contacting the BDFFP's Scientific Coordinator or E. M. Bruna....

Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data was reported at 0.100 % in 2020. Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data is updated yearly, averaging 0.100 % from Dec 2020 (Median) to 2020, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.100 % in 2020 and a record low of 0.100 % in 2020. Women Who were First Married by Age 15: % of Women Aged 20-24 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Women who were first married by age 15 refers to the percentage of women ages 20-24 who were first married by age 15.;UNICEF Data; Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS), AIDS Indicator Surveys(AIS), Reproductive Health Survey(RHS), and other household surveys.;;This is the Sustainable Development Goal indicator 5.3.1[https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/].

Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data was reported at 92.683 Person th in Mar 2025. This records a decrease from the previous number of 96.749 Person th for Feb 2025. Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data is updated monthly, averaging 72.521 Person th from Mar 2009 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 193 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 118.756 Person th in Jan 2010 and a record low of 38.519 Person th in Sep 2013. Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Institute of Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Chile – Table CL.G034: Unemployment: NENE. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Male: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data was reported at 44.750 Person th in Mar 2025. This records an increase from the previous number of 44.111 Person th for Feb 2025. Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Male: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data is updated monthly, averaging 32.033 Person th from Mar 2009 (Median) to Mar 2025, with 193 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 55.695 Person th in Mar 2009 and a record low of 16.613 Person th in Apr 2013. Chile NENE: Population: Above Age 15: Male: Labour Force: Unoccupied: First Job data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Institute of Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Chile – Table CL.G034: Unemployment: NENE. [COVID-19-IMPACT]

In a time of global change, having an understanding of the nature of biotic and abiotic factors that drive a species’ range may be the sharpest tool in the arsenal of conservation and management of threatened species. However, such information is lacking for most tropical and epiphytic species due to the complexity of life history, the roles of stochastic events, and the diversity of habitat across the span of a distribution. In this study, we conducted repeated censuses across the core and peripheral range of Trichocentrum undulatum, a threatened orchid that is found throughout the island of Cuba (species core range) and southern Florida (the northern peripheral range). We used demographic matrix modeling as well as stochastic simulations to investigate the impacts of herbivory, hurricanes, and logging (in Cuba) on projected population growth rates (? and ?s) among sites. Methods Field methods Censuses took place between 2013 and 2021. The longest census period was that of the Peripheral population with a total of nine years (2013–2021). All four populations in Cuba used in demographic modeling that were censused more than once: Core 1 site (2016–2019, four years), Core 2 site (2018–2019, two years), Core 3 (2016 and 2018 two years), and Core 4 (2018–2019, two years) (Appendix S1: Table S1). In November 2017, Hurricane Irma hit parts of Cuba and southern Florida, impacting the Peripheral population. The Core 5 population (censused on 2016 and 2018) was small (N=17) with low survival on the second census due to logging. Three additional populations in Cuba were visited only once, Core 6, Core 7, and Core 8 (Table 1). Sites with one census or with a small sample size (Core 5) were not included in the life history and matrix model analyses of this paper due to the lack of population transition information, but they were included in the analysis on the correlation between herbivory and fruit rate, as well as the use of mortality observations from logging for modeling. All Cuban sites were located between Western and Central Cuba, spanning four provinces: Mayabeque (Core 1), Pinar del Rio (Core 2 and Core 6), Matanzas (Core 3 and Core 5), and Sancti Spiritus (Core 4, Core 7, Core 8). At each population of T. undulatum presented in this study, individuals were studied within ~1-km strips where T. undulatum occurrence was deemed representative of the site, mostly occurring along informal forest trails. Once an individual of T. undulatum was located, all trees within a 5-m radius were searched for additional individuals. Since tagging was not permitted, we used a combination of information to track individual plants for the repeated censuses. These include the host species, height of the orchid, DBH of the host tree, and hand-drawn maps. Individual plants were also marked by GPS at the Everglades Peripheral site. If a host tree was found bearing more than one T. undulatum, then we systematically recorded the orchids in order from the lowest to highest as well as used the previous years’ observations in future censuses for individualized notes and size records. We recorded plant size and reproductive variables during each census including: the number of leaves, length of the longest leaf (cm), number of inflorescence stalks, number of flowers, and the number of mature fruits. We also noted any presence of herbivory, such as signs of being bored by M. miamensis, and whether an inflorescence was partially or completely affected by the fly, and whether there was other herbivory, such as D. boisduvalii on leaves. We used logistic regression analysis to examine the effects of year (at the Peripheral site) and sites (all sites) on the presence or absence of inflorescence herbivory at all the sites. Cross tabulation and chi-square analysis were done to examine the associations between whether a plant was able to fruit and the presence of floral herbivory by M. miamensis. The herbivory was scored as either complete or partial. During the orchid population scouting expeditions, we came across a small population in the Matanzas province (Core 5, within 10 km of the Core 3 site) and recorded the demographic information. Although the sampled population was small (N = 17), we were able to observe logging impacts at the site and recorded logging-associated mortality on the subsequent return to the site. Matrix modeling Definition of size-stage classes To assess the life stage transitions and population structures for each plant for each population’s census period we first defined the stage classes for the species. The categorization for each plant’s stage class depended on both its size and reproductive capabilities, a method deemed appropriate for plants (Lefkovitch 1965, Cochran and Ellner 1992). A size index score was calculated for each plant by taking the total number of observed leaves and adding the length of the longest leaf, an indication of accumulated biomass (Borrero et al. 2016). The smallest plant size that attempted to produce an inflorescence is considered the minimum size for an adult plant. Plants were classified by stage based on their size index and flowering capacity as the following: (1) seedlings (or new recruits), i.e., new and small plants with a size index score of less than 6, (2) juveniles, i.e., plants with a size index score of less than 15 with no observed history of flowering, (3) adults, plants with size index scores of 15 or greater. Adult plants of this size or larger are capable of flowering but may not produce an inflorescence in a given year. The orchid’s population matrix models were constructed based on these stages. In general, orchid seedlings are notoriously difficult to observe and easily overlooked in the field due to the small size of protocorms. A newly found juvenile on a subsequent site visit (not the first year) may therefore be considered having previously been a seedling in the preceding year. In this study, we use the discovered “seedlings” as indicatory of recruitment for the populations. Adult plants are able to shrink or transition into the smaller juvenile stage class, but a juvenile cannot shrink to the seedling stage. Matrix elements and population vital rates calculations Annual transition probabilities for every stage class were calculated. A total of 16 site- and year-specific matrices were constructed. When seedling or juvenile sample sizes were < 9, the transitions were estimated using the nearest year or site matrix elements as a proxy. Due to the length of the study and variety of vegetation types with a generally large population size at each site, transition substitutions were made with the average stage transition from all years at the site as priors. If the sample size of the averaged stage was still too small, the averaged transition from a different population located at the same vegetation type was used. We avoided using transition values from populations found in different vegetation types to conserve potential environmental differences. A total of 20% (27/135) of the matrix elements were estimated in this fashion, the majority being seedling stage transitions (19/27) and noted in the Appendices alongside population size (Appendix S1: Table S1). The fertility element transitions from reproductive adults to seedlings were calculated as the number of seedlings produced (and that survived to the census) per adult plant. Deterministic modeling analysis We used integral projection models (IPM) to project the long-term population growth rates for each time period and population. The finite population growth rate (?), stochastic long-term growth rate (?s), and the elasticity were projected for each matrices using R Popbio Package 2.4.4 (Stubben and Milligan 2007, Caswell 2001). The elasticity matrices were summarized by placing each element into one of three categories: fecundity (transition from reproductive adults to seedling stage), growth (all transitions to new and more advanced stage, excluding the fecundity), and stasis (plants that transitioned into the same or a less advanced stage on subsequent census) (Liu et al. 2005). Life table response experiments (LTREs) were conducted to identify the stage transitions that had the greatest effects on observed differences in population growth between select sites and years (i.e., pre-post hurricane impact and site comparisons of same vegetation type). Due to the frequent disturbances that epiphytes in general experience as well as our species’ distribution in hurricane-prone areas, we ran transient dynamic models that assume that the populations censused were not at stable stage distributions (Stott et al. 2011). We calculated three indices for short-term transient dynamics to capture the variation during a 15-year transition period: reactivity, maximum amplification, and amplified inertia. Reactivity measures a population’s growth in a single measured timestep relative to the stable-stage growth, during the simulated transition period. Maximum amplification and amplified inertia are the maximum of future population density and the maximum long-term population density, respectively, relative to a stable-stage population that began at the same initial density (Stott et al. 2011). For these analyses, we used a mean matrix for Core 1, Core 2 Core 3, and Core 4 sites and the population structure of their last census. For the Peripheral site, we averaged the last three matrices post-hurricane disturbance and used the most-recent population structure. We standardized the indices across sites with the assumption of initial population density equal to 1 (Stott et al. 2011). Analysis was done using R Popdemo version 1.3-0 (Stott et al. 2012b). Stochastic simulation We created matrices to simulate the effects of episodic recruitment, hurricane impacts, herbivory, and logging (Appendix S1: Table S2). The Peripheral population is the longest-running site with nine years of censuses (eight

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.