The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant global health threat since January 2020. Policies to reduce human mobility have been recognized to effectively control the spread of COVID-19; although the relationship between mobility, policy implementation, and virus spread remains contentious, with no clear pattern for how countries classify each other, and determine the destinations to- and from which to restrict travel. In this rapid review, we identified country classification schemes for high-risk COVID-19 areas and associated policies which mirrored the dynamic situation in 2020, with the aim of identifying any patterns that could indicate the effectiveness of such policies. We searched academic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. We also consulted web pages of the relevant government institutions in all countries. This rapid review's searches were conducted between October 2020 and December 2021. Web scraping of policy documents yielded additional 43 country reports on high-risk area classification schemes. In 43 countries from which relevant reports were identified, six issued domestic classification schemes. International classification schemes were issued by the remaining 38 countries, and these mainly used case incidence per 100,000 inhabitants as key indicator. The case incidence cut-off also varied across the countries, ranging from 20 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 7 days to more than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the past 28 days. The criteria used for defining high-risk areas varied across countries, including case count, positivity rate, composite risk scores, community transmission and satisfactory laboratory testing. Countries either used case incidence in the past 7, 14 or 28 days. The resulting policies included restrictions on internal movement and international travel. The quarantine policies can be summarized into three categories: (1) 14 days self-isolation, (2) 10 days self-isolation and (3) 14 days compulsory isolation.

Context

Dataset aims to facilitate a state by state comparison of potential risk factors that may heighten Covid 19 transmission rates or deaths. It includes state by state estimates of: covid 19 positives/deaths, flu/pneumonia deaths, major city population densities, available hospital resources, high risk health condition prevalance, population over 60, means of work transportation rates, housing characteristics (ie number of large apartment complexes/seniors living alone), and industry information.

Content

The Data Includes:

1) Covid 19 Outcome Stats:

Covid_Death : Covid Deaths by State

Covid_Positive : Covid Positive Tests by State

2) US Major City Population Density by State: CBSA_Major_City_max_weighted_density

3) KFF Estimates of Total Hospital Beds by State:

Kaiser_Total_Hospital_Beds

4) 2018 Season Flu and Pneumonia Death Stats:

FLUVIEW_TOTAL_PNEUMONIA_DEATHS_Season_2018

FLUVIEW_TOTAL_INFLUENZA_DEATHS_Season_2018

5)US Total Rates of Flu Hospitalization by Underlying Condition:

Fluview_US_FLU_Hospitalization_Rate_....

6) State by State BRFSS Prevalance Rates of Conditions Associated with Higher Flu Hospitalization Rates

BRFSS_Diabetes_Prevalance BRFSS_Asthma_Prevalance BRFSS_COPD_Prevalance
BRFSS_Obesity BMI Prevalance BRFSS_Other_Cancer_Prevalance BRFSS_Kidney_Disease_Prevalance BRFSS_Obesity BMI Prevalance BRFSS_2017_High_Cholestoral_Prevalance BRFSS_2017_High_Blood_Pressure_Prevalance Census_Population_Over_60

7)State by state breakdown of Means of Work Transpotation:

COMMUTE_Census_Worker_Public_Transportation_Rate

8) State by state breakdown of Housing Characteristics

9) State by State breakdown of Industry Information

Acknowledgements

Links to data sources:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/

https://covidtracking.com/data/

https://gis.cdc.gov/GRASP/Fluview/FluHospRates.html https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/state-data-and-policy-actions-to-address-coronavirus/#stateleveldata

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=United%20States&tid=ACSDP1Y2018.DP05&hidePreview=true&vintage=2018&layer=VT_2018_040_00_PY_D1&cid=S0103_C01_001E

Census Tables: ACSST1Y2018.S1811 ACSST1Y2018.S0102 ACSST1Y2018.S2403 ACSST1Y2018.S2501 ACSST1Y2018.S2504

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2012/dec/c2010sr-01-density.html

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/fluview/mortality.html

Inspiration

I hope to show the existence of correlations that warrant a deeper county by county analysis to identify areas of increased risk requiring increased resource allocation or increased attention to preventative measures.

Updated weekly on Thursdays Older adults and people with disabilities who live in long term care facilities are at high risk for COVID-19 illness and death. The data below describes the impacts of COVID-19 on the residents and staff of Long Term Care Facilities licensed by the State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), including Skilled Nursing Facilities (nursing homes); Adult Family Homes and Assisted Living Facilities. Cases and deaths are also occurring in other forms of senior housing not licensed by DSHS, including subsidized housing for people age 50+, Permanent Supportive Housing, and naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) and among people with disabilities living in Supportive Living Facilities (also licensed by DSHS).

This operations dashboard shows historic and current data related to this performance measure.The performance measure dashboard is available at 1.14 High Risk Inspections. Data Dictionary

While diseases can make anyone sick, some Canadians are more at risk of developing severe complications from an illness due to underlying medical conditions and age. If you are at risk for complications, you can take action to reduce your risk of getting sick from COVID-19.

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 19 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, geography (county and state of residence), any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors.

Currently, CDC provides the public with three versions of COVID-19 case surveillance line-listed data: this 19 data element dataset with geography, a 12 data element public use dataset, and a 33 data element restricted access dataset.

The following apply to the public use datasets and the restricted access dataset:

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• Datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensure that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (<a href="https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cste.org/resource/resmgr/ps/positionstatement2020/Interim-20-ID-01_COVID

ObjectiveTo estimate the optimal quarantine period for inbound travelers and identify key risk factors to provide scientific reference for emerging infectious diseases.MethodsA parametric survival analysis model was used to calculate the time interval between entry and first positive nucleic acid test of imported cases in Guangzhou, to identify the influencing factors. And the COVID-19 epidemic risk prediction model based on multiple risk factors among inbound travelers was constructed.ResultsThe approximate 95th percentile of the time interval was 14 days. Multivariate analysis found that the mean time interval for inbound travelers in entry/exit high-risk occupations was 29% shorter (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18–0.46, p < 0.0001) than that of low-risk occupations, those from Africa were 37% shorter (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17–0.78, p = 0.01) than those from Asia, those who were fully vaccinated were 1.88 times higher (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.13–3.12, p = 0.01) than that of those who were unvaccinated, and those in other VOC periods were lower than in the Delta period. Decision tree analysis showed that a combined entry/exit low-risk occupation group with Delta period could create a high indigenous epidemic risk by 0.24.ConclusionDifferent strata of imported cases can result in varying degrees of risk of indigenous outbreaks. “low-risk groups” with entry/exit low-risk occupations, fully vaccinated, or from Asia deserve more attention than “high-risk groups.”

Coronavirus affects some members of the population more than others. Emerging evidence suggests that older people, men, people with health conditions such as respiratory and pulmonary conditions, and people of a Black, Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) background are at particular risk. There are also a number of other wider public health risk factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of an individual contracting coronavirus. This briefing presents descriptive evidence on a range of these factors, seeking to understand at a London-wide level the proportion of the population affected by each.

COVID-19Plots and analysis relating to the coronavirus pandemic. Includes five sets of plots and associated R code to generate them.1) HeatmapsUpdated every few days - heatmaps of COVID-19 case and death trajectories for Local Authorities (or equivalent) in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Germany.2) All cause mortalityUpdated on Tuesday (for England & Wales), Wednesday (for Scotland) and Friday (for Northern Ireland) - analysis and plots of weekly all-cause deaths in 2020 compared to previous years by country, age, sex and region. Also a set of international comparisons using data from mortality.org3) ExposuresNo longer updated - mapping of potential COVID-19 mortality exposure at local levels (LSOAs) in England based on the age-sex structure of the population and levels of poor health.There is also a Shiny app which creates slightly lower resolution versions of the same plots online, which you can find here: https://victimofmaths.shinyapps.io/covidmapper/, on GitHub https://github.com/VictimOfMaths/COVIDmapper and uploaded to this record4) Index of Multiple Deprivation No longer updated - preliminary analysis of the inequality impacts of COVID-19 based on Local Authority level cases and levels of deprivation. 5) Socioeconomic inequalities. No longer updated (unless ONS release more data) - Analysis of published ONS figures of COVID-19 and other cause mortality in 2020 compared to previous years by deprivation decile.Latest versions of plots and associated analysis can be found on Twitter: https://twitter.com/victimofmathsThis work is described in more detail on the UK Data Service Impact and Innovation Lab blog: https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/visualising-high-risk-areas-for-covid-19-mortality/Adapted from data from the Office for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.1.0.http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

A Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04359537) was conducted at SZABMU/PIMS to evaluate the comparative efficacy of various HCQ doses in preventing COVID-19 among high-risk healthcare workers. Enrolment began on 1st May 2020, and the intervention continued for a total of 12 weeks. A total of 228 participants were initially enrolled (Figure 1); of them, 28 were ineligible and excluded. Participants fulfilling the eligibility criteria were randomized into the four treatment groups. Group 1 participants (n=48) were intervened with HCQ 400 mg (locally manufactured by Getz Pharma) twice a day on day 1 followed by 400 mg weekly. Group 2 (n=51) participants were given HCQ 400 mg once every 3 weeks, group 3 (n=55) administered HCQ 200 mg once every 3 weeks and participants in the control group received placebo (n=46). The baseline characteristics of all participants, including age, gender, role, comorbidities, and drug records, were obtained. COVID-19 related symptoms and adverse events (AEs) from the drug were self-reported by the enrolled participant during the study period. The COVID-19 exposure and preventive practices were monitored on a monthly basis. Disease severity was assessed through ordinal scale i.e. no illness (score=1), illness with outpatient observation (score=2), hospitalization (or post-hospital discharge) (score=3), hospitalization with ICU stay (score=4) and death from COVID 19 (score=5). All participants exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the study and also by the end of the 12th week, with PCR or IgM and IgG serology (as per accessibility).The primary endpoint was to evaluate the COVID-19-free survival among the participants by the end of the study. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate the proportion of rRT-PCR positive COVID-19 cases, the role of exposure and preventive practices, the frequency of COVID-related symptoms, treatment-related side effects, the incidence of all-cause study medicine discontinuation, and maximum disease severity during the study treatment.The study protocol was approved by the ethical review board of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (Reference no. 1-1/2015/ERB/SZABMU/549; Dated 20 April 2020), and written informed consents were acquired from the participants before inclusion.

This mapping tool enables you to see how COVID-19 deaths in your area may relate to factors in the local population, which research has shown are associated with COVID-19 mortality. It maps COVID-19 deaths rates for small areas of London (known as MSOAs) and enables you to compare these to a number of other factors including the Index of Multiple Deprivation, the age and ethnicity of the local population, extent of pre-existing health conditions in the local population, and occupational data. Research has shown that the mortality risk from COVID-19 is higher for people of older age groups, for men, for people with pre-existing health conditions, and for people from BAME backgrounds. London boroughs had some of the highest mortality rates from COVID-19 based on data to April 17th 2020, based on data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Analysis from the ONS has also shown how mortality is also related to socio-economic issues such as occupations classified ‘at risk’ and area deprivation. There is much about COVID-19-related mortality that is still not fully understood, including the intersection between the different factors e.g. relationship between BAME groups and occupation. On their own, none of these individual factors correlate strongly with deaths for these small areas. This is most likely because the most relevant factors will vary from area to area. In some cases it may relate to the age of the population, in others it may relate to the prevalence of underlying health conditions, area deprivation or the proportion of the population working in ‘at risk occupations’, and in some cases a combination of these or none of them. Further descriptive analysis of the factors in this tool can be found here: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/covid-19--socio-economic-risk-factors-briefing

SummaryThe number of cases interviewed who had a completed answer to the question asking if they visited or worked at any of a list of high risk locations in the 14 days before they became ill (or had a positive test) during their covidLINK interviews.DescriptionMD COVID-19 - Contact Tracing Cases High Risk Locations layer reflects the number of cases interviewed who had a completed answer to the question asking if they visited or worked at any of a list of high risk locations in the 14 days before they became ill (or had a positive test) during their covidLINK interviews. Respondents may indicate that they visited or worked at more than one category of high risk location. For a variety of reasons, some individuals choose not to answer particular questions during the course of their interview.Events and locations where there is prolonged exposure to other people — including weddings, parties, stores, restaurants, etc. — are considered “high risk” for COVID-19 transmission. The more interaction at a gathering or location, the more likely a person may be to transmit or become infected with the virus. More information about considerations for events and gatherings — including how to assess risk levels and promote healthy behaviors that reduce spread — is available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Answers to interview questions do not provide evidence of cause and effect. Due to the nature of COVID-19 and the wide range of scenarios in which a person can become infected, most of the time it will not be possible to pinpoint exactly where and when a case became infected. Though a person may report attendance at a particular location, that does not mean that transmission happened at that location.The covidLINK interview questionnaire is updated as necessary to capture relevant information related to case exposure and potential onward transmission. These revisions should be taken into consideration when evaluating trends in case responses over time.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.

State, territorial, and county executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations are collected from government websites and cataloged and coded using Microsoft Excel by one coder with one or more additional coders conducting quality assurance. Data were collected to determine when individuals in states, territories, and counties were subject to executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations for COVID-19 that require or recommend people stay in their homes. These data are derived from the publicly available state, territorial, and county executive orders, administrative orders, resolutions, and proclamations (“orders”) for COVID-19 that expressly require or recommend individuals stay at home found by the CDC, COVID-19 Community Intervention and At-Risk Task Force, Monitoring and Evaluation Team & CDC, Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Public Health Law Program from March 15 through May 5, 2020. These data will be updated as new orders are collected. Any orders not available through publicly accessible websites are not included in these data. Only official copies of the documents or, where official copies were unavailable, official press releases from government websites describing requirements were coded; news media reports on restrictions were excluded. Recommendations not included in an order are not included in these data. These data do not include mandatory business closures, curfews, or limitations on public or private gatherings. These data do not necessarily represent an official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties. This dataset contains the same values used to display information available on the COVID Data Tracker at: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view?list_select_state=all_states&list_select_county=all_counties&data-type=CommunityLevels The data are updated weekly.

CDC looks at the combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days — to determine the COVID-19 community level. The COVID-19 community level is determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge. Using these data, the COVID-19 community level is classified as low, medium, or high. COVID-19 Community Levels can help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/community-levels.html for more information.

For the most accurate and up-to-date data for any county or state, visit the relevant health department website. COVID Data Tracker may display data that differ from state and local websites. This can be due to differences in how data were collected, how metrics were calculated, or the timing of web updates.

For more details on the Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 thresholds, see COVID-19 Public Health Risk Measures: Data Notes (Updated 4/13/22). https://mn.gov/covid19/assets/phri_tcm1148-434773.pdf

Note: This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022. March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released. March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate. March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset. March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases. March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average). March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior. April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

Data supporting McClatchey et al 'COVID-19 information for people living with asthma: A rapid review of publicly available information' JACI: In practice https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.01.003 . Abstract: In 2020, COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, posing risk to high-risk communities, such as people living with severe asthma. We rapidly reviewed COVID-19 information available online for people with asthma, to assess whether information aligns with risk communication and asthma self-management guidelines. Information from five English-speaking countries and global websites providing COVID-19 information for people with asthma (including those at high-risk of severe disease) were downloaded. Informed by the World Health Organization (WHO) emergency risk communication guideline and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence asthma guidelines, 102 webpages from 43 unique organisations that provided asthma-related health information were analysed. We found that COVID-19 online information for people with asthma largely followed the WHO emergency risk communication guideline and provided some asthma self-management strategies.

IntroductionCorrectional facilities are high-priority settings for coordinated public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. These facilities are at high risk of disease transmission due to close contacts between people in prison and with the wider community. People in prison are also vulnerable to severe disease given their high burden of co-morbidities.MethodsWe developed a mathematical model to evaluate the effect of various public health interventions, including vaccination, on the mitigation of COVID-19 outbreaks, applying it to prisons in Australia and Canada.ResultsWe found that, in the absence of any intervention, an outbreak would occur and infect almost 100% of people in prison within 20 days of the index case. However, the rapid rollout of vaccines with other non-pharmaceutical interventions would almost eliminate the risk of an outbreak.DiscussionOur study highlights that high vaccination coverage is required for variants with high transmission probability to completely mitigate the outbreak risk in prisons.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases

The COVID-19 dashboard includes data on city/town COVID-19 activity, confirmed and probable cases of COVID-19, confirmed and probable deaths related to COVID-19, and the demographic characteristics of cases and deaths.

The end of 2019 was marked by reports of a previously unknown virus causing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). With over 800 new daily hospitalizations at the peak in Los Angeles (LA) County, the potential for high use of COVID-19 treatment agents, remdesivir and dexamethasone, warranted a screening assessment of their fate and toxicity risk for aquatic organisms. We predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) using the ChemFate model and hospitalizations data and compared them to predicted ecotoxicity concentrations generated using Ecological Structure Activity Relationships (ECOSAR) to assess risk to potentially exposed organisms. The lowest predicted toxicity thresholds were between 2 and 11 orders of magnitude greater than the highest PECs for freshwater and saltwater. We conclude that had all eligible patients in LA County been given the recommended treatment regimen, exposure of aquatic organisms in regional water bodies to remdesivir, dexamethasone, and their evaluated metabolites would not be likely to be affected based on ECOSAR predictions. Conservative, protective assumptions were used for this screening analysis, considering limited toxicity information. Modeling tools thus serve to predict environmental concentrations and estimate ecotoxicity risks of novel treatment agents and can provide useful preliminary data to assess and manage ecological health risks.