The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last recorded at 4.50 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Fed Funds Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

This data package includes the underlying data and files to replicate the calculations, charts, and tables presented in Public Debt and Low Interest Rates, PIIE Working Paper 19-4. If you use the data, please cite as: Blanchard, Olivier. (2019). Public Debt and Low Interest Rates. PIIE Working Paper 19-4. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Household Saving Rate in the United States decreased to 4.50 percent in May from 4.90 percent in April of 2025. This dataset provides - United States Personal Savings Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Fixed 30-year mortgage rates in the United States averaged 6.84 percent in the week ending July 18 of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States MBA 30-Yr Mortgage Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

An important indicator of the financial strength of governmental entity is its bond rating. The bond rating is similar in nature to the credit score of an individual – the higher the score, the better the ability to borrow money to finance purchases at a lower interest rate. Similarly, the higher the bond rating for a governmental entity, the more opportunities to borrow money for capital needs at lower interest rates. A high bond rating is in excellent indicator of the overall financial health of a government.This measure is obtained each year when the city seeks to issue bonds to finance its’ projects. As part of this process, bond ratings are always obtained from the rating agencies: Standard & Poor’s. Fitch Ratings and Moody's Investor Service.This page provides data for the Bond Rating performance measure.Bond ratings are a reflection of the financial strength of an entity. A high rating means an entity can issue bonds to finance capital projects at lower interest rates; lower rates result in less interest to be paid on the repayment of the bonds. Ultimately, this lowers the costs of our capital projects to our taxpayers.The performance measure dashboard is available at 5.04 Bond Rating.Additional InformationSource: Standard & Poors, Moody's Investor Service, and Fitch Ratings are the major bond rating agencies in the United States and are widely used by governmental and non-governmental entities throughout the country.Contact: Jerry HartContact E-Mail: Jerry_Hart@tempe.govData Source Type: ExcelPreparation Method: ManualPublish Frequency: AnnuallyPublish Method: ManualData Dictionary

Graph and download economic data for Personal Saving Rate (PSAVERT) from Jan 1959 to May 2025 about savings, personal, rate, and USA.

30 Year Mortgage Rate in the United States increased to 6.75 percent in July 17 from 6.72 percent in the previous week. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for the United States 30 Year Mortgage Rate.

This dataset contains a wealth of information from 52,000 loan applications, offering detailed insights into the factors that influence loan approval decisions. Collected from financial institutions, this data is highly valuable for credit risk analysis, financial modeling, and predictive analytics. The dataset is particularly useful for anyone interested in applying machine learning techniques to real-world financial decision-making scenarios.

Overview: This dataset provides information about various applicants and the loans they applied for, including their demographic details, income, loan terms, and approval status. By analyzing this data, one can gain an understanding of which factors are most critical for determining the likelihood of loan approval. The dataset can also help in evaluating credit risk and building robust credit scoring systems.

Dataset Columns: Applicant_ID: Unique identifier for each loan application. Gender: Gender of the applicant (Male/Female). Age: Age of the applicant. Marital_Status: Marital status of the applicant (Single/Married). Dependents: Number of dependents the applicant has. Education: Education level of the applicant (Graduate/Not Graduate). Employment_Status: Employment status of the applicant (Employed, Self-Employed, Unemployed). Occupation_Type: Type of occupation, which provides insights into the nature of the applicant’s job (Salaried, Business, Others). Residential_Status: Type of residence (Owned, Rented, Mortgage). City/Town: The city or town where the applicant resides. Annual_Income: The total annual income of the applicant, a key factor in loan eligibility. Monthly_Expenses: The monthly expenses of the applicant, indicating their financial obligations. Credit_Score: The applicant's credit score, reflecting their creditworthiness. Existing_Loans: Number of existing loans the applicant is servicing. Total_Existing_Loan_Amount: The total amount of all existing loans the applicant has. Outstanding_Debt: The remaining amount of debt yet to be paid by the applicant. Loan_History: The applicant’s previous loan history (Good/Bad), indicating their repayment reliability. Loan_Amount_Requested: The loan amount the applicant has applied for. Loan_Term: The term of the loan in months. Loan_Purpose: The purpose of the loan (e.g., Home, Car, Education, Personal, Business). Interest_Rate: The interest rate applied to the loan. Loan_Type: The type of loan (Secured/Unsecured). Co-Applicant: Indicates if there is a co-applicant for the loan (Yes/No). Bank_Account_History: Applicant’s banking history, showing past transactions and reliability. Transaction_Frequency: The frequency of financial transactions in the applicant’s bank account (Low/Medium/High). Default_Risk: The risk level of the applicant defaulting on the loan (Low/Medium/High). Loan_Approval_Status: Final decision on the loan application (Approved/Rejected).

This dataset contains news headlines relevant to key forex pairs: AUDUSD, EURCHF, EURUSD, GBPUSD, and USDJPY. The data was extracted from reputable platforms Forex Live and FXstreet over a period of 86 days, from January to May 2023. The dataset comprises 2,291 unique news headlines. Each headline includes an associated forex pair, timestamp, source, author, URL, and the corresponding article text. Data was collected using web scraping techniques executed via a custom service on a virtual machine. This service periodically retrieves the latest news for a specified forex pair (ticker) from each platform, parsing all available information. The collected data is then processed to extract details such as the article's timestamp, author, and URL. The URL is further used to retrieve the full text of each article. This data acquisition process repeats approximately every 15 minutes.

To ensure the reliability of the dataset, we manually annotated each headline for sentiment. Instead of solely focusing on the textual content, we ascertained sentiment based on the potential short-term impact of the headline on its corresponding forex pair. This method recognizes the currency market's acute sensitivity to economic news, which significantly influences many trading strategies. As such, this dataset could serve as an invaluable resource for fine-tuning sentiment analysis models in the financial realm.

We used three categories for annotation: 'positive', 'negative', and 'neutral', which correspond to bullish, bearish, and hold sentiments, respectively, for the forex pair linked to each headline. The following Table provides examples of annotated headlines along with brief explanations of the assigned sentiment.

Examples of Annotated Headlines


    Forex Pair
    Headline
    Sentiment
    Explanation




    GBPUSD 
    Diminishing bets for a move to 12400 
    Neutral
    Lack of strong sentiment in either direction


    GBPUSD 
    No reasons to dislike Cable in the very near term as long as the Dollar momentum remains soft 
    Positive
    Positive sentiment towards GBPUSD (Cable) in the near term


    GBPUSD 
    When are the UK jobs and how could they affect GBPUSD 
    Neutral
    Poses a question and does not express a clear sentiment


    JPYUSD
    Appropriate to continue monetary easing to achieve 2% inflation target with wage growth 
    Positive
    Monetary easing from Bank of Japan (BoJ) could lead to a weaker JPY in the short term due to increased money supply


    USDJPY
    Dollar rebounds despite US data. Yen gains amid lower yields 
    Neutral
    Since both the USD and JPY are gaining, the effects on the USDJPY forex pair might offset each other


    USDJPY
    USDJPY to reach 124 by Q4 as the likelihood of a BoJ policy shift should accelerate Yen gains 
    Negative
    USDJPY is expected to reach a lower value, with the USD losing value against the JPY


    AUDUSD

RBA Governor Lowe’s Testimony High inflation is damaging and corrosive

    Positive
    Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) expresses concerns about inflation. Typically, central banks combat high inflation with higher interest rates, which could strengthen AUD.

Moreover, the dataset includes two columns with the predicted sentiment class and score as predicted by the FinBERT model. Specifically, the FinBERT model outputs a set of probabilities for each sentiment class (positive, negative, and neutral), representing the model's confidence in associating the input headline with each sentiment category. These probabilities are used to determine the predicted class and a sentiment score for each headline. The sentiment score is computed by subtracting the negative class probability from the positive one.

The dataset currently contains hospitalization counts and rates, statewide and by county, for 4 conditions plus 3 composite measures. Hospitalizations for these conditions are potentially preventable through access to high-quality outpatient care. The conditions include: asthma (age 2-17), diabetes short-term complications (age 6-17), gastroenteritis (age 3 months-17 years), perforated appendix (retired, 2016), urinary tract infections (age 3 months-17 years), and low birth weight (<2500 grams; retired, 2016). The composite measures (age 6-17) include overall, acute conditions, and chronic conditions. The data provides a good starting point for assessing quality of health services in the community. The data does not measure hospital quality. Note: In 2015, HCAI only released the first three quarters of data due to a change in the reporting of diagnoses from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM codes, effective October 1, 2015. Due to the significant differences resulting from the code change, the ICD-9-CM data is distinguished from the ICD-10-CM data in the data file beginning in 2016.

Cervical Cancer Risk Factors for Biopsy: This Dataset is Obtained from UCI Repository and kindly acknowledged! This file contains a List of Risk Factors for Cervical Cancer leading to a Biopsy Examination! About 11,000 new cases of invasive cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the U.S. However, the number of new cervical cancer cases has been declining steadily over the past decades. Although it is the most preventable type of cancer, each year cervical cancer kills about 4,000 women in the U.S. and about 300,000 women worldwide. In the United States, cervical cancer mortality rates plunged by 74% from 1955 - 1992 thanks to increased screening and early detection with the Pap test. AGE Fifty percent of cervical cancer diagnoses occur in women ages 35 - 54, and about 20% occur in women over 65 years of age. The median age of diagnosis is 48 years. About 15% of women develop cervical cancer between the ages of 20 - 30. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women younger than age 20. However, many young women become infected with multiple types of human papilloma virus, which then can increase their risk of getting cervical cancer in the future. Young women with early abnormal changes who do not have regular examinations are at high risk for localized cancer by the time they are age 40, and for invasive cancer by age 50. SOCIOECONOMIC AND ETHNIC FACTORS Although the rate of cervical cancer has declined among both Caucasian and African-American women over the past decades, it remains much more prevalent in African-Americans -- whose death rates are twice as high as Caucasian women. Hispanic American women have more than twice the risk of invasive cervical cancer as Caucasian women, also due to a lower rate of screening. These differences, however, are almost certainly due to social and economic differences. Numerous studies report that high poverty levels are linked with low screening rates. In addition, lack of health insurance, limited transportation, and language difficulties hinder a poor woman’s access to screening services. HIGH SEXUAL ACTIVITY Human papilloma virus (HPV) is the main risk factor for cervical cancer. In adults, the most important risk factor for HPV is sexual activity with an infected person. Women most at risk for cervical cancer are those with a history of multiple sexual partners, sexual intercourse at age 17 years or younger, or both. A woman who has never been sexually active has a very low risk for developing cervical cancer. Sexual activity with multiple partners increases the likelihood of many other sexually transmitted infections (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis).Studies have found an association between chlamydia and cervical cancer risk, including the possibility that chlamydia may prolong HPV infection. FAMILY HISTORY Women have a higher risk of cervical cancer if they have a first-degree relative (mother, sister) who has had cervical cancer. USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES Studies have reported a strong association between cervical cancer and long-term use of oral contraception (OC). Women who take birth control pills for more than 5 - 10 years appear to have a much higher risk HPV infection (up to four times higher) than those who do not use OCs. (Women taking OCs for fewer than 5 years do not have a significantly higher risk.) The reasons for this risk from OC use are not entirely clear. Women who use OCs may be less likely to use a diaphragm, condoms, or other methods that offer some protection against sexual transmitted diseases, including HPV. Some research also suggests that the hormones in OCs might help the virus enter the genetic material of cervical cells. HAVING MANY CHILDREN Studies indicate that having many children increases the risk for developing cervical cancer, particularly in women infected with HPV. SMOKING Smoking is associated with a higher risk for precancerous changes (dysplasia) in the cervix and for progression to invasive cervical cancer, especially for women infected with HPV. IMMUNOSUPPRESSION Women with weak immune systems, (such as those with HIV / AIDS), are more susceptible to acquiring HPV. Immunocompromised patients are also at higher risk for having cervical precancer develop rapidly into invasive cancer. DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) From 1938 - 1971, diethylstilbestrol (DES), an estrogen-related drug, was widely prescribed to pregnant women to help prevent miscarriages. The daughters of these women face a higher risk for cervical cancer. DES is no longer prsecribed.

Studies utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry rarely result in 100% fix success rates (FSR). Many assessments of wildlife resource use do not account for missing data, either assuming data loss is random or because a lack of practical treatment for systematic data loss. Several studies have explored how the environment, technological features, and animal behavior influence rates of missing data in GPS telemetry, but previous spatially explicit models developed to correct for sampling bias have been specified to small study areas, on a small range of data loss, or to be species-specific, limiting their general utility. Here we explore environmental effects on GPS fix acquisition rates across a wide range of environmental conditions and detection rates for bias correction of terrestrial GPS-derived, large mammal habitat use. We also evaluate patterns in missing data that relate to potential animal activities that change the orientation of the antennae and characterize home-range probability of GPS detection for 4 focal species; cougars (Puma concolor), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus ssp. nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Part 1, Positive Openness Raster (raster dataset): Openness is an angular measure of the relationship between surface relief and horizontal distance. For angles less than 90 degrees it is equivalent to the internal angle of a cone with its apex at a DEM location, and is constrained by neighboring elevations within a specified radial distance. 480 meter search radius was used for this calculation of positive openness. Openness incorporates the terrain line-of-sight or viewshed concept and is calculated from multiple zenith and nadir angles-here along eight azimuths. Positive openness measures openness above the surface, with high values for convex forms and low values for concave forms (Yokoyama et al. 2002). We calculated positive openness using a custom python script, following the methods of Yokoyama et. al (2002) using a USGS National Elevation Dataset as input. Part 2, Northern Arizona GPS Test Collar (csv): Bias correction in GPS telemetry data-sets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix acquisition. We found terrain exposure and tall over-story vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The model's predictive ability was evaluated using two independent data-sets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programming, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. The model training data are provided here for fix attempts by hour. This table can be linked with the site location shapefile using the site field. Part 3, Probability Raster (raster dataset): Bias correction in GPS telemetry datasets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix aquistion. We found terrain exposure and tall overstory vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The models predictive ability was evaluated using two independent datasets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programing, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. We evaluated GPS telemetry datasets by comparing the mean probability of a successful GPS fix across study animals home-ranges, to the actual observed FSR of GPS downloaded deployed collars on cougars (Puma concolor), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus ssp. nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Comparing the mean probability of acquisition within study animals home-ranges and observed FSRs of GPS downloaded collars resulted in a approximatly 1:1 linear relationship with an r-sq= 0.68. Part 4, GPS Test Collar Sites (shapefile): Bias correction in GPS telemetry data-sets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix acquisition. We found terrain exposure and tall over-story vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The model's predictive ability was evaluated using two independent data-sets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programming, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. Part 5, Cougar Home Ranges (shapefile): Cougar home-ranges were calculated to compare the mean probability of a GPS fix acquisition across the home-range to the actual fix success rate (FSR) of the collar as a means for evaluating if characteristics of an animal’s home-range have an effect on observed FSR. We estimated home-ranges using the Local Convex Hull (LoCoH) method using the 90th isopleth. Data obtained from GPS download of retrieved units were only used. Satellite delivered data was omitted from the analysis for animals where the collar was lost or damaged because satellite delivery tends to lose as additional 10% of data. Comparisons with home-range mean probability of fix were also used as a reference for assessing if the frequency animals use areas of low GPS acquisition rates may play a role in observed FSRs. Part 6, Cougar Fix Success Rate by Hour (csv): Cougar GPS collar fix success varied by hour-of-day suggesting circadian rhythms with bouts of rest during daylight hours may change the orientation of the GPS receiver affecting the ability to acquire fixes. Raw data of overall fix success rates (FSR) and FSR by hour were used to predict relative reductions in FSR. Data only includes direct GPS download datasets. Satellite delivered data was omitted from the analysis for animals where the collar was lost or damaged because satellite delivery tends to lose approximately an additional 10% of data. Part 7, Openness Python Script version 2.0: This python script was used to calculate positive openness using a 30 meter digital elevation model for a large geographic area in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. A scientific research project used the script to explore environmental effects on GPS fix acquisition rates across a wide range of environmental conditions and detection rates for bias correction of terrestrial GPS-derived, large mammal habitat use.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Little Valley town population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Little Valley town across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Little Valley town was 1,650, a 0.48% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Little Valley town population was 1,658, a decline of 0.48% compared to a population of 1,666 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Little Valley town decreased by 122. In this period, the peak population was 1,772 in the year 2000. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Little Valley town is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Little Valley town population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

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 Little Valley town Population by Year. You can refer the same here

The dataset contains risk-adjusted mortality rates, quality ratings, and number of deaths and cases for 6 medical conditions treated (Acute Stroke, Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage, Hip Fracture and Pneumonia) and 3 procedures performed (Carotid Endarterectomy, Pancreatic Resection, and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) in California hospitals. The 2023 IMIs were generated using AHRQ Version 2024, while previous years' IMIs were generated with older versions of AHRQ software (2022 IMIs by Version 2023, 2021 IMIs by Version 2022, 2020 IMIs by Version 2021, 2019 IMIs by Version 2020, 2016-2018 IMIs by Version 2019, 2014 and 2015 IMIs by Version 5.0, and 2012 and 2013 IMIs by Version 4.5). The differences in the statistical method employed and inclusion and exclusion criteria using different versions can lead to different results. Users should not compare trends of mortality rates over time. However, many hospitals showed consistent performance over years; “better” performing hospitals may perform better and “worse” performing hospitals may perform worse consistently across years. This dataset does not include conditions treated or procedures performed in outpatient settings. Please refer to statewide table for California overall rates: https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/california-hospital-inpatient-mortality-rates-and-quality-ratings/resource/af88090e-b6f5-4f65-a7ea-d613e6569d96

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset will no longer be updated.

This archived public use dataset has 11 data elements reflecting United States COVID-19 community levels for all available counties.

The COVID-19 community levels were developed using a combination of three metrics — new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients, and total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. The COVID-19 community level was determined by the higher of the new admissions and inpatient beds metrics, based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days. New COVID-19 admissions and the percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied represent the current potential for strain on the health system. Data on new cases acts as an early warning indicator of potential increases in health system strain in the event of a COVID-19 surge.

Using these data, the COVID-19 community level was classified as low, medium, or high.

COVID-19 Community Levels were used to help communities and individuals make decisions based on their local context and their unique needs. Community vaccination coverage and other local information, like early alerts from surveillance, such as through wastewater or the number of emergency department visits for COVID-19, when available, can also inform decision making for health officials and individuals.

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

Archived Data Notes:

This dataset was renamed from "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County as Originally Posted" to "United States COVID-19 Community Levels by County" on March 31, 2022.

March 31, 2022: Column name for county population was changed to “county_population”. No change was made to the data points previous released.

March 31, 2022: New column, “health_service_area_population”, was added to the dataset to denote the total population in the designated Health Service Area based on 2019 Census estimate.

March 31, 2022: FIPS codes for territories American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands were re-formatted to 5-digit numeric for records released on 3/3/2022 to be consistent with other records in the dataset.

March 31, 2022: Changes were made to the text fields in variables “county”, “state”, and “health_service_area” so the formats are consistent across releases.

March 31, 2022: The “%” sign was removed from the text field in column “covid_inpatient_bed_utilization”. No change was made to the data. As indicated in the column description, values in this column represent the percentage of staffed inpatient beds occupied by COVID-19 patients (7-day average).

March 31, 2022: Data values for columns, “county_population”, “health_service_area_number”, and “health_service_area” were backfilled for records released on 2/24/2022. These columns were added since the week of 3/3/2022, thus the values were previously missing for records released the week prior.

April 7, 2022: Updates made to data released on 3/24/2022 for Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands to correct a data mapping error.

April 21, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for counties in Nebraska for the week of April 21, 2022 have 3 counties identified in the high category and 37 in the medium category. CDC has been working with state officials to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

The benchmark interest rate in Taiwan was last recorded at 2 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Taiwan Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

The dataset contains several macroeconomic time-series regarding the Russian economy. The time-series were collected from the Russian Federal State Statistics Service, the Bank of Russia and Federal Reserve Economic Data. The time-series included in the dataset are: 1. Time: 1-Jan-2005 = 1, every successive step in time represents one quarter 2. Date: Quarterly dates from 1-Jan-2005 to 1-Oct-2021 5. GDP: Quarterly nominal GDP in 2016 prices, excluding seasonal factor (bln RUB) 6. GDPgr: Nominal GDP growth rate (Quarterly, %) 7. M0: Base or high-powered money (bln RUB) 8. M0gr: M0 growth rate (Quarterly, %) 9. BM: M2 measure of money supply (bln RUB) 10. BMgr: M2 growth rate (Quarterly, %) 11. Interest: 90-day interbank rate (APR, %) 12. USDRUB: USD/RUB exchange rate (RUB) 12. EURRUB: EUR/RUB exchange rate (RUB) 13. Unemployment: Unemployment rate (%) 14. PPI: Domestic producer price index (index: 2015=100) 15. PPIgr: Growth rate of producer price index (Quarterly, %) 16. OIL: Spot prices of Brent per barrel (USD) 17. OILgr: Growth rate of Brent prices (Quarterly, %) 18. WAGE: Average monthly nominal wage rate (RUB) 19. WAGEgr: Changes in nominal wage rate (Quarterly, %) 3. CPI: Change in CPI as a ratio (End of quarter to end of previous quarter, %) 4. Inflation: Percentage change in CPI, calculated as Relative CPI - 100 (Quarterly, %)

The data was used to in time-series regression modelling to explain the factors affecting inflation in Russia. Some other modelling ideas for the dataset are: 1. Shift the focus from factor analysis to predicting future inflation 2. Perform factor analyses of other key macroeconomic variables, such as the GDP growth rate, the unemployment rate or the interest rate

Due to the low number of available observations because of quarterly sampling, this dataset is probably better suited to time-series econometric analysis rather than more modern machine learning methods.

Monitoring shoreline change is of interest in many coastal areas because it enables quantification of land loss over time. Evolution of shoreline position is determined by the balance between erosion and accretion along the coast. In the case of salt marshes, erosion along the water boundary causes a loss of ecosystem services, such as habitat provision, carbon storage, and wave attenuation. In terms of vulnerability, higher shoreline erosion rates indicate higher vulnerability. This dataset displays shoreline change rates at the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge (EBFNWR), which spans over Great Bay, Little Egg Harbor, and Barnegat Bay in New Jersey, USA. Shoreline change rates are based on Smith and Terrano (2017) analysis of digital vector shorelines acquired from historic topographic sheets, aerial photography, and/or lidar using the AMBUR package (Jackson, 2010). Linear Regression Rates (LRR) of shoreline change were averaged along the shoreline of each salt marsh unit to generate this dataset. Positive and negative values indicate accretion and erosion respectively. As part of the Hurricane Sandy Science Plan, the U.S. Geological Survey is expanding National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards and forecast products to coastal wetlands. The intent is to provide federal, state, and local managers with tools to estimate their vulnerability and ecosystem service potential. For this purpose, the response and resilience of coastal wetlands to physical factors need to be assessed in terms of the ensuing change to their vulnerability and ecosystem services. EBFNWR was selected as a pilot study area.

The DXY exchange rate rose to 97.3823 on July 24, 2025, up 0.17% from the previous session. Over the past month, the United States Dollar has weakened 0.30%, and is down by 6.67% over the last 12 months. United States Dollar - values, historical data, forecasts and news - updated on July of 2025.

The benchmark interest rate in Venezuela was last recorded at 59.27 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Venezuela Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.