Proportion of people who use services who reported that they had as much social contact as they would like

[1] The Progress by Population Group analysis is a component of the Healthy People 2020 (HP2020) Final Review. The analysis included subsets of the 1,111 measurable HP2020 objectives that have data available for any of six broad population characteristics: sex, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, disability status, and geographic location. Progress toward meeting HP2020 targets is presented for up to 24 population groups within these characteristics, based on objective data aggregated across HP2020 topic areas. The Progress by Population Group data are also available at the individual objective level in the downloadable data set. [2] The final value was generally based on data available on the HP2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into HP2030, more recent data will be included on the HP2030 website as it becomes available: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For more information on the HP2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt27.pdf. [4] Status for objectives included in the HP2020 Progress by Population Group analysis was determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The progress status categories used in HP2020 were: a. Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target (the percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed). b. Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. c. Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. d. Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. NOTE: Measurable objectives had baseline data. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2020 Progress by Population Group database.

In 2024, the number of data compromises in the United States stood at 3,158 cases. Meanwhile, over 1.35 billion individuals were affected in the same year by data compromises, including data breaches, leakage, and exposure. While these are three different events, they have one thing in common. As a result of all three incidents, the sensitive data is accessed by an unauthorized threat actor. Industries most vulnerable to data breaches Some industry sectors usually see more significant cases of private data violations than others. This is determined by the type and volume of the personal information organizations of these sectors store. In 2024 the financial services, healthcare, and professional services were the three industry sectors that recorded most data breaches. Overall, the number of healthcare data breaches in some industry sectors in the United States has gradually increased within the past few years. However, some sectors saw decrease. Largest data exposures worldwide In 2020, an adult streaming website, CAM4, experienced a leakage of nearly 11 billion records. This, by far, is the most extensive reported data leakage. This case, though, is unique because cyber security researchers found the vulnerability before the cyber criminals. The second-largest data breach is the Yahoo data breach, dating back to 2013. The company first reported about one billion exposed records, then later, in 2017, came up with an updated number of leaked records, which was three billion. In March 2018, the third biggest data breach happened, involving India’s national identification database Aadhaar. As a result of this incident, over 1.1 billion records were exposed.

People's Index of Everything price history tracking allows crypto investors to easily monitor the performance of their investment. You can conveniently track the opening value, high, and close for People's Index of Everything over time, as well as the trade volume. Additionally, you can instantly view the daily change as a percentage, making it effortless to identify days with significant fluctuations. According to our People's Index of Everything price history data, its value soared to an unprecedented peak in 2025-10-12, surpassing -- USD. On the other hand, the lowest point in People's Index of Everything's price trajectory, commonly referred to as the "People's Index of Everything all-time low", occurred on 2025-10-12. If one had purchased People's Index of Everything during that time, they would currently enjoy a remarkable profit of 0%. By design, 989,912,363.99 People's Index of Everything will be created. As of now, the circulating supply of People's Index of Everything is approximately 989,912,400. All the prices listed on this page are obtained from Bitget, a reliable source. It is crucial to rely on a single source to check your investments, as values may vary among different sellers. Our historical People's Index of Everything price dataset includes data at intervals of 1 minute, 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month (open/high/low/close/volume). These datasets have undergone rigorous testing to ensure consistency, completeness, and accuracy. They are specifically designed for trade simulation and backtesting purposes, readily available for free download, and updated in real-time.

As part of an ongoing partnership with the Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) recently added questions to assess the prevalence of post-COVID-19 conditions (long COVID), on the experimental Household Pulse Survey. This 20-minute online survey was designed to complement the ability of the federal statistical system to rapidly respond and provide relevant information about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. Data collection began on April 23, 2020. Beginning in Phase 3.5 (on June 1, 2022), NCHS included questions about the presence of symptoms of COVID that lasted three months or longer. Phase 3.5 will continue with a two-weeks on, two-weeks off collection and dissemination approach. Estimates on this page are derived from the Household Pulse Survey and show the percentage of adults aged 18 and over who a) as a proportion of the U.S. population, the percentage of adults who EVER experienced post-COVID conditions (long COVID). These adults had COVID and had some symptoms that lasted three months or longer; b) as a proportion of adults who said they ever had COVID, the percentage who EVER experienced post-COVID conditions; c) as a proportion of the U.S. population, the percentage of adults who are CURRENTLY experiencing post-COVID conditions. These adults had COVID, had long-term symptoms, and are still experiencing symptoms; d) as a proportion of adults who said they ever had COVID, the percentage who are CURRENTLY experiencing post-COVID conditions; and e) as a proportion of the U.S. population, the percentage of adults who said they ever had COVID.

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since late January, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

DESCRIPTION

Johns Hopkins' county-level COVID-19 case and death data, paired with population and rates per 100,000

SUMMARY Updates April 9, 2020 The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County. April 20, 2020 Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well. April 29, 2020 The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

Overview The AP is using data collected by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering as our source for outbreak caseloads and death counts for the United States and globally.

The Hopkins data is available at the county level in the United States. The AP has paired this data with population figures and county rural/urban designations, and has calculated caseload and death rates per 100,000 people. Be aware that caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates.

This data is from the Hopkins dashboard that is updated regularly throughout the day. Like all organizations dealing with data, Hopkins is constantly refining and cleaning up their feed, so there may be brief moments where data does not appear correctly. At this link, you’ll find the Hopkins daily data reports, and a clean version of their feed.

The AP is updating this dataset hourly at 45 minutes past the hour.

To learn more about AP's data journalism capabilities for publishers, corporations and financial institutions, go here or email kromano@ap.org.

Queries Use AP's queries to filter the data or to join to other datasets we've made available to help cover the coronavirus pandemic

Filter cases by state here

Rank states by their status as current hotspots. Calculates the 7-day rolling average of new cases per capita in each state: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=481e82a4-1b2f-41c2-9ea1-d91aa4b3b1ac

Find recent hotspots within your state by running a query to calculate the 7-day rolling average of new cases by capita in each county: https://data.world/associatedpress/johns-hopkins-coronavirus-case-tracker/workspace/query?queryid=b566f1db-3231-40fe-8099-311909b7b687&showTemplatePreview=true

Join county-level case data to an earlier dataset released by AP on local hospital capacity here. To find out more about the hospital capacity dataset, see the full details.

Pull the 100 counties with the highest per-capita confirmed cases here

Rank all the counties by the highest per-capita rate of new cases in the past 7 days here. Be aware that because this ranks per-capita caseloads, very small counties may rise to the very top, so take into account raw caseload figures as well.

Interactive Embed Code

Caveats This data represents the number of cases and deaths reported by each state and has been collected by Johns Hopkins from a number of sources cited on their website. In some cases, deaths or cases of people who've crossed state lines -- either to receive treatment or because they became sick and couldn't return home while traveling -- are reported in a state they aren't currently in, because of state reporting rules. In some states, there are a number of cases not assigned to a specific county -- for those cases, the county name is "unassigned to a single county" This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University's COVID-19 tracking project. The AP is simply making it available here for ease of use for reporters and members. Caseloads may reflect the availability of tests -- and the ability to turn around test results quickly -- rather than actual disease spread or true infection rates. Population estimates at the county level are drawn from 2014-18 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey. The Urban/Rural classification scheme is from the Center for Disease Control and Preventions's National Center for Health Statistics. It puts each county into one of six categories --...

Political representation theory postulates that technocracy and populism mount a twofold challenge to party democracy, while also standing at odds with each other in the vision of representation they advocate. Can these relationships be observed empirically at the level of citizen preferences and what does this mean for alternative forms of representation? The article investigates technocratic attitudes among citizens following three dimensions – Expertise, Elitism, Anti-politics – and, using latent class analysis, identifies citizen groups that follow a technocratic, populist and party-democratic profile in nine European democracies. Results show that technocratic attitudes are pervasive and can be meaningfully distinguished from populist attitudes, though important overlaps remain. We investigate differences in demographics and political attitudes among citizen profiles that are relevant to political behavior and conclude by highlighting the role that citizens’ increasing demands for expertise play in driving preferences for alternative types of governance.

This is data from a scoping review that was conducted. The methods for this review are summarised here:

The aim of this study is to synthesise current evidence related to use of psycho-social groups as part of community-based mental health interventions in South Asia using a realist lens with specific research questions as follows: (i) What types of psycho-social, group directed mental health interventions are being delivered by community mental health workers in South Asia? (ii) What outcomes do they deliver and how are they measured? (iii) What are possible mechanisms that trigger positive outcomes? What constrains positive outcomes?

Framing the scoping review Our focus was group interventions that are targeted primarily at adults from different family groups with a component designed to accomplish at least one of the following: - prevent or treat mental health problem/s; - support people who live with mental health problems and their carers; - improve resilience in the face of mental health problems. We proposed that interventions should have a clear psychosocial component. While interventions could be short, and engage with existing groups, they should involve multiple sessions. Group interventions could also be part of larger interventions with individual, family, or screening components. The detailed exclusion criteria are provided in the supplementary material.
Sample: Adults living in the community and affected by mental health problems. We included both studies of people with mental health problems and of those who care for them. Interventions should be carried out in, and benefit citizens of, the SAARC. Interventions who targeted both adults and young people (aged 14 and above) were also included. Phenomenon of Interest: Psychosocial group interventions with a stated intention to support mental health in SAARC countries that are delivered by community workers or primary care health workers. Those workers should have no tertiary level training in medicine, social work, psychology, or one of the allied health professions, and they should not be training in a tertiary setting. However, these workers may be regarded as experts by their community and may have undergone rigorous apprenticeships in traditional forms of health/ medicine and physical, mental, and spiritual care provision. A minimal description of the intervention should be available, covering who delivered it, what the content of the intervention was, and at whom the intervention was aimed. Design: Study protocols, implementation studies, qualitative studies, experience reports, evaluations, case studies, randomised controlled trials Evaluation: Studies should report, or, in the case of study protocols, specify quantitative or qualitative outcomes of the intervention. Reports of implemented interventions should also mention barriers to and facilitators of success. Research type: mixed methods, quantitative research, qualitative research, study protocol, experience report Ethics was not required as the data presented in this data set was all secondary date.

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

Proportion of people who use services who reported that they had as much social contact as they would like

[1] Status is determined using the baseline, final, and target value. The statuses used in Healthy People 2020 were: 1 - Target met or exceeded—One of the following applies: (i) At baseline, the target was not met or exceeded, and the most recent value was equal to or exceeded the target. (The percentage of targeted change achieved was equal to or greater than 100%.); (ii) The baseline and most recent values were equal to or exceeded the target. (The percentage of targeted change achieved was not assessed.) 2 - Improved—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved 10% or more of the targeted change. 3 - Little or no detectable change—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were available, and the percentage of targeted change achieved was not statistically significant; (ii) Movement was toward the target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had achieved less than 10% of the targeted change; (iii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was not statistically significant; (iv) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved less than 10% relative to the baseline; (v) No change was observed between the baseline and the final data point. 4 - Got worse—One of the following applies: (i) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were available, and the percent change relative to the baseline was statistically significant; (ii) Movement was away from the baseline and target, standard errors were not available, and the objective had moved 10% or more relative to the baseline. 5 - Baseline only—The objective only had one data point, so progress toward target attainment could not be assessed. Note that if additional data points did not meet the criteria for statistical reliability, data quality, or confidentiality, the objective was categorized as baseline only. 6 - Informational—A target was not set for this objective, so progress toward target attainment could not be assessed. [2] The final value is generally based on data available on the Healthy People 2020 website as of January 2020. For objectives that are continuing into Healthy People 2030, more recent data are available on the Healthy People 2030 website: https://health.gov/healthypeople. [3] For objectives that moved toward their targets, movement toward the target was measured as the percentage of targeted change achieved (unless the target was already met or exceeded at baseline): Percentage of targeted change achieved = (Final value - Baseline value) / (HP2020 target - Baseline value) * 100 [4] For objectives that were not improving, did not meet or exceed their targets, and did not move towards their targets, movement away from the baseline was measured as the magnitude of the percent change from baseline: Magnitude of percent change from baseline = |Final value - Baseline value| / Baseline value * 100 [5] Statistical significance was tested when the objective had a target, at least two data points (of unequal value), and available standard errors of the data. A normal distribution was assumed. All available digits were used to test statistical significance. Statistical significance of the percentage of targeted change achieved or the magnitude of the percentage change from baseline was assessed at the 0.05 level using a normal one-sided test. [6] For more information on the Healthy People 2020 methodology for measuring progress toward target attainment and the elimination of health disparities, see: Healthy People Statistical Notes, no 27; available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/sta

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.

District and Taluka (sub district) wise court cases show the number of pending cases over various time periods. Cases such as Criminal, Civil and Stage are pending in court. The data set also provides information on the number of cases filed by senior citizens and women.

7150_source_data.csv: The raw data from the source with original administrative dimensions. This dataset may have already been restructured by scraping PDFs, combining files, or pivoting tables to fit the proper tabular format used by NDAP, but the actual data values remain unchanged. ● NDAP_REPORT_7150.csv: The final standardised data using LGD geographic dimensions as seen on NPAP. ● 7150_metadata.csv: Variable-level metadata, including the following fields: ❖ VariableName: The full variable name as it appears in the data ❖ VariableCode: A unique variable code that is used as a short name for the variable during internal processing and can be used for simplicity if desired ❖ Type_Of_Variable: The classification of the column, whether it is a dimension or a variable (i.e. indicator) ❖ Unit_Of_Measure: ❖ Aggregation_Type: The default aggregation function to be used when aggregating each variable ❖ Weighing_Variable_Name: The weight assigned to each variable that is used by default when aggregating ❖ Weighing_Variable_ID: The weighting variable id corresponding to the weighing variable name ❖ Long_Description: A more descriptive definition of the variable ❖ Scaling_factor: Scaling factor from source ● 7150_KEYS.csv: The key which maps source administrative units to the standardised Local Government Directory (LGD) dimensions. This file also contains pre-calculated weights for every constituent unit mapped from the source dimensions into the LGD. You can interpret each row as describing what fraction of the source unit is mapped to a corresponding LGD unit. This file includes the following fields: ❖ src[Unit]Name: The administrative unit name as it appears in the source data. Depending on the dataset, that may include State, District, Subdistrict, Block, Village/Town, etc. ❖ [Unit]Name: The standardised administrative unit name as it appears in the LGD. Depending on the dataset, that may include State, District, Subdistrict, Block, Village/Town, etc. ❖ [Unit]Name: The standardised administrative unit code corresponding to the unit name in the LDG. ❖ Year: The year in which the data was collected or reported. Depending on the dataset, any other temporal variables may also be present (Quarter, Month, Calendar Day, etc.) ❖ Number_Of_Children: The number of LGD units associated with the mapping described by an individual row. Units from the source that have undergone a split will contain multiple children. ❖ Number_Of_Parents: The number of source units associated with the mapping described by an individual row. Units from the source that have undergone a merge will contain multiple parents. ❖ Weighing_Variables: Households, Population, Male Population, Female Population, Land Area (Total, Rural, and Urban versions of each). For each weighing variable there are the following associated fields: ■ Count: the total count of households, population, or land area mapped from the source unit to the LGD unit for that particular row (NumberOfHouseholds, TotalPopulation, LandArea). ■ Mapping_Error: the percentage error due to missing villages in the base data, meaning what fraction of the weighing variable is dropped because the microdata could not be mapped to the LGD. ■ Weighing_Ratio: the weighing ratio for that constituent match of source unit to LGD unit for each particular row. This is the fraction applied to the source data to achieve the LGD-standardised final data.

Of the people who have had an acute stroke, the percentage that spend 90% or more of their hospital inpatient stay on a stroke unit. Current version updated: Sep-17 Next version due: Sep-18

After May 3, 2024, this dataset and webpage will no longer be updated because hospitals are no longer required to report data on COVID-19 hospital admissions, and hospital capacity and occupancy data, to HHS through CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network. Data voluntarily reported to NHSN after May 1, 2024, will be available starting May 10, 2024, at COVID Data Tracker Hospitalizations. The following dataset provides state-aggregated data for hospital utilization in a timeseries format dating back to January 1, 2020. These are derived from reports with facility-level granularity across three main sources: (1) HHS TeleTracking, (2) reporting provided directly to HHS Protect by state/territorial health departments on behalf of their healthcare facilities and (3) National Healthcare Safety Network (before July 15). The file will be updated regularly and provides the latest values reported by each facility within the last four days for all time. This allows for a more comprehensive picture of the hospital utilization within a state by ensuring a hospital is represented, even if they miss a single day of reporting. No statistical analysis is applied to account for non-response and/or to account for missing data. The below table displays one value for each field (i.e., column). Sometimes, reports for a given facility will be provided to more than one reporting source: HHS TeleTracking, NHSN, and HHS Protect. When this occurs, to ensure that there are not duplicate reports, prioritization is applied to the numbers for each facility. On April 27, 2022 the following pediatric fields were added: all_pediatric_inpatient_bed_occupied all_pediatric_inpatient_bed_occupied_coverage all_pediatric_inpatient_beds all_pediatric_inpatient_beds_coverage previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_0_4 previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_0_4_coverage previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_12_17 previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_12_17_coverage previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_5_11 previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_5_11_coverage previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_unknown previous_day_admission_pediatric_covid_confirmed_unknown_coverage staffed_icu_pediatric_patients_confirmed_covid staffed_icu_pediatric_patients_confirmed_covid_coverage staffed_pediatric_icu_bed_occupancy staffed_pediatric_icu_bed_occupancy_coverage total_staffed_pediatric_icu_beds total_staffed_pediatric_icu_beds_coverage On January 19, 2022, the following fields have been added to this dataset: inpatient_beds_used_covid inpatient_beds_used_covid_coverage On September 17, 2021, this data set has had the following fields added: icu_patients_confirmed_influenza, icu_patients_confirmed_influenza_coverage, previous_day_admission_influenza_confirmed, previous_day_admission_influenza_confirmed_coverage, previous_day_deaths_covid_and_influenza, previous_day_deaths_covid_and_influenza_coverage, previous_day_deaths_influenza, previous_day_deaths_influenza_coverage, total_patients_hospitalized_confirmed_influenza, total_patients_hospitalized_confirmed_influenza_and_covid, total_patients_hospitalized_confirmed_influenza_and_covid_coverage, total_patients_hospitalized_confirmed_influenza_coverage On September 13, 2021, this data set has had the following fields added: on_hand_supply_therapeutic_a_casirivimab_imdevimab_courses, on_hand_supply_therapeutic_b_bamlanivimab_courses, on_hand_supply_therapeutic_c_bamlanivimab_etesevimab_courses, previous_week_therapeutic_a_casirivimab_imdevimab_courses_used, previous_week_therapeutic_b_bamlanivimab_courses_used, previous_week_therapeutic_c_bamlanivima

According to a May 2023 survey of internet users in the United States, the share of Republicans or Republican-leaning individuals who were concerned about how the government used their personal data had increased by 14 percent since 2019. The concern level among Democrats, instead, has seen almost no changes. Overall, seven in ten U.S. adults said they were worried about how government entities might use their personal data.

This publication includes analysis of data for the months January 2024 to March 2024 from the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Enhanced Dataset (SCCI 2026) which is a repository for individual level data collected by healthcare providers in England, including acute hospital providers, mental health providers and GP practices. The report includes data on the type of FGM, age at which FGM was undertaken and in which country, the age of the woman or girl at her latest attendance and if she was advised of the health implications and illegalities of FGM and various other analyses. Some data for earlier years are reported.

Second-Hand Fashion Dataset

Overview

The dataset originates from projects focused on the sorting of used clothes within a sorting facility. The primary objective is to classify each garment into one of several categories to determine its ultimate destination: reuse, reuse outside Sweden (export), recycling, repair, remake, or thermal waste.

The dataset has 31,997 clothing items, a massive update from the 3,000 items in version 1. The dataset collection started under the Vinnova funded project "AI for resource-efficient circular fashion" in Spring, 2022 and involves collaboration among three institutions: RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB, Wargön Innovation AB, and Myrorna AB. The dataset has received further support through the EU project, CISUTAC (cisutac.eu).

Project page

- Webpage: https://fnauman.github.io/second-hand-fashion/">second-hand-fashion
- Contact: farrukh.nauman@ri.se

Dataset Details

- The dataset contains 31,997 clothing items, each with a unique item ID in a datetime format. The items are divided into three stations: `station1`, `station2`, and `station3`. The `station1` and `station2` folders contain images and annotations from Wargön Innovation AB, while the `station3` folder contains data from Myrorna AB. Each clothing item has three images and a JSON file containing annotations.

- Three images are provided for each clothing item:
1. Front view.
2. Back view.
3. Brand label close-up. About 4000-5000 brand images are missing because of privacy concerns: people's hands, faces, etc. Some clothing items did not have a brand label to begin with.

- Image resolutions are primarily in two sizes: `1280x720` and `1920x1080`. The background of the images is a table that used a measuring tape prior to January 2023, but later images have a square grid pattern with each square measuring `10x10` cm.

- Each JSON file contains a list of annotations, some of which require nuanced interpretation (see `labels.py` for the options):
- `usage`: Arguably the most critical label, usage indicates the garment's intended pathway. Options include 'Reuse,' 'Repair,' 'Remake,' 'Recycle,' 'Export' (reuse outside Sweden), and 'Energy recovery' (thermal waste). About 99% of the garments fall into the 'Reuse,' 'Export,' or 'Recycle' categories.
- `price`: The price field should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. Pricing models in the second-hand industry vary widely, including pricing by weight, brand, demand, or fixed value. Wargön Innovation AB does not determine actual pricing.
- `trend`: This field refers to the general style of the garment, not a time-dependent trend as in some other datasets (e.g., Visuelle 2.0). It might be more accurately labeled as 'style.'
- `material`: Material annotations are mostly based on the readings from a Near Infrared (NIR) scanner and in some cases from the garment's brand label.
- Damage-related attributes include:
- `condition` (1-5 scale, 5 being the best)
- `pilling` (1-5 scale, 5 meaning no pilling)
- `stains`, `holes`, `smell` (each with options 'None,' 'Minor,' 'Major').

Note: 'holes' and 'smell' were introduced after November 17th, 2022, and stains previously only had 'Yes'/'No' options. For `station1` and `station2`, we introduced additional damage location labels to assist in damage detection:

      "damageimage": "back",
      "damageloc": "bottom left",
      "damage": "stain ",
      "damage2image": "front",
      "damage2loc": "None",
      "damage2": "",
      "damage3image": "back",
      "damage3loc": "bottom right",
      "damage3": "stain"

Taken from `labels_2024_04_05_08_47_35.json` file. Additionally, we annotated a few hundred images with bounding box annotations that we aim to release at a later date.
- `comments`: The comments field is mostly empty, but sometimes contains important information about the garment, such as a detailed text description of the damage.

- Whenever possible, ISO standards have been followed to define these attributes on a 1-5 scale (e.g., `pilling`).

- Gold dataset: `Test` inside the comments field is meant for garments that were annotated multiple times by different annotators for annotator agreement comparisons. These 100 garments were annotated twice at Wargön Innovation AB (search within `station1/[dec2022,feb2023]`)and once at Myrorna AB (see `station3/test100` folder for JSON files containing their annotations).

- The data has been annotated by a group of expert second-hand sorters at Wargön Innovation AB and Myrorna AB.

- Some attributes, such as `price`, should be considered with caution. Many distinct pricing models exist in the second-hand industry:
- Price by weight
- Price by brand and demand (similar to first-hand fashion)
- Generic pricing at a fixed value (e.g., 1 Euro or 10 SEK)

Wargön Innovation AB does not set the prices in practice and their prices are suggestive only (`station1` and `station2`). Myrorna AB (`station3`), in contrast, does resale and sets the prices.

Comments

- We received feedback on our version 1 that some images were too blurry or had poor lighting. The image quality has slightly improved, but largely remains similar to release 1.
- We further learned that a handful of data items were duplicates. Several duplicate images were removed, but about 400 still remain.
- Some users did not prefer a `tar.gz` format that we uploaded in version 1 of the dataset. We have now switched to `.zip` for convenience.
- Most JSON files parse fine using any standard JSON reader, but a handful that are problematic have been set aside in the `json_errors` folder.
- Extra care was taken not to leak personal information. This is why you will not see any entries for `annotator` attribute in the JSON files in station1/sep2023 since people used their real names. Since then, we used internally assigned IDs.
- Many brand images contained people's hands, faces, or other personal information. We have removed about 4000-5000 brand images for privacy reasons.
- Please inform us immediately if you find any personal information revelations in the dataset:
- Farrukh Nauman (RISE AB): `farrukh.nauman@ri.se`,
- Susanne Eriksson (Wargön Innovation AB): `susanne.eriksson@wargoninnovation.se`,
- Gabriella Engstrom (Wargön Innovation AB): `gabriella.engstrom@wargoninnovation.se`.

We went through 100k images three times to ensure no personal information is leaked, but we are human and can make mistakes.

Partners

The data collection for this dataset has been carried out in collaboration with the following partners:

1. RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB: RISE is a leading research institute dedicated to advancing innovation and sustainability across various sectors, including fashion and textiles.

2. Wargön Innovation AB: Wargön Innovation is an expert in sustainable and circular fashion solutions, contributing valuable insights and expertise to the dataset creation.

3. Myrorna AB: Myrorna is Sweden's oldest chain of stores for collecting clothes and furnishings that can be reused.

License

CC-BY 4.0. Please refer to the LICENSE file for more details.

Acknowledgments

This dataset was made possible through the collaborative efforts of RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB, Wargön Innovation AB, and Myrorna AB, with funding from Vinnova and support from the EU project CISUTAC. We extend our gratitude to all the expert second-hand sorters and annotators who contributed their expertise to this project.

This dataset contains information on antibody testing for COVID-19: the number of people who received a test, the number of people with positive results, the percentage of people tested who tested positive, and the rate of testing per 100,000 people, stratified by ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) neighborhood poverty group. These data can also be accessed here: https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/totals/antibody-by-poverty.csv Exposure to COVID-19 can be detected by measuring antibodies to the disease in a person’s blood, which can indicate that a person may have had an immune response to the virus. Antibodies are proteins produced by the body’s immune system that can be found in the blood. People can test positive for antibodies after they have been exposed, sometimes when they no longer test positive for the virus itself. It is important to note that the science around COVID-19 antibody tests is evolving rapidly and there is still much uncertainty about what individual antibody test results mean for a single person and what population-level antibody test results mean for understanding the epidemiology of COVID-19 at a population level. These data only provide information on people tested. People receiving an antibody test do not reflect all people in New York City; therefore, these data may not reflect antibody prevalence among all New Yorkers. Increasing instances of screening programs further impact the generalizability of these data, as screening programs influence who and how many people are tested over time. Examples of screening programs in NYC include: employers screening their workers (e.g., hospitals), and long-term care facilities screening their residents. In addition, there may be potential biases toward people receiving an antibody test who have a positive result because people who were previously ill are preferentially seeking testing, in addition to the testing of persons with higher exposure (e.g., health care workers, first responders.) Neighborhood-level poverty groups were classified in a manner consistent with Health Department practices to describe and monitor disparities in health in NYC. Neighborhood poverty measures are defined as the percentage of people earning below the Federal Poverty Threshold (FPT) within a ZCTA. The standard cut-points for defining categories of neighborhood-level poverty in NYC are: • Low: <10% of residents in ZCTA living below the FPT • Medium: 10% to <20% • High: 20% to <30% • Very high: ≥30% residents living below the FPT The ZCTAs used for classification reflect the first non-missing address within NYC for each person reported with an antibody test result. Rates were calculated using interpolated intercensal population estimates updated in 2019. These rates differ from previously reported rates based on the 2000 Census or previous versions of population estimates. The Health Department produced these population estimates based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and NYC Department of City Planning. Rates for poverty were calculated using direct standardization for age at diagnosis and weighting by the US 2000 standard population. Antibody tests are categorized based on the date of specimen collection and are aggregated by full weeks starting each Sunday and ending on Saturday. For example, a person whose blood was collected for antibody testing on Wednesday, May 6 would be categorized as tested during the week ending May 9. A person tested twice in one week would only be counted once in that week. This dataset includes testing data beginning April 5, 2020. Data are updated daily, and the dataset preserves historical records and source data changes, so each extract date reflects the current copy of the data as of that date. For example, an extract date of 11/04/2020 and extract date of 11/03/2020 will both contain all records as they were as of that extract date. Without filtering or grouping by extract date, an analysis will almost certain