Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
this graph was created in PowerBi,Loocker and Tableau:
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fa74381617638f670b0d241adefe4e3fd%2Fgraph1.png?generation=1720901446303193&alt=media" alt="">
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F394a8399d5632553a1b921020e7277c7%2Fgraph2.jpg?generation=1720901458991992&alt=media" alt="">
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F5396b565dcb69c836edd4ad1d3451dc6%2Fgraph3.jpg?generation=1720901464666751&alt=media" alt="">
We can’t understand the world without understanding demographic change.
How many people are alive today? How many are born; how many die? What do we expect populations to look like in the future?
The United Nations updates its big dataset — the World Population Prospects — every two years to answer these questions. It just released its latest edition today.
We’ve updated all of our population-related datasets and charts with this new release. You can explore all the trends for every country in our Population and Demography Data Explorer.
In this article, we wanted to provide key insights from this latest wave of data.
The world population is projected to peak slightly earlier than in previous projections The United Nations doesn’t only publish historical estimates of how population and demographic trends have changed in the past; it also makes projections for what the future might look like. To be clear, these are projections, not predictions of changes in the future.
In its 2022 publication, the UN estimated that, in its medium scenario, the global population would peak in 2086 at around 10.4 billion people.
This year’s edition brings this peak forward slightly to 2084, with the population topping at just under 10.3 billion.
The chart below compares the two revisions.
This isn’t the first time the projected peak has been pulled earlier. According to its 2019 edition, the global population would reach 10.9 billion by 2100 and keep growing. The 2022 revision was the first to project a peak in the 21st century. Not every country has seen a drop in projected population compared to the last edition. The chart below shows the differences between the two UN revisions, region by region. Note that the vertical axis scale for each region is different, allowing you to see the changes more clearly.
The latest UN revision has downgraded its future population estimates in Asia, Africa, and Latin America but increased its projections for Europe and North America.
Facebook
TwitterApache License, v2.0https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
License information was derived automatically
This dataset was obtained through web scraping from Worldometer, a website that provides real-time global statistics. The data was collected in September 2025.
Facebook
TwitterDPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2 As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well. With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county). This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity). A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case. These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities. These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020. Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.
Facebook
TwitterU.S. Government Workshttps://www.usa.gov/government-works
License information was derived automatically
Note: DPH is updating and streamlining the COVID-19 cases, deaths, and testing data. As of 6/27/2022, the data will be published in four tables instead of twelve.
The COVID-19 Cases, Deaths, and Tests by Day dataset contains cases and test data by date of sample submission. The death data are by date of death. This dataset is updated daily and contains information back to the beginning of the pandemic. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Cases-Deaths-and-Tests-by-Day/g9vi-2ahj.
The COVID-19 State Metrics dataset contains over 93 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 21, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-State-Level-Data/qmgw-5kp6 .
The COVID-19 County Metrics dataset contains 25 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-County-Level-Data/ujiq-dy22 .
The COVID-19 Town Metrics dataset contains 16 columns of data. This dataset is updated daily and currently contains information starting June 16, 2022 to the present. The data can be found at https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Town-Level-Data/icxw-cada . To protect confidentiality, if a town has fewer than 5 cases or positive NAAT tests over the past 7 days, those data will be suppressed.
This dataset includes a count and rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a count of COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests, and a percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings for the previous two-week period. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity).
A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case.
Percent positivity is calculated as the number of positive tests among community residents conducted during the 14 days divided by the total number of positive and negative tests among community residents during the same period. If someone was tested more than once during that 14 day period, then those multiple test results (regardless of whether they were positive or negative) are included in the calculation.
These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities.
These data are updated weekly and reflect the previous two full Sunday-Saturday (MMWR) weeks (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf).
DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: Prior to 10/15/2020, these metrics were calculated using a 7-day average rather than a 14-day average. The 7-day metrics are no longer being updated as of 10/15/2020 but the archived dataset can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/s22x-83rd
As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well.
With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county).
Additional notes: As of 11/5/2020, CT DPH has added antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 to reported test counts in this dataset. The tests included in this dataset include both molecular and antigen datasets. Molecular tests reported include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nucleic acid amplicfication (NAAT) tests.
The population data used to calculate rates is based on the CT DPH population statistics for 2019, which is available online here: https://portal.ct.gov/DPH/Health-Information-Systems--Reporting/Population/Population-Statistics. Prior to 5/10/2021, the population estimates from 2018 were used.
Data suppression is applied when the rate is <5 cases per 100,000 or if there are <5 cases within the town. Information on why data suppression rules are applied can be found online here: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/technical_notes/stat_methods/suppression.htm
Facebook
TwitterOpen Database License (ODbL) v1.0https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
The analysis of the world's population is a complex and multifaceted endeavor, encompassing a wide range of demographic, economic, social, and environmental factors. Understanding these trends and dynamics is crucial for policymakers, researchers, and organizations to make informed decisions and plan for the future. This article delves into a comprehensive analysis of the world's population, examining its growth patterns, demographic shifts, challenges, and opportunities.
Population Growth. The world's population has experienced remarkable growth over the past century. In 1927, the global population reached its first billion, and since then, it has surged exponentially. As of the latest available data in 2021, the world's population stands at approximately 7.8 billion. Projections indicate that this figure will continue to rise, with estimates suggesting a population of over 9 billion by 2050.
Factors Driving Population Growth. 1. Fertility Rates: High birth rates, particularly in developing countries, have been a significant driver of population growth. Access to healthcare, education, and family planning services plays a crucial role in reducing fertility rates. 2. Increased Life Expectancy: Improvements in healthcare, nutrition, and sanitation have led to longer life expectancy worldwide. This has contributed to population growth, as people are living longer and healthier lives. 3. Demographic Shifts: Demographic shifts are shaping our world in significant ways. In developed countries, an aging population with a higher median age is reshaping healthcare systems, retirement policies, and workforce dynamics. Simultaneously, urbanization is accelerating, with over half of the global population now living in cities, presenting challenges and opportunities for infrastructure, resource management, and social development.
Challenges. 1. Overpopulation: Rapid population growth in certain regions can strain resources, leading to issues such as food scarcity, water shortages, and overcrowding. 2. Aging Workforce: As the global population ages, there may be a shortage of skilled workers, affecting economic productivity and social support systems. 3. Environmental Impact: Population growth is closely linked to increased resource consumption and environmental degradation. Sustainable development and conservation efforts are essential to mitigate these effects.
Opportunities. 1. Demographic Dividend: Countries with youthful populations can benefit from a demographic dividend, where a large working-age population can drive economic growth and innovation. 2. Cultural Diversity: A diverse global population can lead to cultural exchange, creativity, and a richer societal tapestry. 3. Innovation and Technology: Addressing the challenges posed by population growth can drive innovation in areas such as healthcare, agriculture, and energy production.
Analysing the world's population is a complex task that involves understanding its growth patterns, demographic shifts, challenges, and opportunities. As the global population continues to rise, it is essential to address the associated challenges while harnessing the potential benefits of a diverse and dynamic world population. Policymakers, researchers, and organizations must work collaboratively to create sustainable solutions that ensure a prosperous future for all.
Facebook
TwitterThe world population surpassed eight billion people in 2022, having doubled from its figure less than 50 years previously. Looking forward, it is projected that the world population will reach nine billion in 2038, and 10 billion in 2060, but it will peak around 10.3 billion in the 2080s before it then goes into decline. Regional variations The global population has seen rapid growth since the early 1800s, due to advances in areas such as food production, healthcare, water safety, education, and infrastructure, however, these changes did not occur at a uniform time or pace across the world. Broadly speaking, the first regions to undergo their demographic transitions were Europe, North America, and Oceania, followed by Latin America and Asia (although Asia's development saw the greatest variation due to its size), while Africa was the last continent to undergo this transformation. Because of these differences, many so-called "advanced" countries are now experiencing population decline, particularly in Europe and East Asia, while the fastest population growth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, the roughly two billion difference in population between now and the 2080s' peak will be found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which will rise from 1.2 billion to 3.2 billion in this time (although populations in other continents will also fluctuate). Changing projections The United Nations releases their World Population Prospects report every 1-2 years, and this is widely considered the foremost demographic dataset in the world. However, recent years have seen a notable decline in projections when the global population will peak, and at what number. Previous reports in the 2010s had suggested a peak of over 11 billion people, and that population growth would continue into the 2100s, however a sooner and shorter peak is now projected. Reasons for this include a more rapid population decline in East Asia and Europe, particularly China, as well as a prolonged development arc in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the United States population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for United States. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of United States by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in United States.
Key observations
The largest age group in United States was for the group of age 30 to 34 years years with a population of 22.71 million (6.86%), according to the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in United States was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 6.25 million (1.89%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018-2022 5-Year Estimates
Age groups:
Variables / Data Columns
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.
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/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for United States Population by Age. You can refer the same here
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the Maryland population distribution across 18 age groups. It lists the population in each age group along with the percentage population relative of the total population for Maryland. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population distribution of Maryland by age. For example, using this dataset, we can identify the largest age group in Maryland.
Key observations
The largest age group in Maryland was for the group of age 35 to 39 years years with a population of 429,168 (6.95%), according to the ACS 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. At the same time, the smallest age group in Maryland was the 80 to 84 years years with a population of 113,210 (1.83%). Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates
Age groups:
Variables / Data Columns
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.
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/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Maryland Population by Age. You can refer the same here
Facebook
TwitterODC Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL) v1.0http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
A. SUMMARY This dataset includes COVID-19 tests by resident neighborhood and specimen collection date (the day the test was collected). Specifically, this dataset includes tests of San Francisco residents who listed a San Francisco home address at the time of testing. These resident addresses were then geo-located and mapped to neighborhoods. The resident address associated with each test is hand-entered and susceptible to errors, therefore neighborhood data should be interpreted as an approximation, not a precise nor comprehensive total.
In recent months, about 5% of tests are missing addresses and therefore cannot be included in any neighborhood totals. In earlier months, more tests were missing address data. Because of this high percentage of tests missing resident address data, this neighborhood testing data for March, April, and May should be interpreted with caution (see below)
Percentage of tests missing address information, by month in 2020 Mar - 33.6% Apr - 25.9% May - 11.1% Jun - 7.2% Jul - 5.8% Aug - 5.4% Sep - 5.1% Oct (Oct 1-12) - 5.1%
To protect the privacy of residents, the City does not disclose the number of tests in neighborhoods with resident populations of fewer than 1,000 people. These neighborhoods are omitted from the data (they include Golden Gate Park, John McLaren Park, and Lands End).
Tests for residents that listed a Skilled Nursing Facility as their home address are not included in this neighborhood-level testing data. Skilled Nursing Facilities have required and repeated testing of residents, which would change neighborhood trends and not reflect the broader neighborhood's testing data.
This data was de-duplicated by individual and date, so if a person gets tested multiple times on different dates, all tests will be included in this dataset (on the day each test was collected).
The total number of positive test results is not equal to the total number of COVID-19 cases in San Francisco. During this investigation, some test results are found to be for persons living outside of San Francisco and some people in San Francisco may be tested multiple times (which is common). To see the number of new confirmed cases by neighborhood, reference this map: https://sf.gov/data/covid-19-case-maps#new-cases-maps
B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED COVID-19 laboratory test data is based on electronic laboratory test reports. Deduplication, quality assurance measures and other data verification processes maximize accuracy of laboratory test information. All testing data is then geo-coded by resident address. Then data is aggregated by analysis neighborhood and specimen collection date.
Data are prepared by close of business Monday through Saturday for public display.
C. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 05:00 Pacific Time each day. Redundant runs are scheduled at 07:00 and 09:00 in case of pipeline failure.
D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET San Francisco population estimates for geographic regions can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).
Due to the high degree of variation in the time needed to complete tests by different labs there is a delay in this reporting. On March 24 the Health Officer ordered all labs in the City to report complete COVID-19 testing information to the local and state health departments.
In order to track trends over time, a data user can analyze this data by "specimen_collection_date".
Calculating Percent Positivity: The positivity rate is the percentage of tests that return a positive result for COVID-19 (positive tests divided by the sum of positive and negative tests). Indeterminate results, which could not conclusively determine whether COVID-19 virus was present, are not included in the calculation of percent positive. Percent positivity indicates how widespread COVID-19 is in San Francisco and it helps public health officials determine if we are testing enough given the number of people who are testing positive. When there are fewer than 20 positives tests for a given neighborhood and time period, the positivity rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.
Calculating Testing Rates: To calculate the testing rate per 10,000 residents, divide the total number of tests collected (positive, negative, and indeterminate results) for neighborhood by the total number of residents who live in that neighborhood (included in the dataset), then multiply by 10,000. When there are fewer than 20 total tests for a given neighborhood and time period, the testing rate is not calculated for the public tracker because rates of small test counts are less reliable.
Read more about how this data is updated and validated daily: https://sf.gov/information/covid-19-data-questions
E. CHANGE LOG
Facebook
TwitterCC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedicationhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
License information was derived automatically
This is a motor neuron disease (MND) imaging dataset generated by the Steyn/Ngo Lab at the University of Queensland, Australia. Imaging was conducted at the Herston Imaging Research Facility (HIRF) at Brisbane, Australia.
The raw BIDS data was created using BIDScoin 2.3.1 All provenance information and settings can be found in ./code/bidscoin For more information see: https://github.com/Donders-Institute/bidscoin
Anatomical volumes were refaced using mri_reface 0.3.3 The code can be found in ./code/reface_structural.sh
Identifiable volumes under the derivatives dataset derivatives/fmriprep-v23.1.4 were removed.
For this patient we used the 20 channel coil instead of the 64 channel coil as the 64 channel coil did not fit the patients head. Due to the coil change there were a few modifications to the imaging protocol as listed below: PA multiband diffusion block changes: TE changed from 84 ms to 89 ms TR changed from 4700 ms to 5200ms Multiband diffusion AP block 1 changes: TE changed from 84 ms to 89 ms TR changed from 4700 ms to 5200ms AP multiband diffusion block 2 changes: TE changed from 84ms to 89 ms TR changed from 4700 ms to 5200 ms
DWI files for sub-17 are incomplete. As such, sub-17/ses-02/dwi is not included as part of the published dataset.
Facebook
TwitterAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
A collaborative project between SPC, the World Fish Centre and the University of Wollongong has produced the first detailed population estimates of people living close to the coast in the 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). These estimates are stratified into 1, 5, and 10km zones. More information about this dataset: https://sdd.spc.int/mapping-coastal
Facebook
TwitterThe TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some States and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
This is a dataset of the most highly populated city (if applicable) in a form easy to join with the COVID19 Global Forecasting (Week 1) dataset. You can see how to use it in this kernel
There are four columns. The first two correspond to the columns from the original COVID19 Global Forecasting (Week 1) dataset. The other two is the highest population density, at city level, for the given country/state. Note that some countries are very small and in those cases the population density reflects the entire country. Since the original dataset has a few cruise ships as well, I've added them there.
Thanks a lot to Kaggle for this competition that gave me the opportunity to look closely at some data and understand this problem better.
Summary: I believe that the square root of the population density should relate to the logistic growth factor of the SIR model. I think the SEIR model isn't applicable due to any intervention being too late for a fast-spreading virus like this, especially in places with dense populations.
After playing with the data provided in COVID19 Global Forecasting (Week 1) (and everything else online or media) a bit, one thing becomes clear. They have nothing to do with epidemiology. They reflect sociopolitical characteristics of a country/state and, more specifically, the reactivity and attitude towards testing.
The testing method used (PCR tests) means that what we measure could potentially be a proxy for the number of people infected during the last 3 weeks, i.e the growth (with lag). It's not how many people have been infected and recovered. Antibody or serology tests would measure that, and by using them, we could go back to normality faster... but those will arrive too late. Way earlier, China will have experimentally shown that it's safe to go back to normal as soon as your number of newly infected per day is close to zero.
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F197482%2F429e0fdd7f1ce86eba882857ac7a735e%2Fcovid-summary.png?generation=1585072438685236&alt=media" alt="">
My view, as a person living in NYC, about this virus, is that by the time governments react to media pressure, to lockdown or even test, it's too late. In dense areas, everyone susceptible has already amble opportunities to be infected. Especially for a virus with 5-14 days lag between infections and symptoms, a period during which hosts spread it all over on subway, the conditions are hopeless. Active populations have already been exposed, mostly asymptomatic and recovered. Sensitive/older populations are more self-isolated/careful in affluent societies (maybe this isn't the case in North Italy). As the virus finishes exploring the active population, it starts penetrating the more isolated ones. At this point in time, the first fatalities happen. Then testing starts. Then the media and the lockdown. Lockdown seems overly effective because it coincides with the tail of the disease spread. It helps slow down the virus exploring the long-tail of sensitive population, and we should all contribute by doing it, but it doesn't cause the end of the disease. If it did, then as soon as people were back in the streets (see China), there would be repeated outbreaks.
Smart politicians will test a lot because it will make their condition look worse. It helps them demand more resources. At the same time, they will have a low rate of fatalities due to large denominator. They can take credit for managing well a disproportionally major crisis - in contrast to people who didn't test.
We were lucky this time. We, Westerners, have woken up to the potential of a pandemic. I'm sure we will give further resources for prevention. Additionally, we will be more open-minded, helping politicians to have more direct responses. We will also require them to be more responsible in their messages and reactions.
Facebook
TwitterThis 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
Facebook
Twitterhttps://doi.org/10.4121/resource:terms_of_usehttps://doi.org/10.4121/resource:terms_of_use
This dataset comprises event logs (XES = Extensible Event Stream) regarding the activities of daily living performed by several individuals. The event logs were derived from sensor data which was collected in different scenarios and represent activities of daily living performed by several individuals. These include e.g., sleeping, meal preparation, and washing. The event logs show the different behavior of people in their own homes but also common patterns. The attached event logs were created with Fluxicon Disco ({http://fluxicon.com/disco/}).
Facebook
TwitterAttribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Context
The dataset tabulates the data for the Maryland population pyramid, which represents the Maryland population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.
Key observations
When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.
Age groups:
Variables / Data Columns
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.
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/.
This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Maryland Population by Age. You can refer the same here
Facebook
Twitter1,056 People Living Face & Anti-Spoofing Dataset – Multi-Scene, Multi-Expression. The collection scenes include indoor and outdoor scenes. The data includes male and female. The age distribution ranges from juvenile to the elderly, the young people and the middle aged are the majorities. The data includes multiple postures, multiple expressions, and multiple anti-spoofing samples. The data can be used for tasks such as face payment, remote ID authentication, and face unlocking of mobile phone.
Facebook
TwitterThis data layer is an element of the Oregon GIS Framework. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some States and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census and beyond, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area.
Facebook
TwitterRound 1 of the Afrobarometer survey was conducted from July 1999 through June 2001 in 12 African countries, to solicit public opinion on democracy, governance, markets, and national identity. The full 12 country dataset released was pieced together out of different projects, Round 1 of the Afrobarometer survey,the old Southern African Democracy Barometer, and similar surveys done in West and East Africa.
The 7 country dataset is a subset of the Round 1 survey dataset, and consists of a combined dataset for the 7 Southern African countries surveyed with other African countries in Round 1, 1999-2000 (Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe). It is a useful dataset because, in contrast to the full 12 country Round 1 dataset, all countries in this dataset were surveyed with the identical questionnaire
Botswana Lesotho Malawi Namibia South Africa Zambia Zimbabwe
Basic units of analysis that the study investigates include: individuals and groups
Sample survey data [ssd]
A new sample has to be drawn for each round of Afrobarometer surveys. Whereas the standard sample size for Round 3 surveys will be 1200 cases, a larger sample size will be required in societies that are extremely heterogeneous (such as South Africa and Nigeria), where the sample size will be increased to 2400. Other adaptations may be necessary within some countries to account for the varying quality of the census data or the availability of census maps.
The sample is designed as a representative cross-section of all citizens of voting age in a given country. The goal is to give every adult citizen an equal and known chance of selection for interview. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible. A randomly selected sample of 1200 cases allows inferences to national adult populations with a margin of sampling error of no more than plus or minus 2.5 percent with a confidence level of 95 percent. If the sample size is increased to 2400, the confidence interval shrinks to plus or minus 2 percent.
Sample Universe
The sample universe for Afrobarometer surveys includes all citizens of voting age within the country. In other words, we exclude anyone who is not a citizen and anyone who has not attained this age (usually 18 years) on the day of the survey. Also excluded are areas determined to be either inaccessible or not relevant to the study, such as those experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, as well as national parks and game reserves. As a matter of practice, we have also excluded people living in institutionalized settings, such as students in dormitories and persons in prisons or nursing homes.
What to do about areas experiencing political unrest? On the one hand we want to include them because they are politically important. On the other hand, we want to avoid stretching out the fieldwork over many months while we wait for the situation to settle down. It was agreed at the 2002 Cape Town Planning Workshop that it is difficult to come up with a general rule that will fit all imaginable circumstances. We will therefore make judgments on a case-by-case basis on whether or not to proceed with fieldwork or to exclude or substitute areas of conflict. National Partners are requested to consult Core Partners on any major delays, exclusions or substitutions of this sort.
Sample Design
The sample design is a clustered, stratified, multi-stage, area probability sample.
To repeat the main sampling principle, the objective of the design is to give every sample element (i.e. adult citizen) an equal and known chance of being chosen for inclusion in the sample. We strive to reach this objective by (a) strictly applying random selection methods at every stage of sampling and by (b) applying sampling with probability proportionate to population size wherever possible.
In a series of stages, geographically defined sampling units of decreasing size are selected. To ensure that the sample is representative, the probability of selection at various stages is adjusted as follows:
The sample is stratified by key social characteristics in the population such as sub-national area (e.g. region/province) and residential locality (urban or rural). The area stratification reduces the likelihood that distinctive ethnic or language groups are left out of the sample. And the urban/rural stratification is a means to make sure that these localities are represented in their correct proportions. Wherever possible, and always in the first stage of sampling, random sampling is conducted with probability proportionate to population size (PPPS). The purpose is to guarantee that larger (i.e., more populated) geographical units have a proportionally greater probability of being chosen into the sample. The sampling design has four stages
A first-stage to stratify and randomly select primary sampling units;
A second-stage to randomly select sampling start-points;
A third stage to randomly choose households;
A final-stage involving the random selection of individual respondents
We shall deal with each of these stages in turn.
STAGE ONE: Selection of Primary Sampling Units (PSUs)
The primary sampling units (PSU's) are the smallest, well-defined geographic units for which reliable population data are available. In most countries, these will be Census Enumeration Areas (or EAs). Most national census data and maps are broken down to the EA level. In the text that follows we will use the acronyms PSU and EA interchangeably because, when census data are employed, they refer to the same unit.
We strongly recommend that NIs use official national census data as the sampling frame for Afrobarometer surveys. Where recent or reliable census data are not available, NIs are asked to inform the relevant Core Partner before they substitute any other demographic data. Where the census is out of date, NIs should consult a demographer to obtain the best possible estimates of population growth rates. These should be applied to the outdated census data in order to make projections of population figures for the year of the survey. It is important to bear in mind that population growth rates vary by area (region) and (especially) between rural and urban localities. Therefore, any projected census data should include adjustments to take such variations into account.
Indeed, we urge NIs to establish collegial working relationships within professionals in the national census bureau, not only to obtain the most recent census data, projections, and maps, but to gain access to sampling expertise. NIs may even commission a census statistician to draw the sample to Afrobarometer specifications, provided that provision for this service has been made in the survey budget.
Regardless of who draws the sample, the NIs should thoroughly acquaint themselves with the strengths and weaknesses of the available census data and the availability and quality of EA maps. The country and methodology reports should cite the exact census data used, its known shortcomings, if any, and any projections made from the data. At minimum, the NI must know the size of the population and the urban/rural population divide in each region in order to specify how to distribute population and PSU's in the first stage of sampling. National investigators should obtain this written data before they attempt to stratify the sample.
Once this data is obtained, the sample population (either 1200 or 2400) should be stratified, first by area (region/province) and then by residential locality (urban or rural). In each case, the proportion of the sample in each locality in each region should be the same as its proportion in the national population as indicated by the updated census figures.
Having stratified the sample, it is then possible to determine how many PSU's should be selected for the country as a whole, for each region, and for each urban or rural locality.
The total number of PSU's to be selected for the whole country is determined by calculating the maximum degree of clustering of interviews one can accept in any PSU. Because PSUs (which are usually geographically small EAs) tend to be socially homogenous we do not want to select too many people in any one place. Thus, the Afrobarometer has established a standard of no more than 8 interviews per PSU. For a sample size of 1200, the sample must therefore contain 150 PSUs/EAs (1200 divided by 8). For a sample size of 2400, there must be 300 PSUs/EAs.
These PSUs should then be allocated proportionally to the urban and rural localities within each regional stratum of the sample. Let's take a couple of examples from a country with a sample size of 1200. If the urban locality of Region X in this country constitutes 10 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 15 PSUs (calculated as 10 percent of 150 PSUs). If the rural population of Region Y constitutes 4 percent of the current national population, then the sample for this stratum should be 6 PSU's.
The next step is to select particular PSUs/EAs using random methods. Using the above example of the rural localities in Region Y, let us say that you need to pick 6 sample EAs out of a census list that contains a total of 240 rural EAs in Region Y. But which 6? If the EAs created by the national census bureau are of equal or roughly equal population size, then selection is relatively straightforward. Just number all EAs consecutively, then make six selections using a table of random numbers. This procedure, known as simple random sampling (SRS), will
Facebook
TwitterThis resource is a member of a series. The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System (MTS). The MTS represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined because of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division or incorporated place boundaries in some states and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard Census Bureau geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
this graph was created in PowerBi,Loocker and Tableau:
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2Fa74381617638f670b0d241adefe4e3fd%2Fgraph1.png?generation=1720901446303193&alt=media" alt="">
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F394a8399d5632553a1b921020e7277c7%2Fgraph2.jpg?generation=1720901458991992&alt=media" alt="">
https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F16731800%2F5396b565dcb69c836edd4ad1d3451dc6%2Fgraph3.jpg?generation=1720901464666751&alt=media" alt="">
We can’t understand the world without understanding demographic change.
How many people are alive today? How many are born; how many die? What do we expect populations to look like in the future?
The United Nations updates its big dataset — the World Population Prospects — every two years to answer these questions. It just released its latest edition today.
We’ve updated all of our population-related datasets and charts with this new release. You can explore all the trends for every country in our Population and Demography Data Explorer.
In this article, we wanted to provide key insights from this latest wave of data.
The world population is projected to peak slightly earlier than in previous projections The United Nations doesn’t only publish historical estimates of how population and demographic trends have changed in the past; it also makes projections for what the future might look like. To be clear, these are projections, not predictions of changes in the future.
In its 2022 publication, the UN estimated that, in its medium scenario, the global population would peak in 2086 at around 10.4 billion people.
This year’s edition brings this peak forward slightly to 2084, with the population topping at just under 10.3 billion.
The chart below compares the two revisions.
This isn’t the first time the projected peak has been pulled earlier. According to its 2019 edition, the global population would reach 10.9 billion by 2100 and keep growing. The 2022 revision was the first to project a peak in the 21st century. Not every country has seen a drop in projected population compared to the last edition. The chart below shows the differences between the two UN revisions, region by region. Note that the vertical axis scale for each region is different, allowing you to see the changes more clearly.
The latest UN revision has downgraded its future population estimates in Asia, Africa, and Latin America but increased its projections for Europe and North America.