Note: After November 1, 2024, this dataset will no longer be updated due to a transition in NHSN Hospital Respiratory Data reporting that occurred on Friday, November 1, 2024. For more information on NHSN Hospital Respiratory Data reporting, please visit https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/psc/hospital-respiratory-reporting.html.

Due to a recent update in voluntary NHSN Hospital Respiratory Data reporting that occurred on Wednesday, October 9, 2024, reporting levels and other data displayed on this page may fluctuate week-over-week beginning Friday, October 18, 2024. For more information on NHSN Hospital Respiratory Data reporting, please visit https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/psc/hospital-respiratory-reporting.html. Find more information about the updated CMS requirements: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/28/2024-17021/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-and-the-childrens-health-insurance-program-hospital-inpatient. 
. This dataset represents weekly respiratory virus-related hospitalization data and metrics aggregated to national and state/territory levels reported during two periods: 1) data for collection dates from August 1, 2020 to April 30, 2024, represent data reported by hospitals during a mandated reporting period as specified by the HHS Secretary; and 2) data for collection dates beginning May 1, 2024, represent data reported voluntarily by hospitals to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). NHSN monitors national and local trends in healthcare system stress and capacity for up to approximately 6,000 hospitals in the United States. Data reported represent aggregated counts and include metrics capturing information specific to COVID-19- and influenza-related hospitalizations, hospital occupancy, and hospital capacity. Find more information about reporting to NHSN at: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/covid19/hospital-reporting.html

Source: COVID-19 hospitalization data reported to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).

• Data source description(updated October 18, 2024): As of October 9, 2024, Hospital Respiratory Data (HRD; formerly Respiratory Pathogen, Hospital Capacity, and Supply data or ‘COVID-19 hospital data’) are reported to HHS through CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network based on updated requirements from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These data are voluntarily reported to NHSN as of May 1, 2024 until November 1, 2024, at which time CMS will require acute care and critical access hospitals to electronically report information via NHSN about COVID-19, Influenza, and RSV, hospital bed census and capacity, and limited patient demographic information, including age. Data for collection dates prior to May 1, 2024, represent data reported during a previously mandated reporting period as specified by the HHS Secretary. Data for collection dates May 1, 2024, and onwards represent data reported voluntarily to NHSN; as such, data included represents reporting hospitals only for a given week and might not be complete or representative of all hospitals. NHSN monitors national and local trends in healthcare system stress and capacity for approximately 6,000 hospitals in the United States. Data reported by hospitals to NHSN represent aggregated counts and include metrics capturing information specific to hospital capacity, occupancy, hospitalizations, and admissions. Find more information about reporting to NHSN: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/psc/hospital-respiratory-reporting.html. Find more information about the updated CMS requirements: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/28/2024-17021/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-and-the-childrens-health-insurance-program-hospital-inpatient.
• Data quality: While CDC reviews reported data for completeness and errors and corrects those found, some reporting errors might still exist within the data. CDC and partners work with reporters to correct these errors and update the data in subsequent weeks. Data since December 1, 2020, have had error correction methodology applied; data prior to this date may have anomalies that are not yet resolved. Data prior to August 1, 2020, are unavailable.
• Metrics and inclusion criteria: Many hospital subtypes, including acute care and critical access hospitals, are included in the metric calculations included in this dataset. Psychiatric, rehabilitation, and religious non-medical hospital types, as well as Veterans Administration, Defense Health Agency, and Indian Health Service hospitals, are excluded from calculations. For a given metric calculation, hospitals that reported those data at least one day during a given week are included.
• Find full details on NHSN hospital data reporting guidance at https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/covid-19-faqs-hospitals-hospital-laboratory-acute-care-facility-data-reporting.pdf

Notes: May 10, 2024: Due to missing hospital data for the April 28, 2024 through May 4, 2024 reporting period, data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are not available for this period in the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on May 10, 2024.

May 17, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), Minnesota (MN), and Guam (GU) for the May 5,2024 through May 11, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on May 1, 2024.

May 24, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), and Minnesota (MN) for the May 12, 2024 through May 18, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on May 24, 2024.

May 31, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Virgin Islands (VI), Massachusetts (MA), and Minnesota (MN) for the May 19, 2024 through May 25, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on May 31, 2024.

June 7, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Virgin Islands (VI), Massachusetts (MA), Guam (GU), and Minnesota (MN) for the May 26, 2024 through June 1, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on June 7, 2024.

June 14, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), and Minnesota (MN) for the June 2, 2024 through June 8, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on June 14, 2024.

June 21, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), West Virginia (WV), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Guam (GU), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the June 9, 2024 through June 15, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on June 21, 2024.

June 28, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the June 16, 2024 through June 22, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on June 28, 2024.

July 5, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), West Virginia (WV), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the June 23, 2024 through June 29, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on July 5, 2024.

July 12, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), West Virginia (WV), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the June 30, 2024 through July 6 , 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on July 12, 2024.

July 19, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the July 7, 2024 through July 13, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on July 19, 2024.

July 26, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the July 13, 2024 through July 20, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on July 26, 2024.

August 2, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), West Virginia (WV), and Minnesota (MN) for the July 21, 2024 through July 27, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on August 2, 2024.

August 9, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), Guam (GU), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the July 28, 2024 through August 3, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on August 9, 2024.

August 16, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the August 4, 2024 through August 10, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics report released on August 16, 2024.

August 23, 2024: Data for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Massachusetts (MA), American Samoa (AS), Virgin Islands (VI), and Minnesota (MN) for the August 11, 2024 through August 17, 2024 reporting period are not available for the Weekly NHSN Hospitalization Metrics

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

This dashboard for local public health shares data on the 2022-2023 Capacity Assessment conducted among municipalities participating in the Public Health Excellence Shared Services Grant Program. These data represent health departments’ self-reported ability to meet the Performance Standards for local public health.

This map service includes the acute and non-acute care hospitals in Massachusetts.Acute care hospitals are those licensed under MGL Chapter 111, section 51 and which contain a majority of medical-surgical, pediatric, obstetric, and maternity beds, as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH). The features in this layer are based on database information provided to MassGIS from the DPH, Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) and the Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA).All hospitals in the state that have a 24-hour emergency department are included in this layer, but not all facilities in this layer have an emergency department (the ER_STATUS field stores this data). Other attributes include cohort, adult and pediatric trauma levels, and special public funding. See CHIA's Massachusetts Acute Hospital Profiles page for more information. CHIA reviewed the final revision in November 2018.Non-acute care hospitals in Massachusetts are typically identified as psychiatric, rehabilitation, and chronic care facilities, along with some non-acute specialty hospitals, using the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) and Department of Mental Health (DMH) license criteria as well as a listing on the state's Bureau of Hospitals website. The non-acute care hospitals are based on database information provided by the DPH and the Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA). CHIA reviewed this layer in November 2018.Non-acute care hospitals in this layer do not contain 24/7 emergency departments.See the full data layer descriptions:Acute care hospitalsNon-acute care hospitalsMap service also available

The Public Health Agency of Canada, in collaboration with Canadian public health and infection prevention and control (IPC) experts and the Funeral Services Association of Canada, has developed this guidance on public health measures for the management of mass fatalities from COVID-19. The guidance is for local and regional planners, community leaders, funeral service workers, medical examiners, and coroners.

State and Local Public Health Departments in the United States Governmental public health departments are responsible for creating and maintaining conditions that keep people healthy. A local health department may be locally governed, part of a region or district, be an office or an administrative unit of the state health department, or a hybrid of these. Furthermore, each community has a unique "public health system" comprising individuals and public and private entities that are engaged in activities that affect the public's health. (Excerpted from the Operational Definition of a functional local health department, National Association of County and City Health Officials, November 2005) Please reference http://www.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/accreditation/upload/OperationalDefinitionBrochure-2.pdf for more information. Facilities involved in direct patient care are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some of the entities represented in this dataset serve as both administrative and clinical locations. This dataset only includes the headquarters of Public Health Departments, not their satellite offices. Some health departments encompass multiple counties; therefore, not every county will be represented by an individual record. Also, some areas will appear to have over representation depending on the structure of the health departments in that particular region. Town health officers are included in Vermont and boards of health are included in Massachusetts. Both of these types of entities are elected or appointed to a term of office during which they make and enforce policies and regulations related to the protection of public health. Visiting nurses are represented in this dataset if they are contracted through the local government to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the local health organization. Since many town health officers in Vermont work out of their personal homes, TechniGraphics represented these entities at the town hall. This is denoted in the [DIRECTIONS] field. Effort was made by TechniGraphics to verify whether or not each health department tracks statistics on communicable diseases. Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard HSIP fields populated by TechniGraphics. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. At the request of NGA, text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. At the request of NGA, all diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on this field, the oldest record dates from 11/18/2009 and the newest record dates from 01/08/2010.

This dataset is no longer being updated as of 5/11/2023. It is being retained on the Open Data Portal for its potential historical interest.

This table reports case classification and status data.

The "test mode" rows show confirmed and probable case counts for all Cambridge residents who have tested positive for COVID-19 or have been clinically diagnosed with the disease to date. The numbers represented in these rows reflect individual people (cases), not tests performed. If someone is clinically diagnosed and later gets an antibody test, for example, they will be removed from the “clinical diagnosis” category and added to the “antibody positive” category. Case classification is based on guidance from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and is as follows:

Confirmed Case: A person with a positive viral (PCR) test for COVID-19. This test is also known as a molecular test.

Probable Case: A person with a positive antigen test. This test is also known as a rapid test. A person who is a known contact of a confirmed case and has received a clinical diagnosis based on their symptoms. People in this category have not received a viral or antibody test. Whenever possible, lab results from a viral (PCR) test are used to confirm a clinical diagnosis, and if that is not feasible, antibody testing can be used.

Suspect Case: A person with a positive antibody test. This test is also known as a serology test.

The "case status" rows show current outcomes for all Cambridge residents who are classified as confirmed, probable, or suspect COVID-19 cases. Outcomes include:

Recovered Case: The Cambridge Public Health Department determines if a Cambridge COVID-19 case has recovered based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s criteria for ending home isolation: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html. Staff from the Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD) or the state’s Community Tracing Collaborative (CTC) follow up with all reported COVID-19 cases multiple times throughout their illness. It is through these conversations that CPHD or CTC staff determine when a Cambridge resident infected with COVID-19 has met the CDC criteria for ending isolation, which connotes recovery. While many people with mild COVID-19 illness will meet the CDC criteria for ending isolation (i.e., recovery) in under two weeks, people who survive severe illness might not meet the criteria for six weeks or more.

Active Case: This category reflects Cambridge COVID-19 cases who are currently infected. Note: There may be a delay in the time between a person being released from isolation (recovered) and when their recovery is reported.

Death: This category reflects total deaths among Cambridge COVID 19 cases.

Unknown Outcome: This category reflects Cambridge COVID-19 cases who public health staff have been unable to reach by phone or letter, or who have stopped responding to follow up from public health staff.

This table will no longer be updated after 5/30/2024 given the end of the 2023-2024 viral respiratory vaccine season.

This table shows the cumulative number and percentage of CT residents who have received an updated COVID-19 vaccine during the 2023-2024 viral respiratory season by age group (current age).
CDC recommends that people get at least one dose of this vaccine to protect against serious illness, whether or not they have had a COVID-19 vaccination before. Children and people with moderate to severe immunosuppression might be recommended more than one dose. For more information on COVID-19 vaccination recommendations, click here.
• Data are reported weekly on Thursday and include doses administered to Saturday of the previous week (Sunday – Saturday). All data in this report are preliminary. Data from the previous week may be changed because of delays in reporting, deduplication, or correction of errors.
• These analyses are based on data reported to CT WiZ which is the immunization information system for CT. CT providers are required by law to report all doses of vaccine administered. CT WiZ also receives records on CT residents vaccinated in other jurisdictions and by federal entities which share data with CT Wiz electronically. Electronic data exchange is being added jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction. Currently, this includes Rhode Island and New York City but not Massachusetts and New York State. Therefore, doses administered to CT residents in neighboring towns in Massachusetts and New York State will not be included. A full list of the jurisdiction with which CT has established electronic data exchange can be seen at the bottom of this page (https://portal.ct.gov/immunization/Knowledge-Base/Articles/Vaccine-Providers/CT-WiZ-for-Vaccine-Providers-and-Training/Query-and-Response-functionality-in-CT-WiZ?language=en_US)
• Population size estimates used to calculate cumulative percentages are based on 2020 DPH provisional census estimates*.
• People are included if they have an active jurisdictional status in CT WiZ at the time weekly data are pulled. This excludes people who live out of state, are deceased and a small percentage who have opted out of CT WiZ.
* DPH Provisional State and County Characteristics Estimates April 1, 2020. Hayes L, Abdellatif E, Jiang Y, Backus K (2022) Connecticut DPH Provisional April 1, 2020, State Population Estimates by 18 age groups, sex, and 6 combined race and ethnicity groups. Connecticut Department of Public Health, Health Statistics & Surveillance, SAR, Hartford, CT.

A division of the Department of Labor Standards (DLS), the goals of the Occupational Safety and Health Statistics Program strives to protect workers in Massachusetts.

Access available resources below such as data reports, and Public Health Council presentations.

Learn about how MassDEP is addressing the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archived Data Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the Slovak Republic, a mass testing of the entire population was performed. Estimates show that this testing cost more than 400 million EUR and thousands of euros were paid for one positively identified case. Thus, it is possible to state a high cost for such a project, which has been criticized by many parties. On the other hand, from a public health point of view, mass testing has helped fight the pandemic. Both the health and economic perspectives are important in assessing the success of a pandemic strategy, but the social perspective is equally important. In fact, the situation is perceived from the position of public leaders who make decisions, but also from the position of the society that bears individual political decisions. It is not appropriate to forget about the society that is most affected by restrictions, testing, health status, but also the burden on the state budget. The objective of the presented research was to examine the perception of testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Slovak population. Non-parametric difference tests and correspondence analysis were used for statistical processing. The research sample consisted of 806 respondents and data collection took place in February 2021. The main findings include significant differences in perceptions between the first and the last participation in testing in terms of gender, age, testing experience, and time aspect. The last participation in testing showed lower rates of positive aspects related to the internal motivation to test compared to the first participation. In contrast, external stimulation by government regulations related to restrictions in the absence of a negative result was higher in the last participation in testing. There were also differences between the first and the last test in the level of doubts about the accuracy of the test result, while a higher level was found at the last testing participation. It can be concluded that the frequency of testing and its requirements need to be approached very carefully over time, as it is likely that the positive perceptions may deteriorate. The recommendations include clear and timely government communication, trust building and health education.

Medical Mass Notification System Market Outlook

The global medical mass notification system market size is projected to grow significantly from an estimated value of $1.2 billion in 2023 to approximately $3.5 billion by 2032, reflecting a robust compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 12.5%. The market's growth is primarily driven by the increasing need for efficient and reliable communication systems in healthcare environments, particularly to manage emergencies and disseminate critical information swiftly and accurately.

The primary growth factor for the medical mass notification system market is the rising prevalence of critical health incidents that require immediate and coordinated responses. Hospitals and healthcare facilities are increasingly adopting these systems to ensure rapid dissemination of information during emergencies such as natural disasters, pandemics, and other public health crises. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, highlighted the importance of having robust notification systems in place to manage patient flow, communicate with staff, and inform the public, thereby accelerating market demand.

Technological advancements in communication systems are also a significant driver for market growth. The integration of advanced technologies such as IoT, AI, and cloud computing has enhanced the functionality and efficiency of mass notification systems. These technologies enable real-time data analysis, automated alerts, and seamless communication across multiple platforms, making these systems indispensable in modern healthcare environments. Moreover, the shift towards cloud-based solutions offers scalability, cost-effectiveness, and improved system reliability, further boosting market growth.

Additionally, stringent regulatory requirements and standards for healthcare communication are propelling the adoption of medical mass notification systems. Regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States mandate secure and efficient communication of health information, thereby driving the implementation of these systems. Furthermore, the growing focus on patient safety and quality care by healthcare providers is fostering the adoption of advanced notification systems to ensure timely and accurate communication.

The implementation of an Emergency Notification System is becoming increasingly crucial in healthcare settings. These systems are designed to provide rapid alerts and communication during critical incidents, ensuring that all relevant parties are informed in a timely manner. In the context of healthcare, where every second can be vital, an effective Emergency Notification System can significantly enhance response times and coordination among medical staff. This system can integrate with existing hospital communication networks, allowing for seamless dissemination of information to doctors, nurses, and administrative staff. By utilizing such systems, healthcare facilities can improve their emergency preparedness and ensure that they are equipped to handle a variety of situations, from natural disasters to medical emergencies.

From a regional perspective, North America is expected to dominate the medical mass notification system market due to the high adoption rate of advanced healthcare technologies and the presence of key market players. The region's well-established healthcare infrastructure and regulatory frameworks support the deployment of these systems. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is projected to witness the highest growth rate, driven by increasing healthcare investments, technological advancements, and rising awareness about the importance of efficient communication systems in healthcare facilities.

Component Analysis

The components of the medical mass notification system market can be broadly categorized into hardware, software, and services. The hardware segment includes devices such as speakers, sensors, and communication equipment essential for the functioning of notification systems. This segment is crucial as it forms the backbone of the entire system, enabling real-time alerts and communication. The demand for advanced hardware components is increasing as healthcare facilities look to upgrade their existing systems to enhance reliability and coverage.

The software segment is expected to witness substantial growth due to the rising demand for advanced communication solutions that can integrate

A list of Significant Guidance documents, which include guidance document disseminated to regulated entities or the general public that may reasonably be anticipated to lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866, as further amended.

Terms of Use:

Data Limitations Disclaimer

The MassDEP Estimated Sewer System Service Area Boundaries datalayer may not be complete, may contain errors, omissions, and other inaccuracies, and the data are subject to change. The user’s use of and/or reliance on the information contained in the Document (e.g. data) shall be at the user’s own risk and expense. MassDEP disclaims any responsibility for any loss or harm that may result to the user of this data or to any other person due to the user’s use of the Document.

All sewer service area delineations are estimates for broad planning purposes and should only be used as a guide. The data is not appropriate for site-specific or parcel-specific analysis. Not all properties within a sewer service area are necessarily served by the system, and some properties outside the mapped service areas could be served by the wastewater utility – please contact the relevant wastewater system. Not all service areas have been confirmed by the sewer system authorities.

This is an ongoing data development project. Attempts have been made to contact all sewer/wastewater systems, but not all have responded with information on their service area. MassDEP will continue to collect and verify this information. Some sewer service areas included in this datalayer have not been verified by the POTWs, privately-owned treatment works, GWDPs, or the municipality involved, but since many of those areas are based on information published online by the municipality, the utility, or in a publicly available report, they are included in the estimated sewer service area datalayer.

Please use the following citation to reference these data

MassDEP. Water Utility Resilience Program. 2025. Publicly-Owned Treatment Work and Non-Publicly-Owned Sewer Service Areas (PubV2024_12).

We want to learn about the data uses. If you use this dataset, please notify staff in the Water Resilience program (WURP@mass.gov).

Layers and Tables:

The MassDEP Estimated Sewer System Service Area data layer comprises two feature classes and a supporting table:

Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Sewer Service Areas feature class SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_POTW_POLY includes polygon features for sewer service areas systems operated by publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)Non-Publicly Owned Treatment Works (NON-POTW) Sewer Service Areas feature class SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_NONPOTW_POLY includes polygon features for sewer service areas for operated by NON publicly owned treatment works (NON-POTWs)The Sewer Service Areas Unlocated Sites table SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_USL contains a list of known, unmapped active POTW and NON-POTW services areas at the time of publication.

ProductionData Universe

Effluent wastewater treatment plants in Massachusetts are permitted either through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface water discharge permit program or the MassDEP Groundwater Discharge Permit Program. The WURP has delineated active service areas served by publicly and privately-owned effluent treatment works with a NPDES permit or a groundwater discharge permit.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the EPA is the permitting authority for regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to surface waters. NPDES permits regulate wastewater discharge by limiting the quantities of pollutants to be discharged and imposing monitoring requirements and other conditions. NPDES permits are typically co-issued by EPA and the MassDEP. The limits and/or requirements in the permit ensure compliance with the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards and Federal Regulations to protect public health and the aquatic environment. Areas served by effluent treatment plants with an active NPDES permit are included in this datalayer based on a master list developed by MassDEP using information sourced from the EPA’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).

Groundwater Discharge (GWD) Permits

In addition to surface water permittees, the WURP has delineated all active systems served by publicly and privately owned effluent treatment works with groundwater discharge (GWD) permits, and some inactive service areas. Groundwater discharge permits are required for systems discharging over 10,000 GPD sanitary wastewater – these include effluent treatment systems for public, district, or privately owned effluent treatment systems. Areas served by an effluent treatment plant with an active GWD permit are included in this datalayer based on lists received from MassDEP Wastewater staff.

Creation of Unique IDs for Each Service Area

The Sewer Service Area datalayer contains polygons that represent the service area of a particular wastewater system within a particular municipality. Every discharge permittee is assigned a unique NPDES permit number by EPA or a unique GWD permit identifier by MassDEP. MassDEP WURP creates a unique Sewer_ID for each service area by combining the municipal name of the municipality served with the permit number (NPDES or GWD) ascribed to the sewer that is serving that area. Some municipalities contain more than one sewer system, but each sewer system has a unique Sewer_ID. Occasionally the area served by a sewer system will overlap another town by a small amount – these small areas are generally not given a unique ID. The Estimated sewer Service Area datalayer, therefore, contains polygons with a unique Sewer_ID for each sewer service area. In addition, some municipalities will have multiple service areas being served by the same treatment plant – the Sewer_ID for these will contain additional identification, such as the name of the system, to uniquely identify each system.

Classifying System Service Areas

WURP staff reviewed the service areas for each system and, based on OWNER_TYPE, classified as either a publicly-owned treatment work (POTW) or a NON-POTW (see FAC_TYPE field). Each service area is further classified based on the population type served (see SECTOR field).

Methodologies and Data Sources

Several methodologies were used to create service area boundaries using various sources, including data received from the sewer system in response to requests for information from the MassDEP WURP project, information on file at MassDEP, and service area maps found online at municipal and wastewater system websites. When MassDEP received sewer line data rather than generalized areas, 300-foot buffers were created around the sewer lines to denote service areas and then edited to incorporate generalizations. Some municipalities submitted parcel data or address information to be used in delineating service areas. Many of the smaller GWD permitted sewer service areas were delineated using parcel boundaries related to the address on file.

Verification Process

Small-scale pdf file maps with roads and other infrastructure were sent to systems for corrections or verifications. If the system were small, such as a condominium complex or residential school, the relevant parcels were often used as the basis for the delineated service area. In towns where 97% or more of their population is served by the wastewater system and no other service area delineation was available, the town boundary was used as the service area boundary. Some towns responded to the request for information or verification of service areas by stating that the town boundary should be used since all, or nearly all, of the municipality is served by one wastewater system.

To ensure active systems are mapped, WURP staff developed two work flows. For NPDES-permitted systems, WURP staff reviewed available information on EPA’s ICIS database and created a master list of these systems. Staff will work to routinely update this master list by reviewing the ICIS database for new NPDES permits. The master list will serve as a method for identifying active systems, inactive systems, and unmapped systems. For GWD permittees, GIS staff established a direct linkage to the groundwater database, which allows for populating information into data fields and identifying active systems, inactive systems, and unmapped systems.

All unmapped systems are added to the Sewer Service Area Unlocated List (SEWER_SERVICE_AREAS_USL) for future mapping. Some service areas have not been mapped but their general location is represented by a small circle which serves as a placeholder - the location of these circles are estimated based on the general location of the treatment plant or the general estimated location of the service area - these do not represent the actual service area.

Percent Served Statistics The attribute table for the POTW sewer service areas (SEWER_SERVICE_AREA_POTW_POLY) has several fields relating to the percent of the town served by the particular system and one field describing the percent of town served by all systems in the town. The field ‘Percent AREA Served by System’ is strictly a calculation done dividing the area of the system by the total area of the town and multiplying by 100. In contrast, the field ‘Percent Served by System’, is not based on a particular calculation or source – it is an estimate based on various sources – these estimates are for planning purposes only. Data includes information from municipal websites and associated plans, the 1990 Municipal Priority list from CMR 310 14.17, the 2004 Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research “percent on sewer” document, information contained on NPDES Permits and MassDEP Wastewater program staff input. Not all POTW systems have percent served statistics. Percentage may reflect the percentage of parcels served, the percent of area within a community served or the population served and should not be used for legal boundary definition or regulatory interpretation.

Sources of information for estimated wastewater service areas:

EEOA Water Assets

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic has produced new demands for services in healthcare systems around the world. In Brazil, the SUS became the object of interest of the media, which made efforts to cover government actions and the system’s capacity to control the pandemic. This study aims to analyze articles from the newspaper ‘Folha de São Paulo’ (FSP), regarding the meanings produced about the Unified Health System (SUS) in the COVID-19 pandemic. 231 articles were analyzed, among the 524 published in the period from January to May 2020, following the established inclusion criteria. The corpus was categorized in four senses: constitutional SUS, problem SUS, disputed SUS and active SUS. The reflection on the diversity of meanings attributed to the SUS points to the need to expand the capture of the dimensions of the SUS.

NOTE: This dataset pertains only to the 2020-2021 school year and is no longer being updated. For additional data on COVID-19, visit data.ct.gov/coronavirus.

This dataset includes the leading and secondary metrics identified by the Connecticut Department of Health (DPH) and the Department of Education (CSDE) to support local district decision-making on the level of in-person, hybrid (blended), and remote learning model for Pre K-12 education.

Data represent daily averages for two-week periods by date of specimen collection (cases and positivity), date of hospital admission, or date of ED visit. Hospitalization data come from the Connecticut Hospital Association and are based on hospital location, not county of patient residence. COVID-19-like illness includes fever and cough or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing or the presence of coronavirus diagnosis code and excludes patients with influenza-like illness. All data are preliminary.

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).

These metrics were adapted from recommendations by the Harvard Global Institute and supplemented by existing DPH measures.

For national data on COVID-19, see COVID View, the national weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

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/CT-School-Learning-Model-Indicators-by-County/rpph-4ysy

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).

These cancer risks are in bold font and rounded to 2 figures.

DPH 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, the school learning model indicator metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new school learning model indicators dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/CT-School-Learning-Model-Indicators-by-County-14-d/e4bh-ax24

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 the leading and secondary metrics identified by the Connecticut Department of Health (DPH) and the Department of Education (CSDE) to support local district decision-making on the level of in-person, hybrid (blended), and remote learning model for Pre K-12 education.

Data represent daily averages for each week by date of specimen collection (cases and positivity), date of hospital admission, or date of ED visit. Hospitalization data come from the Connecticut Hospital Association and are based on hospital location, not county of patient residence. COVID-19-like illness includes fever and cough or shortness of breath or difficulty breathing or the presence of coronavirus diagnosis code and excludes patients with influenza-like illness. All data are preliminary.

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.

These metrics were adapted from recommendations by the Harvard Global Institute and supplemented by existing DPH measures.

For national data on COVID-19, see COVID View, the national weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

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.