After over two years of public reporting, the State Profile Report will no longer be produced and distributed after February 2023. The final release was on February 23, 2023. We want to thank everyone who contributed to the design, production, and review of this report and we hope that it provided insight into the data trends throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Data about COVID-19 will continue to be updated at CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

The State Profile Report (SPR) is generated by the Data Strategy and Execution Workgroup in the Joint Coordination Cell, in collaboration with the White House. It is managed by an interagency team with representatives from multiple agencies and offices (including the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the Indian Health Service). The SPR provides easily interpretable information on key indicators for each state, down to the county level.

It is a weekly snapshot in time that:

• Focuses on recent outcomes in the last seven days and changes relative to the month prior
• Provides additional contextual information at the county level for each state, and includes national level information
• Supports rapid visual interpretation of results with color thresholds

An interactive dashboard tracking the cases of coronavirus COVID-19 in Michigan. Data from Michigan.gov coronavirus cumulative data.

View daily updates and historical trends for Michigan Coronavirus Cases Currently Hospitalized. Source: US Department of Health & Human Services. Track ec…

The single biggest need in the parts of Detroit that have been the hardest hit by the coronavirus is food. That's according to data available in a recently released COVID-19 Dashboard put together by Michigan 211.

This dataset provides a single table of historical outbreak data as reported by public health departments to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services from August 22, 2020 to February 11, 2021. Additional information about the dataset and more current data tables can be found here: https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163_98173_102057---,00.html.

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

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

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

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

Reporting of Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

This archived public use dataset contains historical case and percent positivity data updated weekly for all available counties and jurisdictions. Each week, the dataset was refreshed to capture any historical updates. Please note, percent positivity data may be incomplete for the most recent time period.

Related data CDC provides the public with two active versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with historical case and percent positivity data for each county from January 22, 2020 (Weekly Historical Changes dataset) and a dataset with the levels as originally posted (Weekly Originally Posted dataset) since October 20, 2022. Please navigate to the Weekly Originally Posted dataset for the Community Transmission Levels published weekly on Thursdays.

Methods for calculating county level of community transmission indicator The County Level of Community Transmission indicator uses two metrics: (1) total new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons in the last 7 days and (2) percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) in the last 7 days. For each of these metrics, CDC classifies transmission values as low, moderate, substantial, or high (below and here). If the values for each of these two metrics differ (e.g., one indicates moderate and the other low), then the higher of the two should be used for decision-making.

CDC core metrics of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2 Total New Case Rate Metric: "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is calculated by adding the number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the last 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) and multiplying by 100,000. "New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (0-9.99); Moderate (10.00-49.99); Substantial (50.00-99.99); and High (greater than or equal to 100.00).

Test Percent Positivity Metric: "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is calculated by dividing the number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the last 7 days by the total number of tests resulted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have transmission level of Low (less than 5.00); Moderate (5.00-7.99); Substantial (8.00-9.99); and High (greater than or equal to 10.00).

The data in this dataset are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.

This dataset is created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access.

Archived data CDC has archived two prior versions of these datasets. Both versions contain the same 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions; however, the datasets updated daily. The archived datasets can be found here:

Archived Originally Posted dataset

Archived Historical Changes dataset

Archived Data Notes:

October 27, 2022: Due to a processing issue this dataset will not be posted this week. CDC is currently working to address the issue and will publish the data when able.

November 10, 2022: As of 11/10/2022, this dataset will continue to incorporate historical updates made to case and percent positivity data; however, community transmission level will only be published in the corresponding Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted dataset (Weekly Originally Posted dataset).

Note:

October 20, 2022: Due to a data reporting error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania is lower than expected in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on October 20, 2022. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level for Philadelphia County being underestimated; therefore, it should be interpreted with caution.

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Missouri counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data. This could lead to the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties being overestimated; therefore, they should be interpreted with caution.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases. 

November 10, 2022: In the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on November 10, 2022, multiple municipalities in Puerto Rico are reporting higher than expected increases in case counts. CDC is working with territory officials to verify the data submitted. 

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level data released on December 1, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

December 22, 2022: Due to an internal revision process, case rates for some Tennessee counties may appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Tennessee counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 22, 2022: Due to reporting of a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for some Louisiana counties will appear higher than expected in the December 22, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for some Louisiana counties may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

December 29, 2022: Due to technical difficulties, county data from Alabama could not be incorporated via standard practices. As a result, case and death metrics will be reported as 0 in the December 29, 2022, weekly release. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Transmission Levels metrics for Alabama counties will be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for all Alabama counties will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of case count data in the COVID-19 Community Transmission Level information released on January 5, 2023, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of case count data. Therefore, the weekly case rates will be overestimated, which could affect counties’ COVID-19 Community Transmission Level classification and should be interpreted with caution.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be reported as 0. As a result, case metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release. COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution. 

January 13, 2023: Aggregate case data released for Los Angeles County, California for the week of December 22nd, 2022, and December 29th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release. Therefore, COVID-19 Community Transmission metrics may be overestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported in every U.S. state, with the states of New York, New Jersey, and Michigan reporting the highest number of cases. As of April 27, 2020, there had been 119 cases of COVID-19 connected to a community in New Rochelle, New York. This statistic shows the number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States as of April 27, 2020, by place of contraction. COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and vaccination rates by race, age, and sex, Michigan, June 2021.

Data published on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported through NHS Pathways and 111 online Dashboard shows the total number of NHS Pathways triages through 111 and 999, and online assessments in 111 online which have received a potential COVID-19 final disposition. This data is based on potential COVID-19 symptoms reported by members of the public to NHS Pathways through NHS 111 or 999 and 111 online, and is not based on the outcomes of tests for coronavirus. This is not a count of people.

As of March 10, 2023, the death rate from COVID-19 in the state of New York was 397 per 100,000 people. New York is one of the states with the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

This file contains COVID-19 death counts and rates by month and year of death, jurisdiction of residence (U.S., HHS Region) and demographic characteristics (sex, age, race and Hispanic origin, and age/race and Hispanic origin). United States death counts and rates include the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19, coded to ICD–10 code U07.1. Number of deaths reported in this file are the total number of COVID-19 deaths received and coded as of the date of analysis and may not represent all deaths that occurred in that period. Counts of deaths occurring before or after the reporting period are not included in the file. Data during recent periods are incomplete because of the lag in time between when the death occurred and when the death certificate is completed, submitted to NCHS and processed for reporting purposes. This delay can range from 1 week to 8 weeks or more, depending on the jurisdiction and cause of death. Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Data timeliness varies by state. Some states report deaths on a daily basis, while other states report deaths weekly or monthly. The ten (10) United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regions include the following jurisdictions. Region 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Region 2: New Jersey, New York; Region 3: Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia; Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee; Region 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; Region 6: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska; Region 8: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming; Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada; Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington. Rates were calculated using the population estimates for 2021, which are estimated as of July 1, 2021 based on the Blended Base produced by the US Census Bureau in lieu of the April 1, 2020 decennial population count. The Blended Base consists of the blend of Vintage 2020 postcensal population estimates, 2020 Demographic Analysis Estimates, and 2020 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting File (see https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-v2021.pdf). Rate are based on deaths occurring in the specified week and are age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population using the direct method (see https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf). These rates differ from annual age-adjusted rates, typically presented in NCHS publications based on a full year of data and annualized weekly age-adjusted rates which have been adjusted to allow comparison with annual rates. Annualization rates presents deaths per year per 100,000 population that would be expected in a year if the observed period specific (weekly) rate prevailed for a full year. Sub-national death counts between 1-9 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS data confidentiality standards. Rates based on death counts less than 20 are suppressed in accordance with NCHS standards of reliability as specified in NCHS Data Presentation Standards for Proportions (available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_175.pdf.).

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated equity issues in education spanning race, disability, language, and socio-economic status. However, few studies examine the ways that district or state educational leaders consider equity in their decision-making during a crisis. This study examines how K-12 state and local leaders conceptualized equity and actualized equitable policies and practices during the pandemic. We conducted a multi-level case study, interviewing state and local-level educational leaders (n=64) from five school districts in the state of Michigan. Our findings reveal that leaders formed equity visions focused on meeting students’ individual needs, which were enacted differently at the state and local levels. Interview questions focused on leaders’ priorities and efforts to support staff, students, and families during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, interview questions prompted leaders to share their specific approaches for promoting student learning and engagement amidst the pandemic, key collaborators in this work, relevant successes and challenges, and any initiatives designed to support specific student populations (e.g., English learners, students receiving special education services, etc.). Additional topics include reflections on any lessons learned about equity during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years, including how leaders' thoughts on equity may have shifted due to the pandemic.

With the surge of COVID-19 cases in the United States in the early months of the pandemic, the availability of hospital resources became a concern. To reduce the strain on health systems, it is important to decrease the number of COVID-19 patients requiring hospital care. Since most patients with COVID-19 only develop mild symptoms, remote monitoring and assessment of symptoms of COVID-19 patients at home may help reduce preventable hospital utilization, morbidity, and mortality. Henry Ford Allegiance Health in Jackson, Michigan implemented a nurse-led, telephone-based, active management protocol for patients that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at their drive through testing site and who were self-isolating at home. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the effectiveness of the protocol in reducing hospital utilization by patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 23, 2020 and May 31, 2020. The study included a total of 293 patients, with 154 patients in the pre-implementation group and 139 patients in the post-implementation group. Although the difference in the 30-day probability of hospital utilization between the study groups was not statistically significant, there was a reduction seen in the post-implementation group. The protocol also allowed ongoing assessment of COVID-19 patients with limited in-person interactions, thereby reducing the risk of infection for health care workers. With the increased use of telemedicine, this protocol could be used as a guide for other health systems looking to improve access to care for COVID-19 patients without increasing hospital utilization.

Abstract Background The incidence of myocardial injury (MI) in patients with COVID-19 in Brazil and the prognostic impact of MI have not been elucidated. Objectives To describe the incidence of MI in patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to identify variables associated with its occurrence. The secondary objective was to assess high-sensitivity troponin I as a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Methods Retrospective, observational study conducted between March and April 2020 with cases of confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. Numerical variables were compared by using Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was performed with variables associated with MI and p48.3 ng/mL, which was determined in the ROC curve, predicts higher in-hospital mortality [AUC 0.786; p48.3 ng/mL was lower than that in the group with values ≤48.3 ng/dL [20.3 x 43.5 days, respectively; p

Substantial numbers of individuals who contract COVID-19 experience long-lasting cognitive symptoms such as brain fog. Yet research to date has not compared these patients with healthy controls with a history of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection, making it difficult to understand why certain COVID patients develop post-COVID cognitive symptoms while others do not. The objective of this pilot study was to compare two groups of laboratory-confirmed post-COVID patients, with and without cognitive symptoms, on measures of cognitive and psychological functioning, self-reported perceptions of functional status and quality of life, and biomarkers of stress, inflammation, and neuroplasticity. Using a case-control design, 17 participants were recruited from a healthcare system in western Michigan, USA in 2022–2024. All participants were aged 25–65 and had a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test confirming previous COVID-19 infection. Ten participants reported cognitive symptoms (long COVID group) while seven were fully recovered with no residual symptoms (controls). All participants underwent an interview on their self-rated health and quality of life, a battery of neurocognitive tests, and blood draw for biomarker analysis. No group differences were detected for neuropsychological test measures except for letter fluency where the long COVID group scored significantly lower (p