In late-November 2021, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19) was designated as a variant of concern by the World Health Organization due to fears about a higher transmissibility from the variant and a possible decrease in the effectiveness of vaccines against it. The Omicron variant has been detected in multiple countries since the discovery, and as of April 1, 2022, almost 965 thousand cases have been sequenced in the United Kingdom.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, saw infection cases spread throughout the Asia-Pacific region. By April 13, 2024, India had faced over 45 million coronavirus cases. South Korea followed behind India as having had the second highest number of coronavirus cases in the Asia-Pacific region, with about 34.6 million cases. At the same time, Japan had almost 34 million cases. At the beginning of the outbreak, people in South Korea had been optimistic and predicted that the number of cases would start to stabilize. What is SARS CoV 2?Novel coronavirus, officially known as SARS CoV 2, is a disease which causes respiratory problems which can lead to difficulty breathing and pneumonia. The illness is similar to that of SARS which spread throughout China in 2003. After the outbreak of the coronavirus, various businesses and shops closed to prevent further spread of the disease. Impacts from flight cancellations and travel plans were felt across the Asia-Pacific region. Many people expressed feelings of anxiety as to how the virus would progress. Impact throughout Asia-PacificThe Coronavirus and its variants have affected the Asia-Pacific region in various ways. Out of all Asia-Pacific countries, India was highly affected by the pandemic and experienced more than 50 thousand deaths. However, the country also saw the highest number of recoveries within the APAC region, followed by South Korea and Japan.

Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

As of December 12, 2022, Japan had reported the highest number of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases in the Asia-Pacific region, with a total of over 290.4 thousand cases. India followed, having reported around 121.5 thousand cases of the coronavirus (COVID-19) variant Omicron as of December 12, 2022.

Please cite the following paper when using this dataset:

N. Thakur, “A Large-Scale Dataset of Twitter Chatter about Online Learning during the Current COVID-19 Omicron Wave,” Journal of Data, vol. 7, no. 8, p. 109, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.3390/data7080109

Abstract

The COVID-19 Omicron variant, reported to be the most immune evasive variant of COVID-19, is resulting in a surge of COVID-19 cases globally. This has caused schools, colleges, and universities in different parts of the world to transition to online learning. As a result, social media platforms such as Twitter are seeing an increase in conversations, centered around information seeking and sharing, related to online learning. Mining such conversations, such as Tweets, to develop a dataset can serve as a data resource for interdisciplinary research related to the analysis of interest, views, opinions, perspectives, attitudes, and feedback towards online learning during the current surge of COVID-19 cases caused by the Omicron variant. Therefore this work presents a large-scale public Twitter dataset of conversations about online learning since the first detected case of the COVID-19 Omicron variant in November 2021. The dataset is compliant with the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter and the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles for scientific data management.

Data Description

The dataset comprises a total of 52,984 Tweet IDs (that correspond to the same number of Tweets) about online learning that were posted on Twitter from 9th November 2021 to 13th July 2022. The earliest date was selected as 9th November 2021, as the Omicron variant was detected for the first time in a sample that was collected on this date. 13th July 2022 was the most recent date as per the time of data collection and publication of this dataset.

The dataset consists of 9 .txt files. An overview of these dataset files along with the number of Tweet IDs and the date range of the associated tweets is as follows. Table 1 shows the list of all the synonyms or terms that were used for the dataset development.

Filename: TweetIDs_November_2021.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 1283, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: November 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021)

Filename: TweetIDs_December_2021.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 10545, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: December 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021)

Filename: TweetIDs_January_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 23078, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: January 1, 2022 to January 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_February_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 4751, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_March_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3434, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: March 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_April_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3355, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: April 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_May_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 3120, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: May 1, 2022 to May 31, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_June_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 2361, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022)

Filename: TweetIDs_July_2022.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 1057, Date Range of the associated Tweet IDs: July 1, 2022 to July 13, 2022)

The dataset contains only Tweet IDs in compliance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter. The Tweet IDs need to be hydrated to be used. For hydrating this dataset the Hydrator application (link to download and a step-by-step tutorial on how to use Hydrator) may be used.

Table 1. List of commonly used synonyms, terms, and phrases for online learning and COVID-19 that were used for the dataset development

Terminology

List of synonyms and terms

COVID-19

Omicron, COVID, COVID19, coronavirus, coronaviruspandemic, COVID-19, corona, coronaoutbreak, omicron variant, SARS CoV-2, corona virus

online learning

online education, online learning, remote education, remote learning, e-learning, elearning, distance learning, distance education, virtual learning, virtual education, online teaching, remote teaching, virtual teaching, online class, online classes, remote class, remote classes, distance class, distance classes, virtual class, virtual classes, online course, online courses, remote course, remote courses, distance course, distance courses, virtual course, virtual courses, online school, virtual school, remote school, online college, online university, virtual college, virtual university, remote college, remote university, online lecture, virtual lecture, remote lecture, online lectures, virtual lectures, remote lectures

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.Trends represent the day-to-day rate of new cases with a focus on the most recent 10 to 14 days. Includes Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianas, and U.S. Virgin Islands. Daily new case counts are volatile for many reasons and sometimes the trends reflect that volatility. Thus, we decided to include longer-term summaries here. County Trends as of 9 Mar 20230 (-0) in Emergent1135 (+51) in Spreading1664 (-63) in Epidemic230 (+10) in Controlled110 (+2) in End StageNotes: Many states now only report once per week, and FL only once every two weeks. On 3/7/2022 we adjusted the formula for active cases to reflect the Omicron Variant which is documented to cause lower rates of serious and severe illness. To produce these trends we analyze daily updates from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.For more information about COVID-19 trends, see our country level trends story map and the full methodology.Data Source: Johns Hopkins University CSSE US Cases by County dashboard and USAFacts for Utah County level Data.Feature layer generated from running the Join Features solution that is the basis for daily updates for the U.S. County COVID-19 Tends Story Map.

BackgroundThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant has prevailed globally since November 2021. The extremely high transmissibility and occult manifestations were notable, but the severity and mortality associated with the Omicron variant and subvariants cannot be ignored, especially for immunocompromised populations. However, no prognostic model for specially predicting the severity of the Omicron variant infection is available yet. In this study, we aim to develop and validate a prognostic model based on immune variables to early recognize potentially severe cases of Omicron variant-infected patients.MethodsThis was a single-center prognostic study involving patients with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the training and validation cohorts. Variables were collected immediately after admission. Candidate variables were selected by three variable-selecting methods and were used to construct Cox regression as the prognostic model. Discrimination, calibration, and net benefit of the model were evaluated in both training and validation cohorts.ResultsSix hundred eighty-nine of the involved 2,645 patients were eligible, consisting of 630 non-ICU cases and 59 ICU cases. Six predictors were finally selected to establish the prognostic model: age, neutrophils, lymphocytes, procalcitonin, IL-2, and IL-10. For discrimination, concordance indexes in the training and validation cohorts were 0.822 (95% CI: 0.748-0.896) and 0.853 (95% CI: 0.769-0.942). For calibration, predicted probabilities and observed proportions displayed high agreements. In the 21-day decision curve analysis, the threshold probability ranges with positive net benefit were 0~1 and nearly 0~0.75 in the training and validation cohorts, correspondingly.ConclusionsThis model had satisfactory high discrimination, calibration, and net benefit. It can be used to early recognize potentially severe cases of Omicron variant-infected patients so that they can be treated timely and rationally to reduce the severity and mortality of Omicron variant infection.

Data for CDC’s COVID Data Tracker site on Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status. Click 'More' for important dataset description and footnotes

Dataset and data visualization details: These data were posted on October 21, 2022, archived on November 18, 2022, and revised on February 22, 2023. These data reflect cases among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 24, 2022, and deaths among persons with a positive specimen collection date through September 3, 2022.

Vaccination status: A person vaccinated with a primary series had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after verifiably completing the primary series of an FDA-authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. An unvaccinated person had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen and has not been verified to have received COVID-19 vaccine. Excluded were partially vaccinated people who received at least one FDA-authorized vaccine dose but did not complete a primary series ≥14 days before collection of a specimen where SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen was detected. Additional or booster dose: A person vaccinated with a primary series and an additional or booster dose had SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen detected on a respiratory specimen collected ≥14 days after receipt of an additional or booster dose of any COVID-19 vaccine on or after August 13, 2021. For people ages 18 years and older, data are graphed starting the week including September 24, 2021, when a COVID-19 booster dose was first recommended by CDC for adults 65+ years old and people in certain populations and high risk occupational and institutional settings. For people ages 12-17 years, data are graphed starting the week of December 26, 2021, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for adolescents ages 16-17 years. For people ages 5-11 years, data are included starting the week of June 5, 2022, 2 weeks after the first recommendation for a booster dose for children aged 5-11 years. For people ages 50 years and older, data on second booster doses are graphed starting the week including March 29, 2022, when the recommendation was made for second boosters. Vertical lines represent dates when changes occurred in U.S. policy for COVID-19 vaccination (details provided above). Reporting is by primary series vaccine type rather than additional or booster dose vaccine type. The booster dose vaccine type may be different than the primary series vaccine type. ** Because data on the immune status of cases and associated deaths are unavailable, an additional dose in an immunocompromised person cannot be distinguished from a booster dose. This is a relevant consideration because vaccines can be less effective in this group. Deaths: A COVID-19–associated death occurred in a person with a documented COVID-19 diagnosis who died; health department staff reviewed to make a determination using vital records, public health investigation, or other data sources. Rates of COVID-19 deaths by vaccination status are reported based on when the patient was tested for COVID-19, not the date they died. Deaths usually occur up to 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. Participating jurisdictions: Currently, these 31 health departments that regularly link their case surveillance to immunization information system data are included in these incidence rate estimates: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City (New York), North Carolina, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia; 30 jurisdictions also report deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These jurisdictions represent 72% of the total U.S. population and all ten of the Health and Human Services Regions. Data on cases among people who received additional or booster doses were reported from 31 jurisdictions; 30 jurisdictions also reported data on deaths among people who received one or more additional or booster dose; 28 jurisdictions reported cases among people who received two or more additional or booster doses; and 26 jurisdictions reported deaths among people who received two or more additional or booster doses. This list will be updated as more jurisdictions participate. Incidence rate estimates: Weekly age-specific incidence rates by vaccination status were calculated as the number of cases or deaths divided by the number of people vaccinated with a primary series, overall or with/without a booster dose (cumulative) or unvaccinated (obtained by subtracting the cumulative number of people vaccinated with a primary series and partially vaccinated people from the 2019 U.S. intercensal population estimates) and multiplied by 100,000. Overall incidence rates were age-standardized using the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. To estimate population counts for ages 6 months through 1 year, half of the single-year population counts for ages 0 through 1 year were used. All rates are plotted by positive specimen collection date to reflect when incident infections occurred. For the primary series analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 12 years and older from April 4, 2021 through December 4, 2021, ages 5 years and older from December 5, 2021 through July 30, 2022 and ages 6 months and older from July 31, 2022 onwards. For the booster dose analysis, age-standardized rates include ages 18 years and older from September 19, 2021 through December 25, 2021, ages 12 years and older from December 26, 2021, and ages 5 years and older from June 5, 2022 onwards. Small numbers could contribute to less precision when calculating death rates among some groups. Continuity correction: A continuity correction has been applied to the denominators by capping the percent population coverage at 95%. To do this, we assumed that at least 5% of each age group would always be unvaccinated in each jurisdiction. Adding this correction ensures that there is always a reasonable denominator for the unvaccinated population that would prevent incidence and death rates from growing unrealistically large due to potential overestimates of vaccination coverage. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs): IRRs for the past one month were calculated by dividing the average weekly incidence rates among unvaccinated people by that among people vaccinated with a primary series either overall or with a booster dose. Publications: Scobie HM, Johnson AG, Suthar AB, et al. Monitoring Incidence of COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Status — 13 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–July 17, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:1284–1290. Johnson AG, Amin AB, Ali AR, et al. COVID-19 Incidence and Death Rates Among Unvaccinated and Fully Vaccinated Adults with and Without Booster Doses During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Emergence — 25 U.S. Jurisdictions, April 4–December 25, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:132–138

BackgroundRecent studies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reveal that Omicron variant BA.1 and sub-lineages have revived the concern over resistance to antiviral drugs and vaccine-induced immunity. The present study aims to analyze the clinical profile and genome characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 variant in eastern Uttar Pradesh (UP), North India.MethodsWhole-genome sequencing (WGS) was conducted for 146 SARS-CoV-2 samples obtained from individuals who tested coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive between the period of 1 January 2022 and 24 February 2022, from three districts of eastern UP. The details regarding clinical and hospitalized status were captured through telephonic interviews after obtaining verbal informed consent. A maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree was created for evolutionary analysis using MEGA7.ResultsThe mean age of study participants was 33.9 ± 13.1 years, with 73.5% accounting for male patients. Of the 98 cases contacted by telephone, 30 (30.6%) had a travel history (domestic/international), 16 (16.3%) reported having been infected with COVID-19 in past, 79 (80.6%) had symptoms, and seven had at least one comorbidity. Most of the sequences belonged to the Omicron variant, with BA.1 (6.2%), BA.1.1 (2.7%), BA.1.1.1 (0.7%), BA.1.1.7 (5.5%), BA.1.17.2 (0.7%), BA.1.18 (0.7%), BA.2 (30.8%), BA.2.10 (50.7%), BA.2.12 (0.7%), and B.1.617.2 (1.3%) lineages. BA.1 and BA.1.1 strains possess signature spike mutations S:A67V, S:T95I, S:R346K, S:S371L, S:G446S, S:G496S, S:T547K, S:N856K, and S:L981F, and BA.2 contains S:V213G, S:T376A, and S:D405N. Notably, ins214EPE (S1- N-Terminal domain) mutation was found in a significant number of Omicron BA.1 and sub-lineages. The overall Omicron BA.2 lineage was observed in 79.5% of women and 83.2% of men.ConclusionThe current study showed a predominance of the Omicron BA.2 variant outcompeting the BA.1 over a period in eastern UP. Most of the cases had a breakthrough infection following the recommended two doses of vaccine with four in five cases being symptomatic. There is a need to further explore the immune evasion properties of the Omicron variant.

The first case of COVID-19 in Mexico was detected on February 21, 2020. By the end of the year, the total number of confirmed infections had surpassed 1.4 million. Meanwhile, the number of deaths related to the disease was nearing 126,000. On July 28, 2024, the number of cases recorded had reached 7.7 million, while the number of deaths amounted to around 335,000. The relevance of the Omicron variant Omicron, a highly contagious COVID-19 variant, was declared of concern by the World Health Organization (WHO) at the end of November 2021. As the pandemic unfolded, it became the variant with the highest share of COVID-19 cases in the world. In Latin America, countries such as Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico were strongly affected. In fact, by 2023 nearly all analyzed sequences within these countries corresponded to an Omicron subvariant. Beyond a health crisis As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed worldwide, the respiratory disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2 virus first detected in Wuhan brought considerable economic consequences for countries and households. While Mexico’s gross domestic product (GDP) in current prices declined in 2020 compared to the previous year, a survey conducted among adults during the first months of 2021 showed COVID-19 impacted families mainly through finances and employment, with around one third of households in Mexico reporting an income reduction and the same proportion having at least one household member suffering from the disease.Find the most up-to-date information about the coronavirus pandemic in the world under Statista’s COVID-19 facts and figures site.

Please cite the following paper when using this dataset: N. Thakur and C.Y. Han, “An Exploratory Study of Tweets about the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant: Insights from Sentiment Analysis, Language Interpretation, Source Tracking, Type Classification, and Embedded URL Detection,” Journal of COVID, 2022, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp. 1026-1049 Abstract This dataset is one of the salient contributions of the above-mentioned paper. It presents a total of 522,886 Tweet IDs of the same number of Tweets about the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant posted on Twitter since the first detected case of this variant on November 24, 2021. The dataset is compliant with the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter, as well as with the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles for scientific data management. Data Description The Tweet IDs are presented in 7 different .txt files based on the timelines of the associated tweets. The following provides the details of these dataset files. The data collection followed a keyword-based approach and tweets comprising the "omicron" keyword were filtered, collected, and added to this dataset. Filename: TweetIDs_November.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 16471, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: November 24, 2021 to November 30, 2021) Filename: TweetIDs_December.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 99288, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: December 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021) Filename: TweetIDs_January.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 92860, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: January 1, 2022 to January 31, 2022) Filename: TweetIDs_February.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 89080, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022) Filename: TweetIDs_March.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 97844, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: March 1, 2022 to March 31, 2022) Filename: TweetIDs_April.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 91587, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: April 1, 2022 to April 20, 2022) Filename: TweetIDs_May.txt (No. of Tweet IDs: 35756, Date Range of the Tweet IDs: May 1, 2022 to May 12, 2022) Here, the last date for May is May 12 as it was the most recent date at the time of data collection. The dataset would be updated soon to incorporate more recent tweets. The dataset contains only Tweet IDs in compliance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the privacy policy, developer agreement, and guidelines for content redistribution of Twitter. The Tweet IDs need to be hydrated to be used. The Hydrator application (link to download the application: https://github.com/DocNow/hydrator/releases and link to a step-by-step tutorial: https://towardsdatascience.com/learn-how-to-easily-hydrate-tweets-a0f393ed340e#:~:text=Hydrating%20Tweets) or any similar application may be used for hydrating this dataset.

ObjectiveTo analyze the clinical characteristics and prognostic impacts of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection among cancer inpatients during the December 2022 – February 2023 surge, in order to provide scientific evidence for clinical treatment and prevention and control measures.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical features, prognosis, and vaccination status of cancer in-patients infected with the Omicron variant during the COVID-19 pandemic of December 2022 – February 2023.ResultsA total of 137 cancer inpatients were included in the study, with a median age of 61 years, and 75 patients (54.74%) were male. The main symptoms were cough (69 cases, 50.36%), expectoration (60 cases, 43.80%), and fever (53 cases, 39.69%). Chest CT examination revealed bilateral pneumonia in 47 cases (34.31%, 47/137) and pleural effusion in 24 cases (17.52%, 24/137). Among the cancer patients, 116 cases (84.67%, 116/137) had solid tumors, and 21 cases (15.33%, 21/137) had hematologic malignancies, with the main types being breast cancer (25 cases, 18.25%) and lung cancer (24 cases, 17.52%). Among the cancer patients, 46 cases (33.58%) were asymptomatic, 81 cases (59.12%) had mild disease, 10 cases (7.30%) had severe infection, and 8 cases (5.84%) died. A total of 91 patients (66.42%) had been vaccinated, with 58 patients (42.34%) receiving three doses. Multivariate analysis showed that cerebral infarction and hypoproteinemia were risk factors for death from COVID-19 infection.ConclusionCancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron typically exhibit mild disease manifestations, but some cancer patients infected with the Omicron variant might progress to severe illness, and even death, necessitating close monitoring and attention during the early stages of infection. Additionally, the presence of cerebral infarction and hypoproteinemia significantly increases the risk of death.

As of August 28, 2023, confirmed coronavirus (COVID-19) patients in their forties made up the largest share of patients in South Korea, amounting to around 15.2 percent of all positive cases. The first wave lasted until April, with the second wave following in August of 2020. This was further followed by a fourth wave, driven by the delta and omicron variants. Though the country has since achieved high vaccination rates, the omicron variant led to record new daily cases in 2022.

Patient profile

In South Korea, the infection rate of coronavirus was the highest among people in the twenties due to their social activities. Indeed, the new infections related to the clubgoers in Seoul are likely to increase the infection rate between young people. 158 out of 261 clubgoer-related confirmed patients were in teenagers or in their twenties, and 36 patients were in their thirties. The mortality rate of coronavirus by age group was somewhat different from the age distribution of total infection cases. It was highest among people in their eighties, with this group making up around 59.6 percent of deaths related to the coronavirus in South Korea. Mortality declined with each younger age group.

Daily life changes

In South Korea, a new policy of "With Corona" has been launched in order to ease society back into a new norm of living with the virus, without having too many restrictions in place. This is based on high vaccination rates, and includes strict quarantine measures for those who are infected and their close contacts. There are plans to improve the verification of vaccination and test certificates for use in public spaces. Most South Koreans have responded to rising numbers by once again avoiding crowded places or going out. It is common to wear masks regardless of diseases, so people are continuing to wear masks when they need to go out. Also, people prefer to do online shopping than physical shopping, and online sales of food and health-related products have increased by more than 700 percent compared to last year. Spending on living, cooking, and furniture has increased significantly as people spend more time at home.

BackgroundOn September 28, 2022, the first case of Omicron subvariant BF.7 was discovered among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in Hohhot, China, and then the epidemic broke out on a large scale during the National Day holiday. It is imminently necessary to construct a mathematical model to investigate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Hohhot.MethodsIn this study, we first investigated the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 cases in Hohhot, including the spatiotemporal distribution and sociodemographic distribution. Then, we proposed a time-varying Susceptible-Quarantined Susceptible-Exposed-Quarantined Exposed-Infected-Asymptomatic-Hospitalized-Removed (SQEIAHR) model to derive the epidemic curves. The next-generation matrix method was used to calculate the effective reproduction number (Re). Finally, we explored the effects of higher stringency measures on the development of the epidemic through scenario analysis.ResultsOf the 4,889 positive infected cases, the vast majority were asymptomatic and mild, mainly concentrated in central areas such as Xincheng District. People in the 30–59 age group primarily were affected by the current outbreak, accounting for 53.74%, but females and males were almost equally affected (1.03:1). Community screening (35.70%) and centralized isolation screening (26.28%) were the main ways to identify positive infected cases. Our model predicted the peak of the epidemic on October 6, 2022, the dynamic zero-COVID date on October 15, 2022, a number of peak cases of 629, and a cumulative number of infections of 4,963 (95% confidential interval (95%CI): 4,692 ~ 5,267), all four of which were highly consistent with the actual situation in Hohhot. Early in the outbreak, the basic reproduction number (R0) was approximately 7.01 (95%CI: 6.93 ~ 7.09), and then Re declined sharply to below 1.0 on October 6, 2022. Scenario analysis of higher stringency measures showed the importance of decreasing the transmission rate and increasing the quarantine rate to shorten the time to peak, dynamic zero-COVID and an Re below 1.0, as well as to reduce the number of peak cases and final affected population.ConclusionOur model was effective in predicting the epidemic trends of COVID-19, and the implementation of a more stringent combination of measures was indispensable in containing the spread of the virus.

Context

NSW has been hit by the Omicron variant, with skyrocketing cases. This dataset, updated regularly, details the location of positive cases. A prediction of where the most cases could occur can be derived from this dataset and a potential prediction of how many cases there is likely to be.

Content

notification_date: Text, dates to when the positive case was notified of a positive test result. postcode: Text, lists the postcode of the positive case. lhd_2010_code: Text, the code of the local health district of the positive case. lhd_2010_name: Text, the name of the local health district of the positive case. lga_code19: Text, the code of the local government area of the positive case. lga_name19: Text, the name of the local government area of the positive case.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to NSW Health for providing and updating the dataset.

Inspiration

The location of cases is highly important in NSW. In mid-2021, Western Sydney had the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases with many deaths ensuing. Western Sydney is one of Sydney's most diverse areas, with many vulnerable peoples. The virus spread to western NSW, imposing a risk to the Indigenous communities. With location data, a prediction service can be made to forecast the areas at risk of transmission.

As of August 28, 2023, South Korea has confirmed a total of 34,436,586 positive cases of coronavirus (COVID-19), including 35,812 deaths. The first case coronavirus in South Korea was discovered in January 2020. Currently, 25.57 cases per 100,000 people are being confirmed, down from 35.74 cases last month.

Case development trend

In the middle of February 2020, novel coronavirus (COVID-19) began to increase exponentially from patient 31, who was known as a super propagator. With a quick response by the government, the daily new cases once dropped to a single-digit. In May 2020, around three hundreds of new infections were related to cluster infections that occurred in some clubs at Itaewon, an entertainment district in Seoul. Seoul and the metropolitan areas were hit hard by this Itaewon infection. Following the second wave of infections in August, the government announced it was facing the third wave in November with 200 to 300 confirmed cases every day. A fourth wave started in July 2021 from the spread of the delta variant and low vaccination rates. While vaccination rates have risen significantly since then, the highly infectious omicron variant led to a record-breaking rise in cases. This began easing up in March of 2022, though numbers began to rise again around August of 2022. As of October 2022, case numbers are decreasing again.

Economic impact on Korean economy

The Korean economy is interdependent on many countries over the world, so the impact of coronavirus on Korean economy is significant. According to recent OECD forecasts, South Korea's GDP is projected to show positive growth in 2022 and 2023. The first sector the coronavirus impacted was tourism, caused by decreasing numbers of inbound tourists and domestic sales. In the first quarter of 2020, tourism revenue was expected to decrease by 2.9 trillion won. In addition, Korean companies predicted that the damage caused by the losses in sales and exports would be significant. In particular, the South Korean automotive industry was considered to be the most affected industry, as automobile production and parts supply stopped at factories in China.For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

The COVID-19 pandemic, driven by SARS-CoV-2, has led to intensive vaccination campaigns worldwide. Despite widespread vaccination, the potential for vaccine escape variants necessitates ongoing research into the virus’s intra-host evolutionary dynamics. In this study we investigated the effects of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 intra-host evolution during the Delta and Omicron waves in São Paulo, Brazil, analyzing 700 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples collected through the LabMovel initiative, from August 2021 to March 2022. Samples were categorized based on vaccination status (Unvaccinated, Spike protein-based vaccines, and Whole inactivated virus vaccine), enabling comparison of intra-host viral diversity across vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals for both Delta and Omicron VOCs. We evaluated intra-host genetic diversity by measuring intra-host single nucleotide variants (iSNVs), Faith's Phylogenetic Diversity (PD), and haplotype diversity using Normalized Shannon Entropy. For Delta, vaccinated groups exhibited higher haplotype diversity, yet no statistically significant difference was observed in the total number of iSNVs between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Selective pressures in the Delta VOC showed neutral selection in vaccinated individuals, contrasting with purifying selection in unvaccinated individuals, though effect sizes were minimal. For Omicron, a bimodal distribution in Faith's PD across all groups suggests genetic drift events, aligning with Omicron’s rapid spread and high transmissibility. Observed intra-host diversity patterns were variant-specific, with Spike-based vaccines associated with a lower number of haplotypes in Omicron cases. These findings suggest that vaccination modulates SARS-CoV-2’s intra-host evolution, likely contributing to its mutational landscape in a variant-dependent manner. The results highlight variant-specific responses to vaccination, emphasizing the complex role of selective pressures in SARS-CoV-2 intra-host evolution. Our findings support ongoing genomic surveillance to understand vaccination's evolutionary impact on intra-host viral dynamics, particularly as new variants emerge.

BackgroundIt is important to figure out the immunity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection to understand the response of humans to viruses. A serological survey for previously infected populations in Jiangsu Province was conducted to compare the antibody level of SARS-CoV-2 in reinfection by Omicron or not.MethodsReinfection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined as an individual being infected again after 90 days of the initial infection. Telephone surveys and face-to-face interviews were implemented to collect information. Experimental and control serum samples were collected from age-sex-matched reinfected and non-reinfected cases, respectively. IgG anti-S and neutralizing antibodies (Nab) concentrations were detected by the Magnetism Particulate Immunochemistry Luminescence Method (MCLIA). Antibody titers were log(2)-transformed and analyzed by a two-tailed Mann–Whitney U test. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between the strain type of primary infection, SARS-Cov-2 vaccination status, and antibody levels. Multivariate linear regression models were used to identify associations between reinfection with IgG and Nab levels.ResultsSix hundred thirty-one individuals were enrolled in this study, including 327 reinfected cases and 304 non-reinfected cases. The reinfection group had higher IgG (5.65 AU/mL vs. 5.22 AU/mL) and Nab (8.02 AU/mL vs. 7.25 AU/mL) levels compared to the non-reinfection group (p 

This is a replication dataset for the manuscript titled: "SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant of Concern in Seychelles: Introduction and Spread." The study is part of a regional collaborative COVID-19 public health rapid response initiative overseen by WHO-AFRO and Africa-CDC do decribe the SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology in Africa. Data package includes R and python scripts used to analyze data: Figure1.R - This r code plots the Seychelles government intervention levels, number of daily COVID-19 cases, the temporal patterns of SARS CoV-2 Lineages in Seychelles. Figure2.R - This r code plots the Omicron lineages phylogenetic tree of BA.1-like, BA.1-like, BA.1-like, BA.1-like lineages. Figure3.R Figure4.R - This r code plots the number of transition events between Seychelles and the rest of world. SuppFig1.R - This r code plots the number of daily COVID-19 cases from March 2020 to September 2022 and highlights the period when Omicron VOC was circulating. SuppFig2.R - This r code plots the number of transition events between discrete locations i.e within Seychelles AncestralChanges.py