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 the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, 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.

This story was originally published in February 2020. While the maps in the story are automatically updated with latest available statistics, the text may include information that is no longer current. For the latest guidelines on coronavirus prevention and mitigation, please visit the CDC's or WHO's information pages.Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus pandemic has touched nearly every country on the planet, and upended the lives of hundreds of millions of people, according to official and unofficial statistics compiled by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.The novel coronavirus belongs to the same family of viruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). COVID-19, as the disease is known, produces mild symptoms in most people, but can also lead to severe respiratory illness.

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 t

This image reports a Maximum Entropy model that estimates suitable locations for COVID-19 spread, i.e. places that could favour the spread of the virus just in terms of environmental parameters.

The model was trained just on locations in Italy that have reported a rate of new infections higher than the geometric mean of all Italian infection rates. The following environmental parameters were used, which are correlated to those used by other studies:

• Average Annual Surface Air Temperature in 2018 (NASA)
• Average Annual Precipitation in 2018 (NASA)
• CO2 emission (natural+artificial) averaged between January 1979 and December 2013 (Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service)
• Elevation (NOAA ETOPO2)

A higher resolution map, the model file (in ASC format) and all parameters used are also attached.

The model indicates highest correlation to infection rate for CO2 around 0.03 gCm^−2day^−1, for Temperature around 11.8 °C, and for Precipitation around 0.3 kg m^-2 s^-1, whereas Elevation is poorly correlated.

One interesting result is that the model indicates, among others, the Hubei region in China as a high-probability location, and Iran (around Teheran) as a suited location for virus' spread, but the model was not trained on these regions, i.e. it did not know about the actual spread in these regions.

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

On October 20, 2022, CDC began retrieving aggregate case and death data from jurisdictional and state partners weekly instead of daily. This dataset contains archived community transmission and related data elements by county as originally displayed on the COVID Data Tracker. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, this dataset has not been updated since October 20, 2022. An archived dataset containing weekly community transmission data by county as originally posted can also be found here: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission as Originally Posted | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

Related data CDC has been providing the public with two versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with the daily values as originally posted on the COVID Data Tracker, and an historical dataset with daily data as well as the updates and corrections from state and local health departments. Similar to this dataset, the original historical dataset is archived on 10/20/2022. It will continue to be publicly available but will no longer be updated. A new dataset containing historical community transmission data by county is now published weekly and can be found at: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov).

This public use dataset has 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties and jurisdictions. It contains reported daily transmission levels at the county level with the same values used to display transmission maps on the COVID Data Tracker. Each day, the dataset is appended to contain the most recent day's data. Transmission level is set to low, moderate, substantial, or high using the calculation rules below.

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 a 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 conducted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have a 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).

If the two metrics suggest different transmission levels, the higher level is selected.

The reported transmission categories include:

Low Transmission Threshold: Counties with fewer than 10 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, and a NAAT percent test positivity in the past 7 days below 5%;

Moderate Transmission Threshold: Counties with 10-49 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 5.0-7.99%;

Substantial Transmission Threshold: Counties with 50-99 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 8.0-9.99%;

High Transmission Threshold: Counties with 100 or more total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 10.0% or greater.

Blank: total new cases in the past 7 days are not reported (county data known to be unavailable) and the percentage of positive NAATs tests during the past 7 days (blank) are not reported.

Data Suppression To prevent the release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency. When the case counts used to calculate the total new case rate metric ("cases_per_100K_7_day_count_change") is greater than zero and less than 10, this metric is set to "suppressed" to protect individual privacy. If the case count is 0, the total new case rate metric is still displayed.

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.

This map shows recent COVID-19 Trends with arrows that represent each county's recent trend history, and weekly new case counts for U.S. counties. The map data is updated weekly and featured in this storymap.It shows COVID-19 Trend for the most recent Monday with a colored arrow for each county. The larger the arrow, the longer the county has had this trend. An up arrow indicates the number of active cases continue upward. A down arrow indicates the number of active cases is going down. The intent of this map is to give more context than just the current day of new data because daily data for COVID-19 cases is volatile and can be unreliable on the day it is first reported. Weekly summaries in the counts of new cases smooth out this volatility.Click or tap on a county to see a history of trend changes and a weekly graph of new cases going back to February 1, 2020. This map is updated every Tuesday based on data through the previous Sunday. See also this version of the map for additional perspective.COVID-19 Trends show how each county is doing and are updated daily. We base the trend assignment on the number of new cases in the past two weeks and the number of active cases per 100,000 people. To learn the details for how trends are assigned, see the full methodology. There are five trends:Emergent - New cases for the first time or in counties that have had zero new cases for 60 or more days.Spreading - Low to moderate rates of new cases each day. Likely controlled by local policies and individuals taking measures such as wearing masks and curtailing unnecessary activities.Epidemic - Accelerating and uncontrolled rates of new cases.Controlled - Very low rates of new cases.End Stage - One or fewer new cases every 5 days in larger populations and fewer in rural areas.For more information about COVID-19 trends, see the full methodology.Data Source: Johns Hopkins University CSSE US Cases by County dashboard and USAFacts for Utah County level Data.

Updates

• Notice of data discontinuation: Since the start of the pandemic, AP has reported case and death counts from data provided by Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University has announced that they will stop their daily data collection efforts after March 10. As Johns Hopkins stops providing data, the AP will also stop collecting daily numbers for COVID cases and deaths. The HHS and CDC now collect and visualize key metrics for the pandemic. AP advises using those resources when reporting on the pandemic going forward.

  • CDC Weekly case and death counts (national and state level)
  • CDC County level cases and deaths
  • HHS New hospital admissions
  • CDC NowCast COVID variant proportions (national and regional level)

• April 9, 2020

  • The population estimate data for New York County, NY has been updated to include all five New York City counties (Kings County, Queens County, Bronx County, Richmond County and New York County). This has been done to match the Johns Hopkins COVID-19 data, which aggregates counts for the five New York City counties to New York County.

• April 20, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins death totals in the US now include confirmed and probable deaths in accordance with CDC guidelines as of April 14. One significant result of this change was an increase of more than 3,700 deaths in the New York City count. This change will likely result in increases for death counts elsewhere as well. The AP does not alter the Johns Hopkins source data, so probable deaths are included in this dataset as well.

• April 29, 2020

  • The AP is now providing timeseries data for counts of COVID-19 cases and deaths. The raw counts are provided here unaltered, along with a population column with Census ACS-5 estimates and calculated daily case and death rates per 100,000 people. Please read the updated caveats section for more information.

• September 1st, 2020

  • Johns Hopkins is now providing counts for the five New York City counties individually.

• February 12, 2021

  • The Ohio Department of Health recently announced that as many as 4,000 COVID-19 deaths may have been underreported through the state’s reporting system, and that the "daily reported death counts will be high for a two to three-day period."
  • Because deaths data will be anomalous for consecutive days, we have chosen to freeze Ohio's rolling average for daily deaths at the last valid measure until Johns Hopkins is able to back-distribute the data. The raw daily death counts, as reported by Johns Hopkins and including the backlogged death data, will still be present in the new_deaths column.

• February 16, 2021

  - Johns Hopkins has reconciled Ohio's historical deaths data with the state.

  Overview

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

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

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

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

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

Queries

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

• Filter cases by state here

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

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

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

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

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

Interactive

The AP has designed an interactive map to track COVID-19 cases reported by Johns Hopkins.

@(https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/15/)

Interactive Embed Code

<iframe title="USA counties (2018) choropleth map Mapping COVID-19 cases by county" aria-describedby="" id="datawrapper-chart-nRyaf" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nRyaf/10/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="400"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">(function() {'use strict';window.addEventListener('message', function(event) {if (typeof event.data['datawrapper-height'] !== 'undefined') {for (var chartId in event.data['datawrapper-height']) {var iframe = document.getElementById('datawrapper-chart-' + chartId) || document.querySelector("iframe[src*='" + chartId + "']");if (!iframe) {continue;}iframe.style.height = event.data['datawrapper-height'][chartId] + 'px';}}});})();</script>

Caveats

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

Johns Hopkins timeseries data - Johns Hopkins pulls data regularly to update their dashboard. Once a day, around 8pm EDT, Johns Hopkins adds the counts for all areas they cover to the timeseries file. These counts are snapshots of the latest cumulative counts provided by the source on that day. This can lead to inconsistencies if a source updates their historical data for accuracy, either increasing or decreasing the latest cumulative count. - Johns Hopkins periodically edits their historical timeseries data for accuracy. They provide a file documenting all errors in their timeseries files that they have identified and fixed here

Attribution

This data should be credited to Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 tracking project

Announcement Beginning October 20, 2022, CDC will report and publish aggregate case and death data from jurisdictional and state partners on a weekly basis rather than daily. As a result, community transmission levels data reported on data.cdc.gov will be updated weekly on Thursdays, typically by 8 PM ET, instead of daily. This public use dataset has 7 data elements reflecting community transmission levels for all available counties. This dataset contains reported daily transmission level at the county level and contains the same values used to display transmission maps on the COVID Data Tracker. Each day, the dataset is appended to contain the most recent day's data. Transmission level is set to low, moderate, substantial, or high using the calculation rules below. Currently, CDC provides the public with two versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with the levels as originally posted (Originally Posted dataset), updated daily with the most recent day’s data, and an historical dataset with the county-level transmission data from January 1, 2021 (Historical Changes dataset). 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 a 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 conducted over the last 7 days. "Percentage of positive NAAT in the past 7 days" is considered to have a 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). If the two metrics suggest different transmission levels, the higher level is selected. Transmission categories include: Low Transmission Threshold: Counties with fewer than 10 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days, and a NAAT percent test positivity in the past 7 days below 5%; Moderate Transmission Threshold: Counties with 10-49 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 5.0-7.99%; Substantial Transmission Threshold: Counties with 50-99 total cases per 100,000 population in the past 7 days or a NAAT test percent positivity in the past 7 days of 8.0-9.99%; High Transmission Threshold: Counties with 100 or more total cases per 100,000

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.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology 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.Reasons for undertaking this work: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 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.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 used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths by state as of July 28, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html and https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map The state numbers listed by the CDC are aggregated from the USAFact county data.The CDC reports healthcare personnel cases and infections (120,467 and 587 as of August 1, 2020; accessed August 2, 2020) but does not disaggregate the numbers by state.Healthcare worker deaths by state as of July 28, 2020 pulled from https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976#vp_1

Context

To aid researchers, data scientists, and analysts in the effort to combat COVID-19, Google is making a hosted repository of public datasets including OpenStreetMap data, free to access. To facilitate the Kaggle community to access the BigQuery dataset, it is onboarded to Kaggle platform which allows querying it without a linked GCP account. Please note that due to the large size of the dataset, Kaggle applies a quota of 5 TB of data scanned per user per 30-days.

Description

This data from USAFacts provides US COVID-19 case and death counts by state and county. This data is sourced from the CDC, and state and local health agencies.

For more information, see the USAFacts site on the Coronavirus. Interactive data visualizations are also available via USAFacts.

This is an archived copy of the USAFacts Covid 19 cases and deaths dataset, created august 10th 2020. It is purely for archiving and citing purposes for academic publication. All work, credit, and rights remain with the USAFacts team.

The original data url was:
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/coronavirus-covid-19-spread-map/

Descriptions of the data were available here:

https://usafacts.org/articles/detailed-methodology-covid-19-data/

The official information on the spread of the epidemic in France was initially rather fragmented. Various initiatives have attempted to structure it in the form of free data. Despite this work, however, the data were often difficult to exploit in the raw state within cartographic tools. The purpose of this repository is to consolidate the information and make it available in open and easily reusable formats to produce maps. The preferred pivot format is GeoJson. The data are proposed according to several granularities: regions and departments. The data at the department’s grid was initially fragmented, however under the impetus of free initiatives such as OpenCovid19, more precise data on the epidemic was made available by Santé publique France. For more details or the latest version of the data, see https://github.com/kalisio/covid-19. For more information about KALISIO visit our website.

Activation time (UTC): 2020-04-05 22:46:00
Event time (UTC): 2020-04-06 08:00:00
Event type: Epidemic (Viral disease)

Activation reason:
Italy is currently facing a serious situation related to the Covid-19. The Head of the Civil Protection Department has been nominated as national emergency Coordinator and the entire National System has been activated to face the Emergency. From the first day of March, the entire Italian territory has been put on lock-down and further initiatives are being implemented to limit the spread of the disease. The Civil Protection needs to map all the temporary health facilities (such as triage facilities, field hospitals and so on) as well the gathering places in order to have a clear understanding of the current situation of the territory for the subsequent monitoring of activities and public spaces during the emergency.

Reference products: 8
Delineation products: 7
Grading products: 0

Copernicus Emergency Management Service - Mapping is a service funded by European Commission aimed at providing actors in the management of natural and man-made disasters, in particular Civil Protection Authorities and Humanitarian Aid actors, with mapping products based on satellite imagery.

To date, one million confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 virus have been reported worldwide with a death toll of over 50,000 (1). Particular concern has been raised regarding the exposure of healthcare professionals. Early reports from the Wuhan province in China described up to 29% infection rates among healthcare professionals before the use of personal Protection equipment (PPE) was fully established (2). Several measures are being established with regard the correct use of PPE and reduction in aerosol generating procedures. However to the authors’ knowledge, no specific guidance is available regarding the potential risk of aerosolization of SARS-Cov-2 virus via chest drains in patients with active air leak.Viral Spread and Air LeakThe SARS-CoV-2 virus, which leads to COVID-19, has been demonstrated to remain viable in aerosol form and is transmitted by droplets (3). Despite the current coronavirus pandemic, we are still faced with patients requiring chest tube drainage for pneumothorax on cardiothoracic and respiratory wards, as well as in critical care units. Whilst drains may be inserted with lower risk of viral spread for simple pleural effusions, the authors fear there may be a high risk of aerosolization in cases of pneumothorax with active air leak, whether that be primary, secondary, or indeed iatrogenic in mechanically ventilated patients requiring high PEEP ventilation such as in patients with COVID-19.Citing a recent example of a postoperative thoracic surgical patient in the authors’ unit who had a prolonged air leak and who later was found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, they have considered the implications of aerosolization from the chest drain and in particular the chest drain bottle. This may represent an under-recognised means of viral spread, which may put patients and health care professionals at risk of infection.Chest Drains and Risk of AerosolizationTraditional under water seal chest drain bottles have a port which allows attachment to low pressure wall suction. Most modern drain systems also have a safety valve which opens to air should the suction be accidentally turned off in the presence of an air leak, to avoid creating a closed system effect which could lead to a tension pneumothorax. If the drain bottle is not attached to suction, then the port is open to the atmosphere.When air leaks into a chest drain bottle, it causes the fluid inside to bubble. Given the aerosolization that is likely to occur inside the drain bottle, which then escapes through the suction port or safety valve, this may be a potentially important mode of viral transmission. Alternatives to a traditional chest drain bottle include a number of different digital chest drainage systems. Whilst these do not have a port open to room air, they are not closed systems and the air escapes from the system into the air without any specific viral filter.A number of patients on the authors’ unit’s thoracic ward have since tested positive for COVID-19. Whilst the patient with the air leak may not have been the source of infection, they feel this should be considered. In their patient, a digital chest drainage system was being used.In light of this, and until further robust evidence regarding the volume of aerosolization from a chest drain bottle emerges, the authors would recommend the use of closed drainage systems, i.e. connecting the standard drain bottle to wall suction to avoid the spread of viral load via aerosolization. However, in order to obtain this, the safety valve will have to be occluded with potential risk of increasing intrathoracic pressure and cause tension, should the suction system be switched off whilst still connected to the bottle. Furthermore, keeping the bottle attached to wall suction will significantly limit the mobilization of patients, which is a significant risk factor for postoperative complications in the surgical patient.A Bespoke Chest Drain SystemIn order to overcome this, a possible consideration would be to attach an antimicrobial filter, such as those used in ventilator circuits, to the chest drain suction port leaving the drain off suction and occluding the safety valve. Connecting the filter directly to the chest drain should be discouraged, as fluid and moisture directly from the chest cavity are likely to interfere with the functioning of the filter.Therefore, the authors designed a bespoke drainage system using the Filta-Guard™ ventilator filter from Intersurgical Ltd© 2020 and a segment of endotracheal tube to use in their unit (Figures 1 and 2). The filter guarantees a filtration efficiency of >99.999% as tested on Hepatitis C and Mycobacterium tuberculosis in addition to standard test micro-organisms (4). The SARS-Cov-2 diameter varies from 60 to 140 nm, and therefore is larger than hepatitis C virus, which has an average diameter of about 55 nm. The authors postulated that given the larger size compared to Hep C virus, this filter should be effective in preventing flow of SARS-Cov-2 across the filter, however to their knowledge, this has not been clinically tested. Regarding the possible resistance to the system added by the filter and related risk of building up pressure in the chest cavity, they believe this should be marginal. Published data suggest the above filter would generate a resistance against the passage of 30L/min of 1.0cm H2O and 2.3cm H2O at 60L/min (4).ConclusionsThe efficacy of this chest drain modification clearly needs to be further investigated, however, given the current pandemic, any method of reducing viral spread should be considered.Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge Mr Panagiotis Theodoropoulos and Mr Duncan Steele, Specialist Registrars in Thoracic Surgery at Hammersmith Hospital, London.ReferencesJohns Hopkins University & Medicine. COVID-19 Map. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Published 2020. Accessed April 2, 2020.Chen W, Huang Y. To protect healthcare workers better, to save more lives. Anesth Analg. 2020:1-15. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000004834van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2004973Systems ICR. Filta-GuardTM range - high efficiency. https://www.intersurgical.com/products/airway-management/filtaguard-range-high-efficiency#1944000. Published 2020. Accessed April 2, 2020.

After entering Italy, the coronavirus (COVID-19) spread fast. The strict lockdown implemented by the government during the Spring 2020 helped to slow down the outbreak. However, the country had to face four new harsh waves of contagion. As of January 1, 2025, the total number of cases reported by the authorities reached over 26.9 million. The north of the country was mostly hit, and the region with the highest number of cases was Lombardy, which registered almost 4.4 million of them. The north-eastern region of Veneto and the southern region of Campania followed in the list. When adjusting these figures for the population size of each region, however, the picture changed, with the region of Veneto being the area where the virus had the highest relative incidence. Coronavirus in Italy Italy has been among the countries most impacted by the coronavirus outbreak. Moreover, the number of deaths due to coronavirus recorded in Italy is significantly high, making it one of the countries with the highest fatality rates worldwide, especially in the first stages of the pandemic. In particular, a very high mortality rate was recorded among patients aged 80 years or older. Impact on the economy The lockdown imposed during the Spring 2020, and other measures taken in the following months to contain the pandemic, forced many businesses to shut their doors and caused industrial production to slow down significantly. As a result, consumption fell, with the sectors most severely hit being hospitality and tourism, air transport, and automotive. Several predictions about the evolution of the global economy were published at the beginning of the pandemic, based on different scenarios about the development of the pandemic. According to the official results, it appeared that the coronavirus outbreak had caused Italy’s GDP to shrink by approximately nine percent in 2020.

2019 Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) Visual Dashboard and Map:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

• Confirmed Cases by Country/Region/Sovereignty
• Confirmed Cases by Province/State/Dependency
• Deaths
• Recovered

Downloadable data:
https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19

Additional Information about the Visual Dashboard:
https://systems.jhu.edu/research/public-health/ncov

Comprehensive time series data on the global spread of COVID-19, detailing the total number of confirmed cases, recoveries, and deaths by location. Compiled by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE) in collaboration with the ESRI Living Atlas Team and JHU Applied Physics Lab (APL), this dataset offers insights into the pandemic’s progression across diverse regions and time periods.

Features:

• Date: Specific date of recorded data.
• Country/Region: Geographic location, typically at the country or region level.
• Province/State: Subdivision data, where available (e.g., states in the US, provinces in Canada).
• Confirmed Cases: Cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases.
• Deaths: Cumulative number of deaths attributed to COVID-19.
• Recovered: Cumulative number of recoveries (where available).

Usage:

The dataset is useful for: - Statistical analysis of COVID-19 trends and patterns. - Forecasting models to estimate the spread and potential impact of pandemics. - Visualization projects to map and display the pandemic’s impact over time.

Coverage:

Data is provided globally, covering various countries, regions, and some states/provinces where available. The dataset's granularity allows for comprehensive insights into the pandemic’s reach and severity across different locations.

License:

CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons)

Who can use it:

Epidemiologists, data scientists, public health researchers, and policy-makers can utilize this dataset for research, statistical modeling, and public health strategy development.

How to use it:

• Conduct historical analyses to understand the progression of COVID-19 cases across regions.
• Build predictive models to forecast infection rates and mortality trends.
• Develop visualization tools (e.g., heat maps, time-series graphs) to illustrate the pandemic's evolution over time.

On March 2, 2022 DC Health announced the District’s new COVID-19 Community Level key metrics and reporting. COVID-19 cases are now reported on a weekly basis. The data in this table includes overall COVID-19 statistics for the District of Columbia hospitals. The number of hospital beds and ventilators available. Due to rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, data for March 2020 is limited.General Guidelines for Interpreting Disease Surveillance Data during a disease outbreak, the health department will collect, process, and analyze large amounts of information to understand and respond to the health impacts of the disease and its transmission in the community. The sources of disease surveillance information include contact tracing, medical record review, and laboratory information, and are considered protected health information. When interpreting the results of these analyses, it is important to keep in mind that the disease surveillance system may not capture the full picture of the outbreak, and that previously reported data may change over time as it undergoes data quality review or as additional information is added. These analyses, especially within populations with small samples, may be subject to large amounts of variation from day to day. Despite these limitations, data from disease surveillance is a valuable source of information to understand how to stop the spread of COVID19.