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

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

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

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

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.

Disclosure of information with far right's ideas, negationism of science and anti-vaccine attitude x Risk of COVID-19The electoral preference by Bolsonaro in the first round of Brazil presidential election 2018 per state, shows a strong predictive value of the amount of deaths by Covid-19, excess death per 100,000, increased P-score and intensity in reducing Brazilian population growth in the 1st Tour 2021### Content of this DatabaseIn the period from January to April (1st Quadrimester Q1) from 2021 and 2019 per state (UF) we show:Main variables for each of the 27 Brazilian states and 3 States groups and 1 country BRA1. The main population rates: - Number deaths, excess deaths, births, birth rate, mortality rate, vegetative growth, p-score, total population, population > 70A., Demographic density2. The main rates of Pandemic by Coronavirus - Covid-19: - No. Total cases, cases Q1, Nº Total deaths, Nº Q1 deaths, Total deaths / 100000 hab, mortality rate, cases / 100000 hab3. The main metrics of the 2018 presidential election: - Voters, voting paragraphs, nº of votes in Bolsonararo 1st turn, nº of abstinences.Groups of Brazilian UFS (Federation States)1. States that Bolsonaro received more than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn2. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st turn and more than 50% in the 2nd turn3. States that Bolsonaro received less than 50% of the votes in the 1st and 2nd shifts4. Sum of the 27 Brazilian states

As of May 2, 2023, there were roughly 687 million global cases of COVID-19. Around 660 million people had recovered from the disease, while there had been almost 6.87 million deaths. The United States, India, and Brazil have been among the countries hardest hit by the pandemic.

The various types of human coronavirus The SARS-CoV-2 virus is the seventh known coronavirus to infect humans. Its emergence makes it the third in recent years to cause widespread infectious disease following the viruses responsible for SARS and MERS. A continual problem is that viruses naturally mutate as they attempt to survive. Notable new variants of SARS-CoV-2 were first identified in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. Variants are of particular interest because they are associated with increased transmission.

Vaccination campaigns Common human coronaviruses typically cause mild symptoms such as a cough or a cold, but the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to more severe respiratory illnesses and deaths worldwide. Several COVID-19 vaccines have now been approved and are being used around the world.

Russia had over 23 million COVID-19 cases as of October 22, 2023. Over the past week, that figure increased by nearly 20 thousand. Russia had the 10th-highest number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases worldwide. Debate about COVID-19 deaths in Russia The number of deaths from the disease was lower than in other countries most affected by the pandemic. Several foreign media sources, including New York Times and Financial Times, published articles suggesting that the official statistics on the COVID-19 death toll in Russia could be lowered. A narrow definition of a death from COVID-19 and a general increase in mortality in Moscow were pointed out while suggesting why actual death figures could be higher than reported. Russian explanation of lower COVID-19 deaths Experts and lawmakers from Russia provided several answers to the accusations. Among them were the fact that Russians timely reported symptoms to doctors, a high number of tests conducted, as well as a higher herd immunity of the population compared to other countries. In a letter to the New York Times, Moscow’s health department head argued that even if all the additional death cases in the Russian capital in April 2020 were categorized as caused by the COVID-19, the city’s mortality rate from the disease would still be lower than in cities like New York or London.For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

This dataset represents preliminary estimates of cumulative U.S. COVID-19 disease burden for the 2024-2025 period, including illnesses, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and deaths. The weekly COVID-19-associated burden estimates are preliminary and based on continuously collected surveillance data from patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. The data come from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), a surveillance platform that captures data from hospitals that serve about 10% of the U.S. population. Each week CDC estimates a range (i.e., lower estimate and an upper estimate) of COVID-19 -associated burden that have occurred since October 1, 2024.

Note: Data are preliminary and subject to change as more data become available. Rates for recent COVID-19-associated hospital admissions are subject to reporting delays; as new data are received each week, previous rates are updated accordingly.

References

1. Reed C, Chaves SS, Daily Kirley P, et al. Estimating influenza disease burden from population-based surveillance data in the United States. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118369 
2. Rolfes, MA, Foppa, IM, Garg, S, et al. Annual estimates of the burden of seasonal influenza in the United States: A tool for strengthening influenza surveillance and preparedness. Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2018; 12: 132– 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12486
3. Tokars JI, Rolfes MA, Foppa IM, Reed C. An evaluation and update of methods for estimating the number of influenza cases averted by vaccination in the United States. Vaccine. 2018;36(48):7331-7337. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.026 
4. Collier SA, Deng L, Adam EA, Benedict KM, Beshearse EM, Blackstock AJ, Bruce BB, Derado G, Edens C, Fullerton KE, Gargano JW, Geissler AL, Hall AJ, Havelaar AH, Hill VR, Hoekstra RM, Reddy SC, Scallan E, Stokes EK, Yoder JS, Beach MJ. Estimate of Burden and Direct Healthcare Cost of Infectious Waterborne Disease in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):140-149. doi: 10.3201/eid2701.190676. PMID: 33350905; PMCID: PMC7774540.
5. Reed C, Kim IK, Singleton JA,  et al. Estimated influenza illnesses and hospitalizations averted by vaccination–United States, 2013-14 influenza season. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Dec 12;63(49):1151-4. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6349a2.htm 
6. Reed C, Angulo FJ, Swerdlow DL, et al. Estimates of the Prevalence of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009, United States, April–July 2009. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009;15(12):2004-2007. https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1512.091413  
7. Devine O, Pham H, Gunnels B, et al. Extrapolating Sentinel Surveillance Information to Estimate National COVID-19 Hospital Admission Rates: A Bayesian Modeling Approach. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irv.70026. Volume18, Issue10. October 2024.
8. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/php/covid-net/index.html">COVID-NET | COVID-19 | CDC 
9. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/systematic-review-process.html 
10. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac079/6604394?login=false">Excess natural-cause deaths in California by cause and setting: March 2020 through February 2021 | PNAS Nexus | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
11. Kruschke, J. K. 2011. Doing Bayesian data analysis: a tutorial with R and BUGS. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Section 3.3.5.

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

Note: Reporting of new COVID-19 Case Surveillance data will be discontinued July 1, 2024, to align with the process of removing SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19 cases) from the list of nationally notifiable diseases. Although these data will continue to be publicly available, the dataset will no longer be updated.

Authorizations to collect certain public health data expired at the end of the U.S. public health emergency declaration on May 11, 2023. The following jurisdictions discontinued COVID-19 case notifications to CDC: Iowa (11/8/21), Kansas (5/12/23), Kentucky (1/1/24), Louisiana (10/31/23), New Hampshire (5/23/23), and Oklahoma (5/2/23). Please note that these jurisdictions will not routinely send new case data after the dates indicated. As of 7/13/23, case notifications from Oregon will only include pediatric cases resulting in death.

This case surveillance public use dataset has 12 elements for all COVID-19 cases shared with CDC and includes demographics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors, and no geographic data.

CDC has three COVID-19 case surveillance datasets:

• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data with Geography: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical data (including symptoms), demographics, and county and state of residence. (19 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data: Public use, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data and demographics, with no geographic data. (12 data elements)
• COVID-19 Case Surveillance Restricted Access Detailed Data: Restricted access, patient-level dataset with clinical and symptom data, demographics, and state and county of residence. Access requires a registration process and a data use agreement. (33 data elements)

• Data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.
• Data are considered provisional by CDC and are subject to change until the data are reconciled and verified with the state and territorial data providers.
• Some data cells are suppressed to protect individual privacy.
• The datasets will include all cases with the earliest date available in each record (date received by CDC or date related to illness/specimen collection) at least 14 days prior to the creation of the current datasets. This 14-day lag allows case reporting to be stabilized and ensures that time-dependent outcome data are accurately captured.
• Datasets are updated monthly.
• Datasets are created using CDC’s Policy on Public Health Research and Nonresearch Data Management and Access and include protections designed to protect individual privacy.
• For more information about data collection and reporting, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/about-us-cases-deaths.html.
• For more information about the COVID-19 case surveillance data, please see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/faq-surveillance.html
  

Overview

The COVID-19 case surveillance database includes individual-level data reported to U.S. states and autonomous reporting entities, including New York City and the District of Columbia (D.C.), as well as U.S. territories and affiliates. On April 5, 2020, COVID-19 was added to the Nationally Notifiable Condition List and classified as “immediately notifiable, urgent (within 24 hours)” by a Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) Interim Position Statement (Interim-20-ID-01). CSTE updated the position statement on August 5, 2020, to clarify the interpretation of antigen detection tests and serologic test results within the case classification (Interim-20-ID-02). The statement also recommended that all states and territories enact laws to make COVID-19 reportable in their jurisdiction, and that jurisdictions conducting surveillance should submit case notifications to CDC. COVID-19 case surveillance data are collected by jurisdictions and reported voluntarily to CDC.

For more information: NNDSS Supports the COVID-19 Response | CDC.

The deidentified data in the “COVID-19 Case Surveillance Public Use Data” include demographic characteristics, any exposure history, disease severity indicators and outcomes, clinical data, laboratory diagnostic test results, and presence of any underlying medical conditions and risk behaviors. All data elements can be found on the COVID-19 case report form located at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/pui-form.pdf.

COVID-19 Case Reports

COVID-19 case reports have been routinely submitted using nationally standardized case reporting forms. On April 5, 2020, CSTE released an Interim Position Statement with national surveillance case definitions for COVID-19 included. Current versions of these case definitions are available here: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2021/.

All cases reported on or after were requested to be shared by public health departments to CDC using the standardized case definitions for laboratory-confirmed or probable cases. On May 5, 2020, the standardized case reporting form was revised. Case reporting using this new form is ongoing among U.S. states and territories.

Data are Considered Provisional

• The COVID-19 case surveillance data are dynamic; case reports can be modified at any time by the jurisdictions sharing COVID-19 data with CDC. CDC may update prior cases shared with CDC based on any updated information from jurisdictions. For instance, as new information is gathered about previously reported cases, health departments provide updated data to CDC. As more information and data become available, analyses might find changes in surveillance data and trends during a previously reported time window. Data may also be shared late with CDC due to the volume of COVID-19 cases.
• Annual finalized data: To create the final NNDSS data used in the annual tables, CDC works carefully with the reporting jurisdictions to reconcile the data received during the year until each state or territorial epidemiologist confirms that the data from their area are correct.
• Access Addressing Gaps in Public Health Reporting of Race and Ethnicity for COVID-19, a report from the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, to better understand the challenges in completing race and ethnicity data for COVID-19 and recommendations for improvement.

Data Limitations

To learn more about the limitations in using case surveillance data, visit FAQ: COVID-19 Data and Surveillance.

Data Quality Assurance Procedures

CDC’s Case Surveillance Section routinely performs data quality assurance procedures (i.e., ongoing corrections and logic checks to address data errors). To date, the following data cleaning steps have been implemented:

• Questions that have been left unanswered (blank) on the case report form are reclassified to a Missing value, if applicable to the question. For example, in the question “Was the individual hospitalized?” where the possible answer choices include “Yes,” “No,” or “Unknown,” the blank value is recoded to Missing because the case report form did not include a response to the question.
• Logic checks are performed for date data. If an illogical date has been provided, CDC reviews the data with the reporting jurisdiction. For example, if a symptom onset date in the future is reported to CDC, this value is set to null until the reporting jurisdiction updates the date appropriately.
• Additional data quality processing to recode free text data is ongoing. Data on symptoms, race and ethnicity, and healthcare worker status have been prioritized.

Data Suppression

To prevent release of data that could be used to identify people, data cells are suppressed for low frequency (<5) records and indirect identifiers (e.g., date of first positive specimen). Suppression includes rare combinations of demographic characteristics (sex, age group, race/ethnicity). Suppressed values are re-coded to the NA answer option; records with data suppression are never removed.

For questions, please contact Ask SRRG (eocevent394@cdc.gov).

Additional COVID-19 Data

COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths by state and by county. These

The United States (US) has been among those nations most severely affected by the first—and subsequent—phases of the pandemic of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. With only 4% of the worldwide population, the US has seen about 22% of COVID-19 deaths. Despite formidable advantages in resources and expertise, presently the per capita mortality rate is over 585/million, respectively 2.4 and 5 times higher compared to Canada and Germany. As we enter Fall 2020, the US is enduring ongoing outbreaks across large regions of the country. Moreover, within the US, an early and persistent feature of the pandemic has been the disproportionate impact on populations already made vulnerable by racism and dangerous jobs, inadequate wages, and unaffordable housing, and this is true for both the headline public health threat and the additional disastrous economic impacts. In this article we assess the impact of missteps by the Federal Government in three specific areas: the introduction of the virus to the US and the establishment of community transmission; the lack of national COVID-19 workplace standards and enforcement, and lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for workplaces as represented by complaints to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which we find are correlated with deaths 16 days later (ρ = 0.83); and the total excess deaths in 2020 to date already total more than 230,000, while COVID-19 mortality rates exhibit severe—and rising—inequities in race/ethnicity, including among working age adults.

As of March 10, 2023, the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases was California. Almost 104 million cases have been reported across the United States, with the states of California, Texas, and Florida reporting the highest numbers.

From an epidemic to a pandemic The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The term pandemic refers to multiple outbreaks of an infectious illness threatening multiple parts of the world at the same time. When the transmission is this widespread, it can no longer be traced back to the country where it originated. The number of COVID-19 cases worldwide has now reached over 669 million.

The symptoms and those who are most at risk Most people who contract the virus will suffer only mild symptoms, such as a cough, a cold, or a high temperature. However, in more severe cases, the infection can cause breathing difficulties and even pneumonia. Those at higher risk include older persons and people with pre-existing medical conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. People aged 85 years and older have accounted for around 27 percent of all COVID-19 deaths in the United States, although this age group makes up just two percent of the U.S. population

This Zenodo resource contains the data used to perform analysis in the article "Sex-disaggregated Analysis of Risk Factors of COVID-19 Mortality Rates in India".

Data

The data is organized in the form of tables.

hypothesis-test-data

This table contains data used to perform the two tailed hypothesis test on gender mortality in different regions.

* Region
* Male_Deaths - Number of male COVID-19 deaths in region.  
* Female_Deaths - Number of female COVID-19 deaths in region.  
* Male_cases - Number of male COVID-19 positive in region.
* Female_cases - Number of female COVID-19 positive in region.

lasso-covid19India

This table contains data used for analysis on cases throughout India.

Columns from COVID-19 India data

* State_Code  
* State  
* District  
* Confirmed  
* Active  
* Recovered  
* Deceased

Columns taken from NFHS data

* Sex_ratio_of_the_total_population_females_per_1000_males  
* Women_whose_Body_Mass_Index_BMI_is_below_normal_BMI_185_kgm214_  
* Men_whose_Body_Mass_Index_BMI_is_below_normal_BMI_185_kgm2_  
* Women_who_are_overweight_or_obese_BMI_250_kgm214_  
* Men_who_are_overweight_or_obese_BMI_250_kgm2_  
* All_women_age_1549_years_who_are_anaemic_  
* Men_age_1549_years_who_are_anaemic_130_gdl_  
* Women_Blood_sugar_level_high_140_mgdl_  
* Men_Blood_sugar_level_high_140_mgdl_  
* Women_Very_high_Systolic_180_mm_of_Hg_andor_Diastolic_110_mm_of_Hg_  
* Men_Very_high_Systolic_180_mm_of_Hg_andor_Diastolic_110_mm_of_Hg_

lasso-KA+TN-bulletin

This table contains data used for analysis on the sub-cohort of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

Data from Media Bulletin

* District    
* Total_Positives  
* total_deaths
* male_deaths  
* female_deaths  
* Male_cases_in_data
* Female_cases_in_data

Calculated Data

* Estimated_Male_cases - Estimated male cases using total positives column and existing case data
* Estimated_Female_Cases - Estimated female cases using total positives column and existing case data  
* Male_Mortality - Estimated Male Cases / male_deaths
* Female_Mortality - Estimated Female Cases / female_deaths

Columns taken from NFHS data

* Sex_Ratio_females_every_1000_males
* State  Women_whose_Body_Mass_Index_BMI_is_below_normal_BMI_185_kgm214_  
* Men_whose_Body_Mass_Index_BMI_is_below_normal_BMI_185_kgm2_  
* Women_who_are_overweight_or_obese_BMI_250_kgm214_  
* Men_who_are_overweight_or_obese_BMI_250_kgm2_  
* All_women_age_1549_years_who_are_anaemic_  
* Men_age_1549_years_who_are_anaemic_130_gdl_  
* Women_Blood_sugar_level_high_140_mgdl_  
* Men_Blood_sugar_level_high_140_mgdl_  
* Women_Very_high_Systolic_180_mm_of_Hg_andor_Diastolic_110_mm_of_Hg_  
* Men_Very_high_Systolic_180_mm_of_Hg_andor_Diastolic_110_mm_of_Hg_

Code

The code is available at this Github Repository.

NOTE: This dataset has been retired and marked as historical-only.

Only Chicago residents are included based on the home ZIP Code, as provided by the medical provider, or the address, as provided by the Cook County Medical Examiner.

Cases with a positive molecular (PCR) or antigen test are included in this dataset. Cases are counted on the date the test specimen was collected. Deaths are those occurring among cases based on the day of death. Hospitalizations are based on the date of first hospitalization. Only one hospitalization is counted for each case. Demographic data are based on what is reported by medical providers or collected by CDPH during follow-up investigation.

Because of the nature of data reporting to CDPH, hospitalizations will be blank for recent dates They will fill in on later updates when the data are received, although, as for cases and deaths, may continue to be updated as further data are received.

All data are provisional and subject to change. Information is updated as additional details are received and it is, in fact, very common for recent dates to be incomplete and to be updated as time goes on. At any given time, this dataset reflects data currently known to CDPH.

Numbers in this dataset may differ from other public sources due to definitions of COVID-19-related cases, deaths, and hospitalizations, sources used, how cases, deaths and hospitalizations are associated to a specific date, and similar factors.

Data Source: Illinois National Electronic Disease Surveillance System, Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office

Background and ObjectivesThe official number of daily cases and deaths are the most prominent indicators used to plan actions against the COVID-19 pandemic but are insufficient to see the real impact. Official numbers vary due to testing policy, reporting methods, etc. Therefore, critical interventions are likely to lose their effectiveness and better-standardized indicators like excess deaths/mortality are needed. In this study, excess deaths in Istanbul were examined and a web-based monitor was developed.MethodsDaily all-cause deaths data between January 1, 2015- November 11, 2021 in Istanbul is used to estimate the excess deaths. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, the % increase in the number of deaths was calculated as the ratio of excess deaths to expected deaths (P-Scores). The ratio of excess deaths to official figures (T) was also examined.ResultsThe total number of official and excess deaths in Istanbul are 24.218 and 37.514, respectively. The ratio of excess deaths to official deaths is 1.55. During the first three death waves, maximum P-Scores were 71.8, 129.0, and 116.3% respectively.ConclusionExcess mortality in Istanbul is close to the peak scores in Europe. 38.47% of total excess deaths could be considered as underreported or indirect deaths. To re-optimize the non-pharmaceutical interventions there is a need to monitor the real impact beyond the official figures. In this study, such a monitoring tool was created for Istanbul. The excess deaths are more reliable than official figures and it can be used as a gold standard to estimate the impact more precisely.

Background: This study aims to estimate the total number of infected people, evaluate the effects of NPIs on the healthcare system, and predict the expected number of cases, deaths, hospitalizations due to COVID-19 in Turkey.Methods: This study was carried out according to three dimensions. In the first, the actual number of infected people was estimated. In the second, the expected total numbers of infected people, deaths, hospitalizations have been predicted in the case of no intervention. In the third, the distribution of the expected number of infected people and deaths, and ICU and non-ICU bed needs over time has been predicted via a SEIR-based simulator (TURKSAS) in four scenarios.Results: According to the number of deaths, the estimated number of infected people in Turkey on March 21 was 123,030. In the case of no intervention the expected number of infected people is 72,091,595 and deaths is 445,956, the attack rate is 88.1%, and the mortality ratio is 0.54%. The ICU bed capacity in Turkey is expected to be exceeded by 4.4-fold and non-ICU bed capacity by 3.21-fold. In the second and third scenarios compliance with NPIs makes a difference of 94,303 expected deaths. In both scenarios, the predicted peak value of occupied ICU and non-ICU beds remains below Turkey's capacity.Discussion: Predictions show that around 16 million people can be prevented from being infected and 94,000 deaths can be prevented by full compliance with the measures taken. Modeling epidemics and establishing decision support systems is an important requirement.

Results data for the thesis on estimating the age-, sex-, cause-specific excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong and South Korea.Thesis abstractBackgroundFew studies used a consistent methodology and adjusted for the risk of influenza-like illness (ILI) in historical mortality trends when estimating and comparing the cause-specific excess mortality (EM) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies demonstrated that excess mortality was widely reported from CVD and among the elderly. This study aims to estimate and compare the overall, age-, sex-, and cause-specific excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong (HK) and South Korea (SK) with consideration of the impact of ILI.MethodsIn this population-based study, we first fitted a generalized additive model to the monthly mortality data from Jan 2010 to Dec 2019 in HK and SK before the COVID-19 pandemic. Then we applied the fitted model to estimate the EM from Jan 2020 to Dec 2022. The month index was modelled with a natural cubic spline. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to select the number of knots for the spline and inclusion of covariates such as monthly mean temperature, absolute humidity, ILI consultation rate, and the proxy for flu activity.FindingsFrom 2020 to 2022, the EM in HK was 239.8 (95% CrI: 184.6 to 293.9) per 100,000 population. Excess mortality from respiratory diseases (RD) (ICD-10 code: J00-J99), including COVID-19 deaths coded as J98.8, was 181.3 (95% CrI: 149.9 to 210.4) per 100,000. Except for RD, the majority of the EM in HK was estimated from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) (22.4% of the overall EM), influenza and pneumonia (16.2%), ischemic heart disease (8.9%), ill-defined causes (8.6%) and senility (6.7%). No statistically significant reduced deaths were estimated among other studied causes.From 2020 to 2022, the EM in SK was 204.7 (95% CrI: 161.6 to 247.2) per 100,000 population. Of note, COVID-19 deaths in SK were not included in deaths from RD but were recorded with the codes for emergency use as U07.1 or U07.2. The majority of the EM was estimated from ill-defined causes (32.0% of the overall EM), senility (16.6%), cerebrovascular disease (6.8%) and cardiovascular diseases (6.1%). Statistically significant reduction in mortality with 95 CrI lower than zero was estimated from vascular, other and unspecified dementia (-26.9% of expected deaths), influenza and pneumonia (-20.7%), mental and behavioural disorders (-18.8%) and respiratory diseases (-7.7%).InterpretationExcluding RD in HK which includes COVID-19 deaths, the majority of the EM in HK and SK was from CVD and senility. Mortality from influenza and pneumonia was estimated to have a statistically significant increase in HK but a decrease in SK probability due to different coding practices. HK had a heavier burden of excess mortality in the elderly age group 70-79 years and 80 years or above, while SK had a heavier burden in the age group of 60-69 years. Both HK and SK have a heavier burden of excess mortality from males than females. Better triage systems for identifying high-risk people of the direct or indirect impact of the epidemic are needed to minimize preventable mortality.

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

Rank, number of deaths, percentage of deaths, and age-specific mortality rates for the leading causes of death, by age group and sex, 2000 to most recent year.

This record contains raw data related to article “An individualized algorithm to predict mortality in COVID-19 pneumonia: a machine learning based study"

Abstract:

Introduction: Identifying SARS-CoV-2 patients at higher risk of mortality is crucial in the management of a pandemic. Artificial intelligence techniques allow one to analyze large amounts of data to find hidden patterns. We aimed to develop and validate a mortality score at admission for COVID-19 based on high-level machine learning.

Material and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients between March and December 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A machine learning approach based on vital parameters, laboratory values and demographic features was applied to develop different models. Then, a feature importance analysis was performed to reduce the number of variables included in the model, to develop a risk score with good overall performance, that was finally evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration capabilities. All results underwent cross-validation.

Results: 1,135 consecutive patients (median age 70 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 48 patients were excluded, and the cohort was randomly divided into training (760) and test (327) groups. During hospitalization, 251 (22%) patients died. After feature selection, the best performing classifier was random forest (AUC 0.88 ±0.03). Based on the relative importance of each variable, a pragmatic score was developed, showing good performances (AUC 0.85 ±0.025), and three levels were defined that correlated well with in-hospital mortality.

Conclusions: Machine learning techniques were applied in order to develop an accurate in-hospital mortality risk score for COVID-19 based on ten variables. The application of the proposed score has utility in clinical settings to guide the management and prognostication of COVID-19 patients.

Total number of deaths, patients alive and percentage of total (%) and case fatality rate (%) for women and men in different ethnic groups, type of healthcare provision, presence of comorbidities and travel history.