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.

DESCRIPTION

Johns Hopkins' county-level COVID-19 case and death data, paired with population and rates per 100,000

SUMMARY Updates 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.

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 Embed Code

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 --...

Geostatistics analyzes and predicts the values associated with spatial or spatial-temporal phenomena. It incorporates the spatial (and in some cases temporal) coordinates of the data within the analyses. It is a practical means of describing spatial patterns and interpolating values for locations where samples were not taken (and measures the uncertainty of those values, which is critical to informed decision making). This archive contains results of geostatistical analysis of COVID-19 case counts for all available US counties. Test results were obtained with ArcGIS Pro (ESRI). Sources are state health departments, which are scraped and aggregated by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center and then pre-processed by MappingSupport.com.

This update of the Zenodo dataset (version 6) consists of three compressed archives containing geostatistical analyses of SARS-CoV-2 testing data. This dataset utilizes many of the geostatistical techniques used in previous versions of this Zenodo archive, but has been significantly expanded to include analyses of up-to-date U.S. COVID-19 case data (from March 24th to September 8^th, 2020):

Archive #1: “1.Geostat. Space-Time analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in the US (Mar24-Sept6).zip” – results of a geostatistical analysis of COVID-19 cases incorporating spatially-weighted hotspots that are conserved over one-week timespans. Results are reported starting from when U.S. COVID-19 case data first became available (March 24^th, 2020) for 25 consecutive 1-week intervals (March 24th through to September 6th, 2020). Hotspots, where found, are reported in each individual state, rather than the entire continental United States.

Archive #2: "2.Geostat. Spatial analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in the US (Mar24-Sept8).zip" – the results from geostatistical spatial analyses only of corrected COVID-19 case data for the continental United States, spanning the period from March 24^th through September 8th, 2020. The geostatistical techniques utilized in this archive includes ‘Hot Spot’ analysis and ‘Cluster and Outlier’ analysis.

Archive #3: "3.Kriging and Densification of SARS-CoV-2 in LA and MA.zip" – this dataset provides preliminary kriging and densification analysis of COVID-19 case data for certain dates within the U.S. states of Louisiana and Massachusetts.

These archives consist of map files (as both static images and as animations) and data files (including text files which contain the underlying data of said map files [where applicable]) which were generated when performing the following Geostatistical analyses: Hot Spot analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) [‘Archive #1’: consecutive weeklong Space-Time Hot Spot analysis; ‘Archive #2’: daily Hot Spot Analysis], Cluster and Outlier analysis (Anselin Local Moran's I) [‘Archive #2’], Spatial Autocorrelation (Global Moran's I) [‘Archive #2’], and point-to-point comparisons with Kriging and Densification analysis [‘Archive #3’].

The Word document provided ("Description-of-Archive.Updated-Geostatistical-Analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2 (version 6).docx") details the contents of each file and folder within these three archives and gives general interpretations of these results.

The following report outlines the workflow used to optimize your Find Hot Spots result:Initial Data Assessment.There were 2933 valid input features.There were 3108 valid input aggregation areas.There were 3108 valid input aggregation areas.There were 66 outlier locations; these will not be used to compute the optimal fixed distance band.Incident AggregationAnalysis was based on the number of points in each polygon cell.Analysis was performed on all aggregation areas.The aggregation process resulted in 3108 weighted areas.Incident Count Properties:Min0.0000Max0.0015Mean0.0001Std. Dev.0.0001Scale of AnalysisThe optimal fixed distance band was based on the average distance to 30 nearest neighbors: 150682.0000 Meters.Hot Spot AnalysisThere are 865 output features statistically significant based on a FDR correction for multiple testing and spatial dependence.OutputRed output features represent hot spots where high incident counts cluster.Blue output features represent cold spots where low incident counts cluster.

In summer 2020, SARS-CoV-2 was detected on mink farms in Utah. An interagency One Health response was initiated to assess the extent of the outbreak and included sampling animals from or near affected mink farms and testing them for SARS-CoV-2 and non-SARS coronaviruses. Among the 365 animals sampled, including domestic cats, mink, rodents, raccoons, and skunks, 261 (72%) of the animals harbored at least one coronavirus at the time. Among the samples which could be further characterized, 126 alphacoronaviruses and 88 betacoronaviruses (including 74 detections of SARS-CoV-2) were identified. Moreover, at least 10% (n=27) of the corona-virus-positive animals were found to be co-infected with more than one coronavirus. Our findings indicate an unexpectedly high prevalence of coronavirus among the domestic and wild animals tested on mink farms and raise the possibility that commercial animal husbandry operations could be potential hot spots for future trans-species viral spillover and the emergence of new pandemic coronaviruses. Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationships of the identified coronaviruses from mink and other animals from mink farms in Utah. The four genera of coronaviruses are highlighted in different colors. AlphaCoV, alkphacoronavirus; BetaCoV, betacoronavirus; DeltaCoV, deltacoronaviruses; and GammaCoV, gammacoronavirus. Type species for the currently recognized subgenera are annotated according to the nomenclature scheme used in this manuscript with the addition of the ICTV subgenus. Additional viruses, including the closest GenBank entry as identified by the BLAST tool, were included to help delineate relationship. Red circles are viruses identified in this study. Panel A. Full phylogenetic tree (A full-size image is included in Supplementary Figure 1). Red arrows designate the group of nearly identical Utah mink coronavirus strains collapsed into the colored triangle in Panel B. Table 1. Coronavirus distribution among species tested. The species are listed by their common names; Total, the total number of animals of each species tested; Negative, number of each species with no coronavirus detected among the tissues tested; Positive, number of animals positive for coronavirus in at least one tissue; % Pos, percentage of coronavirus positives in each species. Table 2. Detailed tissue panel tested for SARS-CoV-2. The distribution of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in the first 96 animals is listed. Tissue, tissue or tissue pools received; Total, total number tested in each category; Negative, number of N1 RT-PCR negatives; Posi-tives, number of N1 RT-PCR positives; % Pos, percentage of tissues positive for corona-virus. Table 3. Summary of coronaviruses identified. The distribution of coronaviruses detected and characterized according to their host is listed. Species, common name of animal species tested; AlphaCoV, number of alphacoronaviruses identified; BetaCoV, number of betacoronaviruses identified; Sequenced, number of viruses identified by sequencing, Unchar, number of coronavirus-positive samples not further characterized. Table 4. SARS-CoV-2 coinfections identified in Utah mammals. The individual animals that are both SARS-CoV-2 positive and infected with a second coronavirus are listed. Animal ID, Unique animal identification number; Common name, common name of animal; Scientific name, scientific name of animal; Sex, F, female, M, male. Unk, un-known; Age, A adult, J juvenile, Unk, unknown; SARS-CoV-2, Neg-N1 RT-PCR nega-tive, Pos-N1 RT-PCR positive, Second strain, genus and common name of the coronavirus, Pan-CoV RT-PCR Equivocal, sample is PCR positive but not further characterized. Supplementary Figure 1. Phylogenetic relationships of the identified coronaviruses from mink farms in Utah. The four genera of coronaviruses are highlighted in different colors. AlphaCoV, alkphacoronavirus; BetaCoV, betacoronavirus; DeltaCoV, deltacoronaviruses; and GammaCoV, gammacoronavirus. Type species for the currently recognized subgenera are annotated according to the nomenclature scheme used in this manuscript with the addition of the ICTV subgenus. Additional viruses, including the closest GenBank entry as identified by the BLAST tool were included to help delineate relationship. Red circles are viruses identified in this study. Supplementary Table 1. List of animals and tissues sampled and RT-PCR test results. Animal ID, unique identifier for each animal; Specimen ID, unique identifier for each tissue; Common name, common name of the animal species; Scientific name, scientific name of the animal species, Sex, F-female, M-male, UNK-unknown; Age, J-juvenile, A-adult, UNK-unknown; Tissue, organ or organ pools tested; Tissue study, X denotes the animals and tissues used in the tissue distribution sub-study; N1 PCR, Ct values from the CDC N1 assay; Pan-CoV PCR, Neg, negative, Pos, positive, Equiv, equivocal; * wild mink. Supplementary Table 2. Summary of coronavirus test results. Animal ID, unique identifier for each animal; Common name, common name of the animal species; Scientific name, scientific name of the animal species, Sex, F-female, M-male, UNK-unknown; Age, J-juvenile, A-adult, UNK-unknown; CoV, Neg-negative, Pos-positive on either one or both RT-PCR tests; SARS-CoV-2, animals positive in the CDC N1 test; AlphaCoV, the tissues positive for alphacoronavirus for each animal is listed; BetaCoV, the tissues positive for betacoronavirus for each animal is listed; C-colon, C/R-colon/rectum pool, H-heart, L-lung, L/S-live/spleen pool, S int-small intestine; Co-infections, Y-yes; PCR only, Y-yes; Virus identified by sequencing, brief name of virus identified.

As of March 10, 2023, the state with the highest rate of COVID-19 cases was Rhode Island followed by Alaska. Around 103.9 million cases have been reported across the United States, with the states of California, Texas, and Florida reporting the highest numbers of infections.

From an epidemic to a pandemic The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as 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 is roughly 683 million, and it has affected almost every country in the world.

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. Those aged 85 years and older have accounted for around 27 percent of all COVID deaths in the United States, although this age group makes up just two percent of the total population

Attributes of prospective space-time clusters (hotspots) for COVID-19 from 1/23-5/20/2020 at the county level.

By Kristen Honey, Chief Data Scientist and COVID-19 Diagnostics Informatics Lead, COVID-19 Testing and Diagnostics Working Group (TDWG); Joshua Prasad, Director of Health Equity Innovation, Office of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO), Jack Bastian, Data Engineer, HHS Protect, Office of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO)

Last updated April 6rd, 2020

Context

Guatemala is a small, beautiful country in Central America. Although far away from the hotspot in Wuhan, China, the first coronavirus patient was confirmed on March 13th, 2020. Government response was immediate and strong measures were taken from the beginning, but health infrastructure is not as developed as in Spain, France, Italy or US putting citizens at greater risk. Being aware of the havoc and struggle coronavirus has created around the world, we want to:

• Get descriptive statistics and beatiful visualizations of the coronavirus spread in Guatemala
• Know how Guatemala's corona virus spread relates and compares to other countries that are a) seemingly winning the fight (China, South Korea, Singapore, etc), b) in the rush to 'flatten the curve' (Italy, Spain, France, UK, etc) and c) starting to see the impact (the rest of the world).
• Based on this data, infer information such as estimates of the real number of infections, projections on the infection rate estimates on the age-sex groups that might be affected the most to what level.

Content

At the moment we have collected confirmed patient information including: age, sex, nationality, infection cause, infection date and others. Find an full english description of the data in the file README_en.md, and a spanish description in the file README_es.md (una descripción completa en español en el archivo README_es.md)

We hope to add more data as it becomes available from official sources.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank to all members and volunteers that are taking hours from their busy schedules to put this dataset together.

Banner photo is Semuc Champey, an astonishing natural spot in the northern region of Guatemala. Photo by Christopher Crouzet on Unsplash.

Github Repositories

https://github.com/ncovgt2020/covid19_guatemala

Description: The COVID-19 dataset used for this EDA project encompasses comprehensive data on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and recoveries worldwide. It includes information gathered from authoritative sources such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and national health agencies. The dataset covers global, regional, and national levels, providing a holistic view of the pandemic's impact.

Purpose: This dataset is instrumental in understanding the multifaceted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic through data exploration. It aligns perfectly with the objectives of the EDA project, aiming to unveil insights, patterns, and trends related to COVID-19. Here are the key objectives: 1. Data Collection and Cleaning: • Gather reliable COVID-19 datasets from authoritative sources (such as WHO, CDC, or national health agencies). • Clean and preprocess the data to ensure accuracy and consistency. 2. Descriptive Statistics: • Summarize key statistics: total cases, recoveries, deaths, and testing rates. • Visualize temporal trends using line charts, bar plots, and heat maps. 3. Geospatial Analysis: • Map COVID-19 cases across countries, regions, or cities. • Identify hotspots and variations in infection rates. 4. Demographic Insights: • Explore how age, gender, and pre-existing conditions impact vulnerability. • Investigate disparities in infection rates among different populations. 5. Healthcare System Impact: • Analyze hospitalization rates, ICU occupancy, and healthcare resource allocation. • Assess the strain on medical facilities. 6. Economic and Social Effects: • Investigate the relationship between lockdown measures, economic indicators, and infection rates. • Explore behavioral changes (e.g., mobility patterns, remote work) during the pandemic. 7. Predictive Modeling (Optional): • If data permits, build simple predictive models (e.g., time series forecasting) to estimate future cases.

Data Sources: The primary sources of the COVID-19 dataset include the Johns Hopkins CSSE COVID-19 Data Repository, Google Health’s COVID-19 Open Data, and the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). These sources provide reliable and up-to-date information on COVID-19 cases, deaths, testing rates, and other relevant variables. Additionally, GitHub repositories and platforms like Medium host supplementary datasets and analyses, enriching the available data resources.

Data Format: The dataset is available in various formats, such as CSV and JSON, facilitating easy access and analysis. Before conducting the EDA, the data underwent preprocessing steps to ensure accuracy and consistency. Data cleaning procedures were performed to address missing values, inconsistencies, and outliers, enhancing the quality and reliability of the dataset.

License: The COVID-19 dataset may be subject to specific usage licenses or restrictions imposed by the original data sources. Proper attribution is essential to acknowledge the contributions of the WHO, CDC, national health agencies, and other entities providing the data. Users should adhere to any licensing terms and usage guidelines associated with the dataset.

Attribution: We acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), national health agencies, and other authoritative sources in compiling and disseminating the COVID-19 data used for this EDA project. Their efforts in collecting, curating, and sharing data have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the pandemic and guiding public health responses globally.

Background: Households are hot spots for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 100 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 208 of their household members in North Carolina though October 2020, including 44% who identified as Hispanic or non-White. Households were enrolled a median of 6 days from symptom onset in the index case. Incident secondary cases within the household were detected using quantitative polymerase chain reaction of weekly nasal swabs (days 7, 14, 21) or by seroconversion at day 28. Results: Excluding 73 household contacts who were PCR-positive at baseline, the secondary attack rate (SAR) among household contacts was 32% (33 of 103; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22%-44%). The majority of cases occurred by day 7, with later cases confirmed as household-acquired by viral sequencing. Infected persons in the same household had similar nasopharyngeal viral loads (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.45; 95% CI, .23-.62). Households with secondary transmission had index cases with a median viral load that was 1.4 log10 higher than those without transmission (P = .03), as well as higher living density (more than 3 persons occupying fewer than 6 rooms; odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.02-10.9). Minority households were more likely to experience high living density and had a higher risk of incident infection than did White households (SAR, 51% vs 19%; P = .01). Conclusions: Household crowding in the context of high-inoculum infections may amplify the spread of COVID-19, potentially contributing to disproportionate impact on communities of color.

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in 2019 and has since caused a global pandemic. Since its emergence, COVID-19 has hugely impacted healthcare, including pediatrics. This study aimed to explore the current status and hotspots of pediatric COVID-19 research using bibliometric analysis.MethodsThe Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science core collection database was searched for articles on pediatric COVID-19 to identify original articles that met the criteria. The retrieval period ranged from the creation of the database to September 20, 2021. A total of 3,561 original articles written in English were selected to obtain data, such as author names, titles, source publications, number of citations, author affiliations, and countries where the studies were conducted. Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) was used to create charts related to countries, authors, and institutions. VOSviewer (Center for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden, The Netherlands) was used to create visual network diagrams of keyword, author, and country co-occurrence.ResultsWe screened 3,561 publications with a total citation frequency of 30,528. The United States had the most published articles (1188 articles) and contributed the most with author co-occurrences. The author with the most published articles was Villani from the University of Padua, Italy. He also contributed the most co-authored articles. The most productive institution was Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China. The institution with the most frequently cited published articles was Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. The United States cooperated most with other countries. Research hotspots were divided into two clusters: social research and clinical research. Besides COVID-19 and children, the most frequent keywords were pandemic (251 times), mental health (187 times), health (172 times), impact (148 times), and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) (144 times).ConclusionPediatric COVID-19 has attracted considerable attention worldwide, leading to a considerable number of articles published over the past 2 years. The United States, China, and Italy have leading roles in pediatric COVID-19 research. The new research hotspot is gradually shifting from COVID-19 and its related clinical studies to studies of its psychological and social impacts on children.

IntroductionAs the first bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 and immune responses, this study will provide a comprehensive overview of the latest research advances. We attempt to summarize the scientific productivity and cooperation across countries and institutions using the bibliometric methodology. Meanwhile, using clustering analysis of keywords, we revealed the evolution of research hotspots and predicted future research focuses, thereby providing valuable information for the follow-up studies.MethodsWe selected publications on COVID-19 and immune response using our pre-designed search strategy. Web of Science was applied to screen the eligible publications for subsequent bibliometric analyses. GraphPad Prism 8.0, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were applied to analyze the research trends and compared the contributions of countries, authors, institutions, and journals to the global publications in this field.ResultsWe identified 2,200 publications on COVID-19 and immune response published between December 1, 2019, and April 25, 2022, with a total of 3,154 citations. The United States (611), China (353), and Germany (209) ranked the top three in terms of the number of publications, accounting for 53.3% of the total articles. Among the top 15 institutions publishing articles in this area, four were from France, four were from the United States, and three were from China. The journal Frontiers in Immunology published the most articles (178) related to COVID-19 and immune response. Alessandro Sette (31 publications) from the United States were the most productive and influential scholar in this field, whose publications with the most citation frequency (3,633). Furthermore, the development and evaluation of vaccines might become a hotspot in relevant scope.ConclusionsThe United States makes the most indispensable contribution in this field in terms of publication numbers, total citations, and H-index. Although publications from China also take the lead regarding quality and quantity, their international cooperation and preclinical research need to be further strengthened. Regarding the citation frequency and the total number of published articles, the latest research progress might be tracked in the top-ranking journals in this field. By analyzing the chronological order of the appearance of retrieved keywords, we speculated that vaccine-related research might be the novel focus in this field.