The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last recorded at 4.50 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Fed Funds Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Historical dataset of the daily level of the federal funds rate back to 1954. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions (banks and credit unions) lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets eight times a year to determine the federal funds target rate.

Abstract

The Survey on Interest Rate Controls 2020 was conducted as a World Bank Group study on interest rate controls (IRCs) in lending and deposit markets around the world. The study aims to identify the different types of formal (or de jure) controls, the countries that apply then, how they implement them, and the reasons for doing so. The objective of the study is to advance knowledge on this topic by providing an evidence base for investigating the impact of IRCs on economic outcomes.

The survey investigates present IRCs in each surveyed country, the reasons why they have been applied, the framework and resources associated with their application and the details as to their level and functioning. The focus is on legal forms of control (i.e. codified into law) as opposed to de facto controls. The new database on interest rate controls, a popular form of financial repression is based on a survey of 108 countries, representing 88 percent of global gross domestic product. The interest rate controls presented in this dataset were in effect in 2019.

Geographic coverage

Global Survey, covering 108 countries, representing 88 percent of global GDP.

Analysis unit

Regulation at the national level.

Universe

Banking supervisors and Local Banking Associations.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Research instrument

Bank supervisors and banking associations were provided with a standard excel file with five parts. The survey was structured in five parts, each placed in a different excel sheet. Part A: Introduction. Countries with no IRCs in place were asked to only answer this sheet and leave the rest blank. Part B: Presented the definitions of controls, institutions, products and additional aspects that will be covered in the survey. Part C: Introduced a set of qualitative questions to describe the IRCs in place. Part D: Displayed a set of tables to quantitatively describe the IRCs in place. Part E: Laid out the final set of questions, covering sanctions and control mechanisms that support the IRCs' enforcement. The questionnaire is provided in the Documentation section in pdf and excel.

Fixed 30-year mortgage rates in the United States averaged 6.71 percent in the week ending March 21 of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States MBA 30-Yr Mortgage Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Household Saving Rate in the United States increased to 4.60 percent in January from 3.50 percent in December of 2024. This dataset provides - United States Personal Savings Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The U.S. Geological Survey has been forecasting sea-level rise impacts on the landscape to evaluate where coastal land will be available for future use. The purpose of this project is to develop a spatially explicit, probabilistic model of coastal response for the Northeastern U.S. to a variety of sea-level scenarios that take into account the variable nature of the coast and provides outputs at spatial and temporal scales suitable for decision support. Model results provide predictions of adjusted land elevation ranges (AE) with respect to forecast sea-levels, a likelihood estimate of this outcome (PAE), and a probability of coastal response (CR) characterized as either static or dynamic. The predictions span the coastal zone vertically from -12 meters (m) to 10 m above mean high water (MHW). Results are produced at a horizontal resolution of 30 meters for four decades (the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s and 2080s). Adjusted elevations and their respective probabilities are generated using regional geospatial datasets of current sea-level forecasts, vertical land movement rates, and current elevation data. Coastal response type predictions incorporate adjusted elevation predictions with land cover data and expert knowledge to determine the likelihood that an area will be able to accommodate or adapt to water level increases and maintain its initial land class state or transition to a new non-submerged state (dynamic) or become submerged (static). Intended users of these data include scientific researchers, coastal planners, and natural resource management communities.

These GIS layers provide the probability of observing the forecast of adjusted land elevation (PAE) with respect to predicted sea-level rise or the Northeastern U.S. for the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s and 2080s. These data are based on the following inputs: sea-level rise, vertical land movement rates due to glacial isostatic adjustment and elevation data. The output displays the highest probability among the five adjusted elevation ranges (-12 to -1, -1 to 0, 0 to 1, 1 to 5, and 5 to 10 m) to be observed for the forecast year as defined by a probabilistic framework (a Bayesian network), and should be used concurrently with the adjusted land elevation prediction layer (PAE), also available from http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/coastal_response/, which provides users with the likelihood of elevation range occurring when compared with the four other elevation ranges. These data layers primarily show the distribution of adjusted elevation range probabilities over a large spatial scale and should therefore be used qualitatively.

Actions of Public Health France

Public Health France’s mission is to improve and protect the health of populations. During the health crisis linked to the COVID-19 outbreak, Santé publique France is responsible for monitoring and understanding the dynamics of the epidemic, anticipating the various scenarios and putting in place actions to prevent and limit the transmission of this virus on national territory.

The Tracking Information System (SI-DEP)

The new screening information system (SI-DEP), which has been in operation since 13 May 2020, is a secure platform where the results of the laboratory tests carried out by all city and hospital laboratories for SARS-COV2 are systematically recorded.

The creation of this information system is authorised for a period of 6 months from the end of the state of health emergency by application of Decree No 2020-551 of 12 May 2020 on the information systems referred to in Article 11 of Law No 2020-546 of 11 May 2020 extending the state of health emergency and supplementing its provisions.

Description of data

This dataset provides information at the departmental and regional level: — the daily and weekly incidence rate per age group; — the daily and weekly standardised incidence rate; — the sliding standardised incidence rate.

This dataset provides information at the national level: — the daily and weekly incidence rate by age group and sex; — the daily and weekly standardised incidence rate; — the sliding standardised incidence rate.

The incidence rate corresponds to the number of positive tests per 100,000 inhabitants. It shall be calculated as follows: (100000 * number of positive cases)/Population

Accuracy: — From 29/08 onwards, laboratory data indicators (SI-DEP) show rates of incidence, positivity and screening adjusted for screenings conducted at airports upon arrival of international flights. — For more information, see the methodological note available in the resources. Limits: — Only the biological tests of persons for whom the residence department could be located are shown on the maps. Persons whose department could not be traced in the SIDEP data are counted only at the whole French level. As a result, the sum of the tests indicated in the departments or regions is less than the number of tests indicated in France. — The time limit for repeating tests may exceed 9 days in some cases. The indicators are adjusted daily according to the receipt of the results.

Notable changes

Since 8 December, after verifying the quality of the reported data, all results of RT-PCR or Antigenic tests have been included in the production of national and territorial epidemiological indicators (incidence rates, positivity rates and screening rates) relevant to the monitoring of the COVID-19 outbreak. On the other hand, the epidemic is prolonging in time and screening capacities have increased, leading to an increasing frequency of people tested several times. Thus, an adjustment of the methods of splitting for patients benefiting from repeated tests and therefore the definition of the persons tested was necessary. Public Health France, in its patient-centred epidemiological approach, has therefore adapted its methods to ensure that these indicators reflect, in particular, the proportion of infected people among the population tested. These developments have no impact on the trends and interpretation of the dynamics of the epidemic, which remain the same. More precise test data (impact and positivity) are also published by Santé publique France (SI-DEP 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

DPH note about change from 7-day to 14-day metrics: As of 10/15/2020, this dataset is no longer being updated. Starting on 10/15/2020, these metrics will be calculated using a 14-day average rather than a 7-day average. The new dataset using 14-day averages can be accessed here: https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-case-rate-per-100-000-population-and-perc/hree-nys2 As you know, we are learning more about COVID-19 all the time, including the best ways to measure COVID-19 activity in our communities. CT DPH has decided to shift to 14-day rates because these are more stable, particularly at the town level, as compared to 7-day rates. In addition, since the school indicators were initially published by DPH last summer, CDC has recommended 14-day rates and other states (e.g., Massachusetts) have started to implement 14-day metrics for monitoring COVID transmission as well. With respect to geography, we also have learned that many people are looking at the town-level data to inform decision making, despite emphasis on the county-level metrics in the published addenda. This is understandable as there has been variation within counties in COVID-19 activity (for example, rates that are higher in one town than in most other towns in the county). This dataset includes a weekly count and weekly rate per 100,000 population for COVID-19 cases, a weekly count of COVID-19 PCR diagnostic tests, and a weekly percent positivity rate for tests among people living in community settings. Dates are based on date of specimen collection (cases and positivity). A person is considered a new case only upon their first COVID-19 testing result because a case is defined as an instance or bout of illness. If they are tested again subsequently and are still positive, it still counts toward the test positivity metric but they are not considered another case. These case and test counts do not include cases or tests among people residing in congregate settings, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, or correctional facilities. These data are updated weekly; the previous week period for each dataset is the previous Sunday-Saturday, known as an MMWR week (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/document/MMWR_week_overview.pdf). The date listed is the date the dataset was last updated and corresponds to a reporting period of the previous MMWR week. For instance, the data for 8/20/2020 corresponds to a reporting period of 8/9/2020-8/15/2020. Notes: 9/25/2020: Data for Mansfield and Middletown for the week of Sept 13-19 were unavailable at the time of reporting due to delays in lab reporting.

The total amount of data created, captured, copied, and consumed globally is forecast to increase rapidly, reaching 149 zettabytes in 2024. Over the next five years up to 2028, global data creation is projected to grow to more than 394 zettabytes. In 2020, the amount of data created and replicated reached a new high. The growth was higher than previously expected, caused by the increased demand due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as more people worked and learned from home and used home entertainment options more often. Storage capacity also growing Only a small percentage of this newly created data is kept though, as just two percent of the data produced and consumed in 2020 was saved and retained into 2021. In line with the strong growth of the data volume, the installed base of storage capacity is forecast to increase, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 19.2 percent over the forecast period from 2020 to 2025. In 2020, the installed base of storage capacity reached 6.7 zettabytes.

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 to verify the data submitted, as other data systems are not providing alerts for substantial increases in disease transmission or severity in the state.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for McCracken County, KY for the week of May 5, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. McCracken County, KY should have appeared in the low community level category during the week of May 5, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for several Florida counties for the week of May 19th, 2022, have been corrected for a data processing error. Of note, Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach Counties should have appeared in the high CCL category, and Osceola County should have appeared in the medium CCL category. These corrections are reflected in this update.

May 26, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Orange County, New York for the week of May 26, 2022 displayed an erroneous case rate of zero and a CCL category of low due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the medium CCL category.

June 2, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a data processing error. Tolland County, CT should have appeared in the medium community level category during the week of May 26, 2022. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Tolland County, CT for the week of May 26, 2022 have been updated to correct a misspelling. The medium community level category for Tolland County, CT on the week of May 26, 2022 was misspelled as “meduim” in the data set. This correction is reflected in this update.

June 9, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Mississippi counties for the week of June 9, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change over the Memorial Day holiday that resulted in artificially inflated case rates in the state.

July 7, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Rock County, Minnesota for the week of July 7, 2022 displayed an artificially low case rate and CCL category due to a data source error. This county should have appeared in the high CCL category.

July 14, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Massachusetts counties for the week of July 14, 2022 should be interpreted with caution due to a reporting cadence change that resulted in lower than expected case rates and CCL categories in the state.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for all Montana counties for the week of July 21, 2022 had case rates of 0 due to a reporting issue. The case rates have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released for Alaska for all weeks prior to July 21, 2022 included non-resident cases. The case rates for the time series have been corrected in this update.

July 28, 2022: A laboratory in Nevada reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate will be inflated in Clark County, NV for the week of July 28, 2022.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data was updated on August 2, 2022 in error during performance testing. Data for the week of July 28, 2022 was changed during this update due to additional case and hospital data as a result of late reporting between July 28, 2022 and August 2, 2022. Since the purpose of this data set is to provide point-in-time views of COVID-19 Community Levels on Thursdays, any changes made to the data set during the August 2, 2022 update have been reverted in this update.

August 4, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of July 28, 2022 for 8 counties in Utah (Beaver County, Daggett County, Duchesne County, Garfield County, Iron County, Kane County, Uintah County, and Washington County) case data was missing due to data collection issues. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 4, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for all Alabama counties will be lower than expected. As a result, the CCL levels published on August 4, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 11, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 4, 2022 for South Carolina have been updated to correct a data collection error that resulted in incorrect case data. CDC and its partners have resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 18, 2022: COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data for the week of August 11, 2022 for Connecticut have been updated to correct a data ingestion error that inflated the CT case rates. CDC, in collaboration with CT, has resolved the issue and the correction is reflected in this update.

August 25, 2022: A laboratory in Tennessee reported a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases. As a result, the 7-day case count and rate may be inflated in many counties and the CCLs published on August 25, 2022 should be interpreted with caution.

August 25, 2022: Due to a data source error, the 7-day case rate for St. Louis County, Missouri, is reported as zero in the COVID-19 Community Level data released on August 25, 2022. Therefore, the COVID-19 Community Level for this county should be interpreted with caution.

September 1, 2022: Due to a reporting issue, case rates for all Nebraska counties will include 6 days of data instead of 7 days in the COVID-19 Community Level (CCL) data released on September 1, 2022. Therefore, the CCLs for all Nebraska counties should be interpreted with caution.

September 8, 2022: Due to a data processing error, the case rate for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,

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.

Weekly COVID-19 Community Levels (CCLs) have been replaced with levels of COVID-19 hospital admission rates (low, medium, or high) which demonstrate >99% concordance by county during February 2022–March 2023. For more information on the latest COVID-19 status levels in your area and hospital admission rates, visit United States COVID-19 Hospitalizations, Deaths, and Emergency Visits by Geographic Area.

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

This archived public use dataset contains weekly community transmission levels data for all available counties and jurisdictions since October 20, 2022. The dataset was appended to contain the most recent week's data as originally posted on COVID Data Tracker. Historical corrections are not made to these data if new case or testing information become available. A separate archived file is made available here (: Weekly COVID-19 County Level of Community Transmission Historical Changes) if historically updated data are desired.

Related data CDC provides the public with two active versions of COVID-19 county-level community transmission level data: this dataset with the levels as originally posted (Weekly Originally Posted dataset), updated weekly with the most recent week’s data since October 20, 2022, and a historical dataset with the county-level transmission data from January 22, 2020 (Weekly 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

The Current Population Survey Civic Engagement and Volunteering (CEV) Supplement is the most robust longitudinal survey about volunteerism and other forms of civic engagement in the United States. Produced by AmeriCorps in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau, the CEV takes the pulse of our nation’s civic health every two years. The CEV can support evidence-based decision making and efforts to understand how people make a difference in communities across the country. The findings on this page are based on data collected in September of 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023. All figures are weighted to account for the random selection of eligible respondents and missing data due to nonresponse. They reflect state-level rates of 17 measures of civic engagement. Please see column descriptions for details. A spreadsheet with all of these figures is provided as an attachment along with additional resources about the CEV data. Click on "Show More" to view and download. To explore CEV findings in an interactive dashboard, please see https://data.americorps.gov/stories/s/AmeriCorps-Civic-Engagement-and-Volunteering-CEV-D/62w6-z7xa For the full CEV datasets, please see https://data.americorps.gov/browse?q=cev&sortBy=last_modified&utf8=%E2%9C%93

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Red Level population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Red Level across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Red Level was 434, a 0.70% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Red Level population was 431, an increase of 0.47% compared to a population of 429 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Red Level decreased by 111. In this period, the peak population was 545 in the year 2000. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Red Level is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Red Level population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Red Level Population by Year. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the data for the Green Level, NC population pyramid, which represents the Green Level population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.

Key observations

• Youth dependency ratio, which is the number of children aged 0-14 per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Green Level, NC, is 39.2.
• Old-age dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons aged 15-64, for Green Level, NC, is 28.9.
• Total dependency ratio for Green Level, NC is 68.0.
• Potential support ratio, which is the number of youth (working age population) per elderly, for Green Level, NC is 3.5.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the Green Level population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the Green Level for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the Green Level for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Total Population: The total population of the Green Level for the selected age group is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Green Level Population by Age. You can refer the same here

The benchmark interest rate in Sweden was last recorded at 2.25 percent. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - Sweden Interest Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

Inflation Rate in the United States decreased to 2.80 percent in February from 3 percent in January of 2025. This dataset provides - United States Inflation Rate - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Products from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project (NNRP or R1) are archived in this dataset. The resolution of the global Reanalysis Model is T62 (209 km) with 28 vertical sigma levels. Results are available at 6 hour intervals. Although the initial plan is to reanalyze the data for a 40-year period (1957-1996), production has gone back to 1948 and going forward continuously. Future plans call for rerunning the entire period as next generation models are ready.

There are over 80 different variables, (including geopotential height, temperature, relative humidity, u- and v- wind components, etc.) in several different coordinate systems, such as 17 pressure level stack on 2.5 by 2.5 degree grids, 28 sigma level stack on 192 by 94 Gaussian grids, and 11 isentropic level stack on 2.5 by 2.5 degree grid. They are organized as different subgroups in the archive. In addition to analyses, diagnostic terms (for example: radiative heating, convective heating) and accumulative variables (like precipitation rate) are present. The input observations are archived with quality and usage flags in WMO BUFR format. Most of the project outputs are stored in WMO GRIB format. Other files, such as restart files and zonal statistics, are saved in IEEE format.

Some special periods are analyzed more than once to provide data for special research studies. For example, a special run of 1979 was made excluding most satellite inputs. This run could be used for evaluating the impact of satellite data on the analysis. During the TOGA COARE experiment period, special runs of reanalysis model without experimental data are archived under the TOGA COARE directory.

For details and problems, see NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis TOGA COARE [https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.0/inventories/TOGA-COARE/]. Monthly means are on line at ds090.2 [https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.2/]. The R1 forecasts are in ds090.1 [https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds090.1/] dataset.

What Makes Our Data Unique?

Autoscraping’s Mexico Real Estate Listings Data is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking in-depth, reliable, and up-to-date information on the Mexican property market. What sets this dataset apart is its breadth and depth, covering over 150,000 property listings from four of the most reputable real estate platforms in Mexico: Propiedades.com, Lamudi, ValoresAMPI, REMAX, and Century21. These platforms are trusted sources of real estate data, ensuring that our dataset is both comprehensive and of the highest quality.

Our data is distinguished by its extensive detail and accuracy. Each listing includes a wide range of attributes, such as property type, location (including geolocation data with latitude and longitude), pricing, surface area (built and terrain), number of bedrooms and bathrooms, amenities (such as balconies, swimming pools, parking spaces), and much more. The data is continually updated to reflect the latest market conditions, including price changes and property status updates.

Additionally, our dataset captures rich metadata from each listing, including the seller’s information (contact details like phone numbers and emails), publication dates, and URLs linking back to the original listings. This level of detail makes our dataset a powerful tool for conducting granular analysis and making informed decisions.

How is the Data Generally Sourced?

The data is sourced from four of Mexico’s leading real estate platforms: Propiedades.com, Lamudi, ValoresAMPI, REMAX, and Century21. Our robust web scraping technology is designed to extract every relevant detail from these platforms efficiently and accurately. We employ advanced scraping techniques that allow us to capture comprehensive data across all major property types, including residential, commercial, and land listings.

The scraping process is automated and conducted at regular intervals to ensure that the data remains current and reflects real-time changes in the market. Each listing undergoes rigorous data cleaning and validation processes to remove duplicates, correct inconsistencies, and ensure the highest possible data quality. The result is a dataset that users can trust to be accurate, up-to-date, and reflective of the actual market conditions.

Primary Use-Cases and Verticals

This Mexico Real Estate Listings Data Product serves a wide range of use cases across various verticals, making it a versatile resource for professionals in different fields:

Real Estate Investment and Analysis: Investors and analysts can use this dataset to identify profitable investment opportunities by analyzing property prices, market trends, and location-based attributes. The detailed metadata, combined with historical pricing information and geolocation data, provides a solid foundation for making informed investment decisions.

Market Research and Trends Analysis: Researchers and market analysts can leverage this data to track and analyze real estate trends across Mexico. The dataset’s comprehensive coverage allows for detailed segmentation by property type, location, price range, and more, enabling users to gain deep insights into market dynamics and consumer behavior.

Urban Planning and Development: Government bodies, urban planners, and developers can utilize this dataset to assess the current state of the real estate market in various regions of Mexico. The geolocation data is particularly valuable for spatial analysis, helping planners understand urban sprawl, housing density, and infrastructure needs.

Real Estate Marketing and Lead Generation: Real estate agencies, marketers, and brokers can use this data to generate leads and tailor their marketing strategies. The inclusion of contact details, such as phone numbers and emails, makes it easier for these professionals to connect with potential buyers and sellers directly, enhancing their ability to close deals.

Location-Based Services and Applications: Companies that offer location-based services or applications can integrate this data to provide users with precise and relevant property information. The high-precision geolocation data allows for accurate mapping and location analysis, adding significant value to location-based tools and platforms.

How Does This Data Product Fit into Our Broader Data Offering?

AUTOScraping’s Mexico Real Estate Listings Data is a key component of our extensive data offering, which spans multiple industries and geographies. This dataset complements our broader portfolio of real estate data products, including those covering the U.S., Europe, and other Latin American countries. By integrating this dataset with our other offerings, users can gain a comprehensive understanding of the global real estate market, allowing for cross-regional comparisons and insights.

In addition to real estate, our broader data offering includes datasets for financial services, consumer behavior, geospatial analysis, an...

description: The U.S. Geological Survey has been forecasting sea-level rise impacts on the landscape to evaluate where coastal land will be available for future use. The purpose of this project is to develop a spatially explicit, probabilistic model of coastal response for the Northeastern U.S. to a variety of sea-level scenarios that take into account the variable nature of the coast and provides outputs at spatial and temporal scales suitable for decision support. Model results provide predictions of adjusted land elevation ranges (AE) with respect to forecast sea-levels, a likelihood estimate of this outcome (PAE), and a probability of coastal response (CR) characterized as either static or dynamic. The predictions span the coastal zone vertically from -12 meters (m) to 10 m above mean high water (MHW). Results are produced at a horizontal resolution of 30 meters for four decades (the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s and 2080s). Adjusted elevations and their respective probabilities are generated using regional geospatial datasets of current sea-level forecasts, vertical land movement rates, and current elevation data. Coastal response type predictions incorporate adjusted elevation predictions with land cover data and expert knowledge to determine the likelihood that an area will be able to accommodate or adapt to water level increases and maintain its initial land class state or transition to a new non-submerged state (dynamic) or become submerged (static). Intended users of these data include scientific researchers, coastal planners, and natural resource management communities.; abstract: The U.S. Geological Survey has been forecasting sea-level rise impacts on the landscape to evaluate where coastal land will be available for future use. The purpose of this project is to develop a spatially explicit, probabilistic model of coastal response for the Northeastern U.S. to a variety of sea-level scenarios that take into account the variable nature of the coast and provides outputs at spatial and temporal scales suitable for decision support. Model results provide predictions of adjusted land elevation ranges (AE) with respect to forecast sea-levels, a likelihood estimate of this outcome (PAE), and a probability of coastal response (CR) characterized as either static or dynamic. The predictions span the coastal zone vertically from -12 meters (m) to 10 m above mean high water (MHW). Results are produced at a horizontal resolution of 30 meters for four decades (the 2020s, 2030s, 2050s and 2080s). Adjusted elevations and their respective probabilities are generated using regional geospatial datasets of current sea-level forecasts, vertical land movement rates, and current elevation data. Coastal response type predictions incorporate adjusted elevation predictions with land cover data and expert knowledge to determine the likelihood that an area will be able to accommodate or adapt to water level increases and maintain its initial land class state or transition to a new non-submerged state (dynamic) or become submerged (static). Intended users of these data include scientific researchers, coastal planners, and natural resource management communities.