Total test results

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama and Idaho where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which, because of the variation in test reporting methods, is at best an estimate of US viral (PCR) testing. Some states/territories report tests in units of test encounters, some report tests in units of specimens, and some report tests in units of unique people. Moreover, some jurisdictions include antigen tests in their total test counts without reporting a separate total of viral (PCR) tests. Therefore, this value is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Please consult each state or territory’s individual data page to see whether that jurisdiction lumps antigen and PCR tests together and to see what units that jurisdiction uses for test reporting.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.OO

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, America Samoa, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona, Idaho, and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Arizona and South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In South Dakota, where reliable unique people figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, North Dakota, and Rhode Island, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. In Massachusetts, where reliable specimens figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado and Rhode Island, where reliable testing encounters figures are available with a complete time series, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, where reliable testing encounters figures are available, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In Colorado, where reliable testing encounters figures are available, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

At the national level, this metric is a summary statistic which—because it sums figures from states reporting tests in test encounters with those reporting tests in specimens and in people—is an aggregate calculation of heterogeneous figures. Therefore, it should be contextualized as, at best, an estimate of national testing performance.

In most states, the totalTestResults field is currently computed by adding positive and negative values because, historically, some states do not report totals, and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests. In two states where reliable testing encounters figures are available, Colorado and Virginia, we directly report those figures in this field. We are in the process of switching all states over to use directly reported total figures, using a policy of preferring testing encounters, specimens, and people, in that order.

Where possible, we report total tests in units of people tested, rather than units of specimens tested. Currently computed by adding positive and negative values because some states do not report totals and to work around different reporting cadences for cases and tests.

Currently computed by adding positive and negative values to work around reporting lags between positives and total tests and because some states do not report totals.

Currently computed by adding positive and negative values to work around reporting lags between positives and total tests and because some states do not report totals. Deprecated in the API and soon to be replaced on the website as well.