Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Tracking the Minnesota COVID-19 numbers

By  and

As the Minnesota Department of Health posts updates on coronavirus testing, cases and hospitalizations from the disease, MinnPost will update the charts and maps below with the latest data.

This page was last updated on June 4, 2020 at 11:16 am.

Overall
Confirmed cases:Loading…
Number currently hospitalized:Loading…
Number in intensive care:Loading…
Deaths:Loading…
Total number of tests (approximate):Loading…

Total positive COVID-19 tests (cumulative) in Minnesota by day


New positive COVID-19 tests in Minnesota by day


Number currently hospitalized
Data represents the number hospitalized as of 4 p.m. on the day prior to the date shown.


Deaths per day
Dates are shown for the date the death was announced by the Minnesota Department of Health, which may not be the date the death actually occurred.


Total tested (cumulative) for COVID-19 by day
Note: total tested is approximate. Data from labs other than the MDH Public Health lab is not available prior to March 25.


Positive COVID-19 tests by Minnesota county
Note: This map only represents laboratory-tested positive COVID-19 cases. Due to lack of testing, the true number and spread of cases is likely much greater. Total cases in this map may not equal the total number of positive tests in Minnesota overall.

Comments (48)

  1. Submitted by Michael Hess on 03/18/2020 - 07:46 am.

    Thank you for this clear dashboard of what is going on.

    • Submitted by Ralph Strader on 04/03/2020 - 11:27 am.

      If you hover your mouse above the bars, it displays the numbers each day, then just simple math. (That’s on my PC, not sure what a iPhone or Android would do).

  2. Submitted by Anne Florenzano on 03/18/2020 - 09:56 am.

    Thank you for doing this!

  3. Submitted by Bill Spankerton on 03/18/2020 - 10:08 am.

    This is really useful. I’m guessing the data aren’t available, but it would be great to have an additional chart of Tests Administered per Day to give more context to these numbers.

  4. Submitted by Sean Egan on 03/20/2020 - 02:48 pm.

    There are a lot of different sites displaying data for the world, for the country, for the state. I like the cleanness and simpleness of this site the best. Keep up the great work!

  5. Submitted by Barry Peterson on 03/21/2020 - 03:56 pm.

    I have been sharing word of the MinnPost Coronavirus Update with friends.

  6. Submitted by Wally Norlander on 03/21/2020 - 05:15 pm.

    Thank you, Tom and Greta. Good work!

  7. Submitted by Scott Norris on 03/22/2020 - 05:01 pm.

    With the Mayo lab now on stream and assisting, does the (can the) “total tested” graph include those figures as well?
    Thanks so much for keeping us informed.

  8. Submitted by MATT WODZIAK on 03/23/2020 - 08:54 am.

    Please post the number of new people hospitalized on a daily basis. Given the ever changing protocol for testing that number is fairly irrelevant. The number of hospitalizations is our only concern in this.

    • Submitted by Kurt Christenson on 03/28/2020 - 06:35 pm.

      Good work. As we don’t know what fraction of cases are being caught by testing, it seems like hospitalizations is our best measure of the spread. Only a fraction of cases require hospitalization, but a fairly constant fraction. A graph of current and total hospitalizations would give the clearest picture of the spread.

      • Submitted by A. Merrick on 04/17/2020 - 12:06 pm.

        I agree that hospitalizations are crucial to determining how things are “really” going since the severe limitations on who gets tested is significantly understating those who are ill.

        It also appears that once you are hospitalized, within a week about 40% die. (hypothetically: If 100 people are hospitalized on 4/10, then by 4/17 you can expect 40 to be added to the number of deaths on 4/10.)

  9. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 03/23/2020 - 11:48 am.

    Make an attempt to get and include here all testing done, and all test results. Include all the private lab testing. From the get-go, so there’s a context. Only lazy reporting would not include all tests.

    Otherwise these figures are showing much less covid19 than Minnesota actually has.

    • Submitted by Robert Gauthier on 03/25/2020 - 10:15 am.

      In most states it is estimated that actual infection rates are 20-30 times known test results. Remember, we are not including people who were sent home and told they likely had it, but are not being tested. We actually have WAY more cases than officially recorded.

  10. Submitted by Robert Gauthier on 03/25/2020 - 10:07 am.

    At some point we’re going to need broader population-based testing, which will probably involve blood draws to figure out who is actually exposed. There’s a website called CovidActnow.com That gives projections overtime including hospitalizations, percent of the population infected and deaths. South Korea has done a large population based testing program, which would’ve been nice but given our various government responses was unlikely to impossible.

    For us to get an idea of how widespread this is and to make it accurate projections of what’s going to happen we’re gonna have to know the real numbers instead of projections of who is infected. The above mentioned website says that with nothing or social distancing 70% of the people in MN will be infected, with hospitalization and death numbers very high, depending on isolation strategies. Interestingly enough social distancing does not reduce the number of people infected but it does reduce the number of hospitalizations and deaths dramatically. The peak of this pandemic will hit in early April, so we are just starting.

    Reason for all the government actions Is to mainly protect the hospital and healthcare system from overloading. As an example, if Texas continues its current path, they will see as many as several million hospitalizations and death as high as 600,000. This is getting real serious, don’t let up your guard

  11. Submitted by Kurt Anderson on 03/25/2020 - 07:28 pm.

    Correcting my comment yesterday. I put up daily cumulative data instead of daily new data. Given some spikes in the data, a rolling average of new cases over new tests is probably more informative. Here is the 7-day rolling average, from my massage of Minn. Dept. of Health data, for 7 days ending on each of the following dates. As you can see, there is an upward trend that reflects the anticipated bell curve of this pandemic:

    Date 7-day avg % positive tests

    12-Mar 2.68%
    13-Mar 2.39%
    14-Mar 2.48%
    15-Mar 2.87%
    16-Mar 2.57%
    17-Mar 2.82%
    18-Mar 2.98%
    19-Mar 2.99%
    20-Mar 3.48%
    21-Mar 3.88%
    22-Mar 4.72%
    23-Mar 5.31%
    24-Mar 5.63%
    25-Mar 5.83%

    • Submitted by DD Langer on 03/28/2020 - 09:52 pm.

      You only present a subset of the data. Without the actual data no one else can validate your analysis. I suspect your data is flawed. Anyone can find the public data here (including snapshots from MDH web site):
      https://covidtracking.com/data/state/minnesota/#history

      There are some major disconnects with this data. Apparently prior to 3/23, MDH only reported positive test results from private labs and not negative test results. Amazingly on 3/23 they recorded 66 positives and zero negatives! Starting on 3/25 MDH reported all tests at private labs. As you can see the %pos went back down.

      The bottom line is only one out of every 40 people tested so far in MN is positive. 39 are negative. I do not understand why that justifies a shelter-in-place order. My sibling who is a lawyer and lives in another state told me the order may be required to unlock Federal aid.

      Please explain why your analysis is different than mine. I really would like to understand it.

      MN cumul data
      March #pos #tested %pos
      28 441 16129 2.7%
      27 398 14003 2.8%
      26 346 12950 2.7%
      25 287 11475 2.5%
      24 262 5812 4.5%
      23 235 4746 5.0%
      22 169 4680 3.6%
      21 137 4090 3.3%
      20 115 3856 3.0%
      19 89 3038 2.9%
      18 77 2762 2.8%
      17 60 2336 2.6%
      16 54 1893 2.9%
      15 35 1422 2.5%
      14 21 868 2.4%
      13 14 555 2.5%

      daily data
      March #pos #tested %pos 7 day %pos avg
      28 43 2126 2.0% 2.5%
      27 52 1053 4.9% 2.8%
      26 59 1475 4.0% 2.6%
      25 25 5663 0.4% 2.4%
      24 27 1066 2.5% 5.8%
      23 66 66 100.0% 6.3%
      22 32 590 5.4% 4.1%
      21 22 234 9.4% 3.6%
      20 26 818 3.2% 3.1%
      19 12 276 4.3% 3.0%
      18 17 426 4.0%
      17 6 443 1.4%
      16 19 471 4.0%
      15 14 554 2.5%
      14 7 313 2.2%

      • Submitted by DD Langer on 03/28/2020 - 11:23 pm.

        Oops should be 1 out of 36 (not 40).

        • Submitted by Kurt Anderson on 03/30/2020 - 09:18 pm.

          Thanks. I consider any attempt at a trend line (what’s the current slope of the curve?) to be helpful. I don’t see that much difference in the two lists, and I fully agree that what we have is only a rough indicator. Among other factors, the persons tested are a selected population. Like yourself, I also have had to go back and make some corrections.

          Perhaps these data, as they come in, will give us some confirmation of (or challenges to) the recently released MDH modeling. I also noticed the big uptick in the :”tested” numbers 3/24 and forward and have not had a good explanation of them. But here is my updated chart of the 7-day rolling averages, with that late March bump in full view:

          Date 7-day avg % positive tests
          12-Mar 3.17%
          13-Mar 2.49%
          14-Mar 2.44%
          15-Mar 2.46%
          16-Mar 2.87%
          17-Mar 2.59%
          18-Mar 2.83%
          19-Mar 2.94%
          20-Mar 3.06%
          21-Mar 3.60%
          22-Mar 4.11%
          23-Mar 4.80%
          24-Mar 5.81%
          25-Mar 2.41%
          26-Mar 2.59%
          27-Mar 2.79%
          28-Mar 2.53%
          29-Mar 2.57%
          30-Mar 2.59%

  12. Submitted by Sean Benson on 03/25/2020 - 10:11 pm.

    This is very helpful, especially the number of new cases reported each day.
    At some point, there will be a consistent downward trend on that number, which will be important.

    I watched the Governor’s speech today declaring that we need another two weeks to stay at home. That’s fine, but he mentioned the idea that, over the next 12-18 months, most (40-80%) Minnesotans will get this virus. He has said this before and it’s very confusing to me.

    I have read much about this virus and I have yet to hear any other official say anything remotely like this. If 40% of Minnesotans get this virus in the next 18 months, and 5% of cases require ICU support, that’s 112,000 people (5.6M x .4 x .05) that will need to use the ICU during that time period. We currently have about 250 ICU beds in the state.

    If true, this is a monumental gap and seems way off from what I have read about in other regions. No one in the media seems to be questioning his assertion on this point. Can someone offer some clarity on this?

    • Submitted by Kurt Anderson on 03/26/2020 - 09:17 am.

      I can’t help you any more with the stats; I am an amateur at it and my best offering so far is in my comment above. But note that NY Governor Cuomo has made a similar prediction for the people in his state:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-apex-andrew-cuomo.html

    • Submitted by jim carlen on 03/26/2020 - 11:40 am.

      I think the problem in your chain of assumptions is the 5% needing ICU. Most of the serious hospital stays are old and vulnerable. Yes I understand some young get admitted, but its a much much smaller % and we don’t have much info on their underlying health. We are still working with very small #’s as a % of the data set and extrapolating across the whole population strikes me as poor science at best and sensationalism to justify draconian action at worst. My sense is the 40% number came from CDC talking about what would happen with little mitigating actions. And if its 40% over the next year and a half, and if it goes more into the general healthy population, I take the WAY under on 5% needing hospital stay.

      • Submitted by Sean Benson on 03/26/2020 - 01:20 pm.

        Thanks for the reply. I agree that this is so new and we’re dealing with small sets of data, which makes extrapolation very difficult. It’s almost like expecting the NTSB to determine the cause of a plane crash while the plane is still in the air. The NTSB needs months, and sometimes years, to determine the full picture and I suspect the same thing will be needed here.

    • Submitted by Joanna Plante on 03/26/2020 - 01:24 pm.

      Take you number, 112000 needing hospitalization. Divide by 18 month. Divide again by 30 days/month. You get a little over 20. I know that’s super rough, but that’s not a crazy number. As long as everyone doesn’t end up in the hospital at the same time . . .

    • Submitted by A. Merrick on 04/17/2020 - 12:30 pm.

      Worldwide, the number of people with COVID 19 who are in serious shape runs about 4%, so your 5% may be a bit high, but not greatly so. The current positivity is 20% and, with the exception of NY (which is still increasing, but possibly at a slower rate), COVID 19 is just ramping up in most of the country. It’s not a great stretch to say 40% is possible and even probable.

      The whole point of “flattening the curve”by CPSD (Coronavirus Pandemic Social Distancing) is two-fold: most importantly it slows how fast the virus spreads, so it doesn’t overwhelm (or overwhelm as much) the medical system. You correctly point out that the limited number of ICU cases vs beds is dramatically different. It prevents people from dying solely because they cannot get medical attention.

      In terms of Calculus, flattening the curve keeps the “area” [in this case, deaths] the same under the curve. It will take a longer period of time
      to achieve that same number of deaths.

      The second is that it may reduce the number of deaths. This is both because fewer people may be infected, fewer die as a result of overwhelming the medical system, immunity may be built, a cure and/or vaccine may be developed within that longer timeframe.

      If there really are only 250 ICU beds in MN, we have exceeded 40% of our beds as of today, and Minnesota is only getting started.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg since 2011 on 04/19/2020 - 06:17 am.

        You’ve left out the other reason for flattening the curve (or alternatively, shifting the peak out to a later date, or some combination of the two): The time which is gained by doing so allows for the creation of MORE ICU beds, which is something the Governor and his team have been working on achieving since this all began.

    • Submitted by A. Merrick on 04/17/2020 - 12:32 pm.

      Here is my source for claiming the current positivity is 20%

      https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/04/us-coronavirus-outbreak-out-control-test-positivity-rate/610132/

    • Submitted by Chas Dalseide on 06/03/2020 - 05:39 pm.

      Each of those patients will either recover or die within about 10 days. Thus the 250 beds can handle many more patients. 250 x 18 x 30/10 = 13,500 patients.

  13. Submitted by jim carlen on 03/26/2020 - 11:42 am.

    General comment – hospital stays over time and ICU stays (both for CV patients) would be useful.

  14. Submitted by John Monson on 04/01/2020 - 01:03 pm.

    These are excellent. Any chance we could have a graph of active cases in MN? In other words, confirmed cases minus recoveries? In looking at another MN COVID-19 tracking website, I am finding that the recoveries are keeping pace with new cases, is this correct?

  15. Submitted by Barry Peterson on 04/04/2020 - 04:55 pm.

    All of the above comments are very exciting to read and are keeping me informed. I appreciate the community spirit and lack of rancor that is going into these comments. Everyone, above, appears to have a healthy spirit. While some of the math figures may be wrong, the attempts to understand this concern is very laudable.

    I especially like Sean Benson’s 03/26/2020, 1:20 p.m. analogy. It is pertinent and vivid. Joanna Plante’s brief correction, on 3/26 at 1:27 p.m. was succinct and diplomatic.

    Wonderful teamwork we’re seeing from not only the MinnPost writers but also these very bright and intelligent readers!

  16. Submitted by Richard Adair on 04/07/2020 - 01:23 pm.

    The reason for the very high numbers in some projections is this virus is 1) highly contagious and 2) no one has any immunity because it’s brand new. So it will inexorably spread until enough people develop antibodies to it either from catching the disease or being vaccinated against it roughly a year from now.

    In technical terms, it will spread until each case infects less than one other person (R naught < 1). Then it will die out. Social distancing can artificially create this scenario, but will have to be maintained until enough people (probably more than half of the population) have antibodies. That could take a long time. So the current slow-down in cases doesn't mean that we have this under control, just that people are staying home.

    A helpful development is the new blood test to see who has antibodies. This number could be quite high it seems many cases are asymptomatic. These folks can then safely re enter social and economic life.

  17. Submitted by Jennifer Wandersee on 04/08/2020 - 08:15 pm.

    Thanks for the updates. I believe the state color-coded map isn’t entirely accurate, however. I know there are at least several cases in Brown County, though it is shown as having 0 cases. This might have to do with the fact that those from Brown Cty. with COVID-19 are being treated in Mankato and perhaps elsewhere outside of Brown Cty.

  18. Submitted by Charles Prescott on 04/11/2020 - 09:45 am.

    It looks like we’re giving about 1500 tests per day and, and while the number of positive results is still growing, it is still less than 100 per day. I was under the understanding that they’ve only been testing people that are seriously ill. If that is the case, how can the positive rate be significantly below 10%? Do we know what the people are testing negative actually have that looks enough like Covid19 to test for it? Or are they testing more people that are asymptomatic at this point? Is there something else that I’m missing? Curious to hear thoughts from others.

  19. Submitted by A. Merrick on 04/17/2020 - 12:39 pm.

    I want to say a huge thank you to MinnPost, Ms. Kaul and Mr. Nuhil for providing and keeping this information up to date. It is extremely helpful to see the actual, factual trends to help offset the emotional panic.

    I am wondering if it is possible to get information about those on ventilators? I love that you distinguish between currently hospitalized and ICU. Adding ventilator info might allow for more precision… if not available, you are already doing an amazing job, and kudos for being a reliable news source.

  20. Submitted by Jon Erickson on 04/26/2020 - 02:38 pm.

    Thanks for these graphs. It would be great to see this data (cases, new cases, deaths) broken out by age group if possible. Not sure if this data is available anywhere? Or even better…broken out by whether it was from a nursing home or not.

  21. Submitted by Adam Nicolai on 04/27/2020 - 03:13 pm.

    Thank you so much for this. I check it daily.

  22. Submitted by Fred Meister on 05/15/2020 - 12:09 pm.

    MinnPost has the best tracking graphs/charts. Thank You!!!!!!!!

  23. Submitted by Rick Freeman on 05/18/2020 - 06:00 pm.

    I see a lot of people saying that they think the increases in cases isn’t “real” because it’s reflective of more testing being done. I think this is an example of people looking for reasons to support their biases. The fact is, no one gets tested today that isn’t exhibiting some distress, or symptomatic complaint. They aren’t testing people for Covid outside Walmart randomly, or testing them because they come into the doctor with a sprained ankle. It is what it is, and to try to discredit the numbers through such justifications is not being realistic.

    • Submitted by Bradley Stenson on 05/20/2020 - 10:19 pm.

      They actually do test people who are asymptomatic. I manage a school building that is used for kids with parents who have critical jobs. We have had covid case in our building and was able to get people tested who were around the confirmed case when she was in the building last. Multiple people got tested and all were asymptomatic. I also have a niece who lives assisted living worker who was positive and did not get a test. Its not consistent. I am more concerned that all confirmed cases are being reported as a likely extreme case ad nauseam and anyone in public with covid is like a grenade with the pin pulled. They are to people who are most at risk. The elderly and those with comorbidities (two or more underlying conditions). NY has great data reporting and of the 20,000 deaths 90% had two or more underlying conditions. In MN no one under 30 has died and something like 85% of the deaths were people over 60. How many of those had underlying conditions like diabetes and hypertension which are two of the highest conditions. I want people to process this data. I also have a friend whose wife had a baby and his wife gave birth and she tested positive for covid at hospital. Babies almost never die of covid and have not in MN. In other states ones that have carry underlying conditions. This is rambling but I hope you see my point. Cases are real but what is going to happen to those cases? Looking at the data we have a good idea but you wouldnt get that listening to media and politicians. I dont think ANY of them know what the deep data actually says.

  24. Submitted by Michael Keigan on 05/24/2020 - 01:13 pm.

    Hi,. The chart that shows the total number of positives to date is misleading. Of course that number keeps going up and the slope of the chart continues to be fairly steep. You really need to revise the chart – possibly adding into the graph the number of total people tested.
    See, over the last two months those of us who have been following and closely tracking the numbers realize that the infection rate is about 10%. Of that 10%, about 13% of those people end up having to be hospitalized. That is what the numbers show now and it has been what the numbers have shown since the end of March.
    There are about 5.7 million people who live in this state, if we know that the infection rate is 10%, then the total number of infections chart will simply continue to sky rocket with each new day’s test results until the time comes that we have tested every last person in the state. Then the total on the chart will sit somewhere around 570,000. Which the way things are going now, will be around 2025.
    The way the chart is situated now, it is simply reactionary. Some one looks at it, sees the total number, sees how steep the graph is and then thinks to themselves -“My God, this is totally out of control”. But, in you add more context by adding the total number of tests having been done, then the person sees that there are just over 20,000 positive tests out of 197,000 tests being done. Most people would then be able to make the simple calculation that this is just over 10 percent.

  25. Submitted by Jonathan Lord on 05/26/2020 - 01:11 pm.

    Or… could we see a graph of estimated active cases on any given day? We might have a better fight of flight response if we could see that there are recoveries happening as well as deaths.

Leave a Reply