Based on a comparison of coronavirus deaths in 210 countries relative to their population, Peru had the most losses to COVID-19 up until July 13, 2022. As of the same date, the virus had infected over 557.8 million people worldwide, and the number of deaths had totaled more than 6.3 million. Note, however, that COVID-19 test rates can vary per country. Additionally, big differences show up between countries when combining the number of deaths against confirmed COVID-19 cases. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

The difficulties of death figures

This table aims to provide a complete picture on the topic, but it very much relies on data that has become more difficult to compare. As the coronavirus pandemic developed across the world, countries already used different methods to count fatalities, and they sometimes changed them during the course of the pandemic. On April 16, for example, the Chinese city of Wuhan added a 50 percent increase in their death figures to account for community deaths. These deaths occurred outside of hospitals and went unaccounted for so far. The state of New York did something similar two days before, revising their figures with 3,700 new deaths as they started to include “assumed” coronavirus victims. The United Kingdom started counting deaths in care homes and private households on April 29, adjusting their number with about 5,000 new deaths (which were corrected lowered again by the same amount on August 18). This makes an already difficult comparison even more difficult. Belgium, for example, counts suspected coronavirus deaths in their figures, whereas other countries have not done that (yet). This means two things. First, it could have a big impact on both current as well as future figures. On April 16 already, UK health experts stated that if their numbers were corrected for community deaths like in Wuhan, the UK number would change from 205 to “above 300”. This is exactly what happened two weeks later. Second, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly which countries already have “revised” numbers (like Belgium, Wuhan or New York) and which ones do not. One work-around could be to look at (freely accessible) timelines that track the reported daily increase of deaths in certain countries. Several of these are available on our platform, such as for Belgium, Italy and Sweden. A sudden large increase might be an indicator that the domestic sources changed their methodology.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

Context

NSW has been hit by the Omicron variant, with skyrocketing cases. This dataset, updated regularly, details the location of positive cases. A prediction of where the most cases could occur can be derived from this dataset and a potential prediction of how many cases there is likely to be.

Content

notification_date: Text, dates to when the positive case was notified of a positive test result. postcode: Text, lists the postcode of the positive case. lhd_2010_code: Text, the code of the local health district of the positive case. lhd_2010_name: Text, the name of the local health district of the positive case. lga_code19: Text, the code of the local government area of the positive case. lga_name19: Text, the name of the local government area of the positive case.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to NSW Health for providing and updating the dataset.

Inspiration

The location of cases is highly important in NSW. In mid-2021, Western Sydney had the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases with many deaths ensuing. Western Sydney is one of Sydney's most diverse areas, with many vulnerable peoples. The virus spread to western NSW, imposing a risk to the Indigenous communities. With location data, a prediction service can be made to forecast the areas at risk of transmission.

IntroductionWith the economic recession and pandemic fatigue, milder viral variants and higher vaccine coverage along the time lay the basis for lifting anti-COVID policies to restore COVID-19 normalcy. However, when and how to adjust the anti-COVID policies remain under debate in many countries.MethodsIn this study, four countries (Singapore, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand) and one region (Hong Kong SAR), that have shifted from the zero-COVID (ZC) policy to or close to the living-with-COVID (LWC) during or after the Omicron outbreak, were selected as research objects. All-cause mortality data were collected for these objects from 2009 to 2019. The expected mortality was estimated by a simple linear regression method. Excess mortality over time was calculated as the difference between the expected mortality and the observed mortality. Finally, percent excess mortality (PEM) was calculated as the excess mortality divided by the expected mortality.ResultsIn the examined four countries, PEM fluctuated around 0% and was lower than 10% most of the time under the ZC policy before 2022. After shifting to the LWC policy, all the examined countries increased the PEM. Briefly, countries with high population density (Singapore and South Korea) experienced an average PEM of 20–40% during the first half of 2022, and followed by a lower average PEM of 15–18% during the second half of 2022. For countries with low population density under the LWC policy, Australia experienced an average PEM of 39.85% during the first half of 2022, while New Zealand was the only country in our analysis that achieved no more than 10% in average PEM all the time. On the contrary, Hong Kong SAR under their ZC policy attained an average PEM of 71.14% during the first half of 2022, while its average PEM decreased to 9.19% in the second half of 2022 with LWC-like policy.ConclusionPEM under different policies within each country/region overtime demonstrated that the mortality burden caused by COVID-19 had been reduced overtime. Moreover, anti-COVID policies are suggested to control the excess mortality to achieve as low as 10% in PEM.