As of August 22, 2022, over 80 percent of adults in Western Australia had been vaccinated with three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. In comparison, less than 60 percent of Queensland population aged 16 years and over and received three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The number of COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people in Australia rose to 243 as of Oct 27 2023. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for Australia Coronavirus Vaccination Rate.

In 2021, a survey conducted in Australia about COVID-19 vaccinations reported that about ** percent of respondents in Australia who took part in the survey were hesitant on taking the vaccine because they worried about the side effects of the vaccines or thought the vaccines were unsafe. That same year, about ** percent of respondents in Australia said they were not willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

IntroductionAchieving high COVID-19 vaccine booster coverage is an ongoing global challenge. Health authorities need evidence about effective communication interventions to improve acceptance and uptake. This study aimed to test effects of persuasive messages about COVID-19 vaccine booster doses on intention to vaccinate amongst eligible adults in Australia.MethodsIn this online randomised controlled trial, adult participants received one of four intervention messages or a control message. The control message provided information about booster dose eligibility. Intervention messages added to the control message, each using a different persuasive strategy, including: emphasising personal health benefits of booster doses, community health benefits, non-health benefits, and personal agency in choosing vaccination. After the intervention, participants answered items about COVID-19 booster vaccine intention and beliefs. Intervention groups were compared to the control using tests of two proportions; differences of ≥5 percentage points were deemed clinically significant. A sub-group analysis was conducted among hesitant participants.ResultsOf the 487 consenting and randomised participants, 442 (90.8%) completed the experiment and were included in the analysis. Participants viewing messages emphasising non-health benefits had the highest intention compared to those who viewed the control message (percentage point diff: 9.0, 95% CI -0.8, 18.8, p = 0.071). Intention was even higher among hesitant individuals in this intervention group compared to the control group (percentage point diff: 15.6, 95% CI -6.0, 37.3, p = 0.150). Conversely, intention was lower among hesitant individuals who viewed messages emphasising personal agency compared to the control group (percentage point diff: -10.8, 95% CI -33.0, 11.4, p = 0.330), although evidence in support of these findings is weak.ConclusionHealth authorities should highlight non-health benefits to encourage COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake but use messages emphasising personal agency with caution. These findings can inform communication message development and strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake.Clinical trial registration: Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622001404718); trial webpage: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12622001404718.aspx

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.

From 20 October 2023, COVID-19 datasets will no longer be updated.\r Detailed information is available in the fortnightly NSW Respiratory Surveillance Report: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/reports.aspx.\r Latest national COVID-19 spread, vaccination and treatment metrics are available on the Australian Government Health website: https://www.health.gov.au/topics/covid-19/reporting?language=und\r \r The data is for locations associated with confirmed COVID-19 cases that have been classified by NSW Health for action. Refer to the latest COVID-19 news and updates for information on action advice provided by NSW Health.\r \r From Monday 15 November 2021, NSW Health will no longer list case locations that a COVID-19 positive person has attended. This is due to a number of reasons, including high vaccination rates in the community. If you are told to self-isolate by NSW Health or get tested for COVID-19 at any time you must follow this advice. \r \r This dataset provides COVID-19 case locations by date of known outbreak, location, address and action. \r This data is subject to change as further locations are identified. Locations are removed when 14 days have passed since the last known date that a confirmed case was associated with the location. \r \r The Government has obligations under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 in relation to the collection, use and disclosure of the personal, including the health information, of individuals. Information about NSW Privacy laws is available here: https://data.nsw.gov.au/understand-key-data-legislation. \r \r The information collected about confirmed case locations does not include any information to directly identify individuals, such as their name, date of birth or address.\r \r Other governments and private sector bodies also have legal obligations in relation to the protection of personal, including health, information. The Government does not authorise any reproduction or visualisation of the data on this website which includes any representation or suggestion in relation to the personal or health information of any individual. The Government does not endorse or control any third party websites including products and services offered by, from or through those websites or their content.\r \r For any further enquiries, please contact us on datansw@customerservice.nsw.gov.au\r

In a survey conducted in Australia in June 2021, ** percent of respondents who intended to vote for a coalition government said they strongly agreed with mandatory coronavirus vaccinations. This sentiment is echoed to varying degrees across the entire Australian political spectrum.

Model fit statistics for single-sample and multi-group confirmatory factor analyses with comparisons.

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of study measures.