In 2024, the total number of deaths in China amounted to around ***** million. The number of deaths increased slightly but steadily over the past two decades, only disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. This trend is mainly related to China’s demographic development and is expected to accelerate in the upcoming years. China’s aging society China had the second largest population on earth in 2024. However, population growth in China has gradually decreased over the last decades and finally turned negative in 2022. Together with steadily improving health standards and growing life expectancy, this has led to a quickly aging society. As relatively large age cohorts are now reaching the years of retirement, the number of elderly in the country is projected to increase quickly. This is especially visible in the number of people aged 80 years and above, which is expected to rise more than four-fold from ** million in 2020 to *** million in 2050. This development will probably be the main factor leading to a growing number of mortalities in China in the upcoming years. China’s mortality rate in comparison Globally, China’s mortality rate is at a low range at slightly less than eight deaths per thousand inhabitants annually. The low mortality rate was a result of political stability and steady improvements in the health system. As the Chinese population grows older, cancer, heart attacks, and cerebrovascular diseases are increasingly common causes of death. In comparison to most Western countries, the number of fatalities due to COVID-19 was low in 2020 and 2021, but there was a slight excess mortality in 2023 and. Most common infectious diseases with high death rates in China were *********************************** in 2021.

As of June 6, 2022, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that originated in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China, had infected over 2.1 million people and killed 14,612 in the country. Hong Kong is currently the region with the highest active cases in China.

From Wuhan to the rest of China

In late December 2019, health authorities in Wuhan detected several pneumonia cases of unknown cause. Most of these patients had links to the Huanan Seafood Market. With Chinese New Year approaching, millions of Chinese migrant workers travelled back to their hometowns for the celebration. Before the start of the travel ban on January 23, around five million people had left Wuhan. By the end of January, the number of infections had surged to over ten thousand. The death toll from the virus exceeded that of the SARS outbreak a few days later. On February 12, thousands more cases were confirmed in Wuhan after an improvement to the diagnosis method, resulting in another sudden surge of confirmed cases. On March 31, 2020, the National Health Commission (NHC) in China announced that it would begin reporting the infection number of symptom-free individuals who tested positive for coronavirus. On April 17, 2020, health authorities in Wuhan revised its death toll, adding 50 percent more fatalities. After quarantine measures were implemented, the country reported no new local coronavirus COVID-19 transmissions for the first time on March 18, 2020.

The overloaded healthcare system

In Wuhan, 28 hospitals were designated to treat coronavirus patients, but the outbreak continued to test China’s disease control system and most of the hospitals were soon fully occupied. To combat the virus, the government announced plans to build a new hospital swiftly. On February 3, 2020, Huoshenshan Hospital was opened to provide an additional 1,300 beds. Due to an extreme shortage of health-care professionals in Wuhan, thousands of medical staff from all over China came voluntarily to the epicenter to offer their support. After no new deaths reported for first time, China lifted ten-week lockdown on Wuhan on April 8, 2020. Daily life was returning slowly back to normal in the country.

COVID-19: Number of Death: Year to Date: Hubei: Wuhan data was reported at 3,869.000 Person in 13 Dec 2022. This stayed constant from the previous number of 3,869.000 Person for 12 Dec 2022. COVID-19: Number of Death: Year to Date: Hubei: Wuhan data is updated daily, averaging 3,869.000 Person from Jan 2020 (Median) to 13 Dec 2022, with 1069 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3,869.000 Person in 13 Dec 2022 and a record low of 1.000 Person in 14 Jan 2020. COVID-19: Number of Death: Year to Date: Hubei: Wuhan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Health Commission. The data is categorized under High Frequency Database’s Disease Outbreaks – Table CN.GZ: COVID-19: No of Death. Clinical diagnosis included in since 12Feb 自2月12日起纳入临床诊断

Actual value and historical data chart for China Death Rate Crude Per 1 000 People

China Number of Deaths Ages 20-24 Years data was reported at 44,112.000 Person in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 45,199.000 Person for 2018. China Number of Deaths Ages 20-24 Years data is updated yearly, averaging 67,812.000 Person from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2019, with 30 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 96,135.000 Person in 1991 and a record low of 44,112.000 Person in 2019. China Number of Deaths Ages 20-24 Years data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Number of deaths of youths ages 20-24 years; ; Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, UN DESA Population Division) at www.childmortality.org.; Sum; Aggregate data for LIC, UMC, LMC, HIC are computed based on the groupings for the World Bank fiscal year in which the data was released by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.

This statistic shows the ranking of ten most fatal infectious diseases in China between January and July 2024, by number of deaths. During this period, over ****** people in China died from AIDS. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) has been the deadliest communicable disease in China since 2008.

In 2023, the number of deaths per 1,000 inhabitants in China was ****. Between 1960 and 2023, the figure dropped by *****, though the decline followed an uneven course rather than a steady trajectory.

Forecast: Number of Road Casualties in China 2024 - 2028 Discover more data with ReportLinker!

China Number of Deaths Ages 5-9 Years data was reported at 16,167.000 Person in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 16,630.000 Person for 2018. China Number of Deaths Ages 5-9 Years data is updated yearly, averaging 33,686.000 Person from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2019, with 30 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 91,756.000 Person in 1990 and a record low of 16,167.000 Person in 2019. China Number of Deaths Ages 5-9 Years data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s China – Table CN.World Bank.WDI: Health Statistics. Number of deaths of children ages 5-9 years; ; Estimates developed by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UNICEF, WHO, World Bank, UN DESA Population Division) at www.childmortality.org.; Sum; Aggregate data for LIC, UMC, LMC, HIC are computed based on the groupings for the World Bank fiscal year in which the data was released by the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation.

Population: Death Rate: Shanghai data was reported at 0.628 % in 2024. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.637 % for 2023. Population: Death Rate: Shanghai data is updated yearly, averaging 0.600 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2024, with 35 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.730 % in 1993 and a record low of 0.500 % in 2016. Population: Death Rate: Shanghai data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GA: Population: Death Rate: By Region.

In 2024, the mortality rate in China ranged at approximately 7.76 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants. The mortality rate in China displayed an uneven development over the last two decades. This is mainly related to the very uneven sizes of Chinese age groups, improvements in health care, and the occurrence of epidemics. However, an overall growing trend is undisputable and related to China's aging population. As the share of the population aged 60 and above will be growing significantly over the upcoming two decades, the mortality rate will further increase in the years ahead. Population in China China was the second most populous country in the world in 2024. However, due to several mechanisms put into place by the Chinese government as well as changing circumstances in the working and social environment of the Chinese people, population growth has subsided over the past decades and finally turned negative in 2022. The major factor for this development was a set of policies introduced by the Chinese government in 1979, including the so-called one-child policy, which was intended to improve people’s living standards by limiting the population growth. However, with the decreasing birth rate and slower population growth, China nowadays is facing the problems of a rapidly aging population. Birth control in China According to the one-child policy, a married couple was only allowed to have one child. Only under certain circumstances were parents allowed to have a second child. As the performance of family control had long been related to the assessment of local government’s achievements, violations of the rule were severely punished. The birth control in China led to a decreasing birth rate and a more skewed gender ratio of new births due to a widely preference for male children in the Chinese society. Nowadays, since China’s population is aging rapidly, the one-child policy has been re-considered as an obstacle for the country’s further economic development. Since 2014, the one-child policy has been gradually relaxed and fully eliminated at the end of 2015. In May 2021, a new three-child policy has been introduced. However, many young Chinese people today are not willing to have more children due to high costs of raising a child, especially in urban areas.

Population: Death Rate: Beijing data was reported at 0.608 % in 2024. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.613 % for 2023. Population: Death Rate: Beijing data is updated yearly, averaging 0.530 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2024, with 35 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.616 % in 1993 and a record low of 0.426 % in 2011. Population: Death Rate: Beijing data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GA: Population: Death Rate: By Region.

Northeastern China. Damage: $5,600 million. The death toll (240,000) was one of largest in recorded history from an earthquake. In addition, around 800,000 were injured. Extensive damage occurred over a wide area.

Population: Death Rate: Yunnan data was reported at 0.861 % in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 0.821 % for 2022. Population: Death Rate: Yunnan data is updated yearly, averaging 0.725 % from Dec 1990 (Median) to 2023, with 34 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.861 % in 2023 and a record low of 0.620 % in 2019. Population: Death Rate: Yunnan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by National Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GA: Population: Death Rate: By Region.

China recorded 5226 Coronavirus Deaths since the epidemic began, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In addition, China reported 99256991 Coronavirus Cases. This dataset includes a chart with historical data for China Coronavirus Deaths.

Estimates for the total death count of the Second World War generally range somewhere between 70 and 85 million people. The Soviet Union suffered the highest number of fatalities of any single nation, with estimates mostly falling between 22 and 27 million deaths. China then suffered the second greatest, at around 20 million, although these figures are less certain and often overlap with the Chinese Civil War. Over 80 percent of all deaths were of those from Allied countries, and the majority of these were civilians. In contrast, 15 to 20 percent were among the Axis powers, and the majority of these were military deaths, as shown in the death ratios of Germany and Japan. Civilian deaths and atrocities It is believed that 60 to 67 percent of all deaths were civilian fatalities, largely resulting from war-related famine or disease, and war crimes or atrocities. Systematic genocide, extermination campaigns, and forced labor, particularly by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets, led to the deaths of millions. In this regard, Nazi activities alone resulted in 17 million deaths, including six million Jews in what is now known as The Holocaust. Not only was the scale of the conflict larger than any that had come before, but the nature of and reasoning behind this loss make the Second World War stand out as one of the most devastating and cruelest conflicts in history. Problems with these statistics Although the war is considered by many to be the defining event of the 20th century, exact figures for death tolls have proven impossible to determine, for a variety of reasons. Countries such as the U.S. have fairly consistent estimates due to preserved military records and comparatively few civilian casualties, although figures still vary by source. For most of Europe, records are less accurate. Border fluctuations and the upheaval of the interwar period mean that pre-war records were already poor or non-existent for many regions. The rapid and chaotic nature of the war then meant that deaths could not be accurately recorded at the time, and mass displacement or forced relocation resulted in the deaths of many civilians outside of their homeland, which makes country-specific figures more difficult to find. Early estimates of the war’s fatalities were also taken at face value and formed the basis of many historical works; these were often very inaccurate, but the validity of the source means that the figures continue to be cited today, despite contrary evidence.

In comparison to Europe, estimate ranges are often greater across Asia, where populations were larger but pre-war data was in short supply. Many of the Asian countries with high death tolls were European colonies, and the actions of authorities in the metropoles, such as the diversion of resources from Asia to Europe, led to millions of deaths through famine and disease. Additionally, over one million African soldiers were drafted into Europe’s armies during the war, yet individual statistics are unavailable for most of these colonies or successor states (notably Algeria and Libya). Thousands of Asian and African military deaths went unrecorded or are included with European or Japanese figures, and there are no reliable figures for deaths of millions from countries across North Africa or East Asia. Additionally, many concentration camp records were destroyed, and such records in Africa and Asia were even sparser than in Europe. While the Second World War is one of the most studied academic topics of the past century, it is unlikely that we will ever have a clear number for the lives lost in the conflict.

Population: Household Registration: Death Rate: Xinjiang: Urumqi data was reported at 8.630 ‰ in 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 15.360 ‰ for 2017. Population: Household Registration: Death Rate: Xinjiang: Urumqi data is updated yearly, averaging 3.430 ‰ from Dec 2010 (Median) to 2018, with 9 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 15.360 ‰ in 2017 and a record low of 2.660 ‰ in 2011. Population: Household Registration: Death Rate: Xinjiang: Urumqi data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Urumqi Municipal Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under China Premium Database’s Socio-Demographic – Table CN.GE: Population: Prefecture Level City: Household Registration: Natural Growth Rate.

Number of Deaths by Leading Causes of Death for the Period from 2001 to 2017

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

Macau Number of Deaths data was reported at 159.000 Person in Sep 2018. This records a decrease from the previous number of 173.000 Person for Aug 2018. Macau Number of Deaths data is updated monthly, averaging 139.000 Person from Jan 2000 (Median) to Sep 2018, with 225 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 250.000 Person in Jan 2016 and a record low of 93.000 Person in Jun 2000. Macau Number of Deaths data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statistics and Census Service. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Macau SAR – Table MO.G004: Vital Statistics.