In April 2020, a survey of healthcare workers in the United Kingdom (UK) found that majority are worried about their personal health as well as the health of those they live with during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. 28 percent of healthcare workers reported to be very worried about their personal health, while 37 percent were very worried about the health of those in their household.

The latest number of cases in the UK can be found here. For further information about the coronavirus pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Bilingual (EN-UK) COVID-19-related corpus acquired from the portal (https://www.gov.pl/) of the Polish Government (8th May 2020)

The UK Government has been holding daily press briefings in order to provide updates on the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and outline any new measures being put in place to deal with the outbreak. Boris Johnson announced that the UK would be going into lockdown in a broadcast on March 23 which was watched live by more than half of the respondents to a daily survey. On June 28, just 12 percent of respondents said they had not watched or read about the previous day's briefing. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination rates among adults who live in England, including estimates by socio-demographic characteristic and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2020

First, second, third dose and booster COVID-19 vaccination rates among people aged 50 years and older who live in England, including estimates by socio-demographic characteristic.

Estimates to understand the potential impact of long COVID on adults in Great Britain between April and June 2021, including estimates by age, sex, disability, and deprivation. Analysis based on the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey.

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19.Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables.Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation.Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants.Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

As a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, media consumption behavior in the United Kingdom (UK) is changing. A third of respondents to a recent survey revealed that they were reading more newspaper content, and just under half were watching more live television. For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

Pre-existing conditions of people who died due to COVID-19, broken down by country, broad age group, and place of death occurrence, usual residents of England and Wales.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The UCL COVID-19 Social Study at University College London (UCL) was launched on 21 March 2020. Led by Dr Daisy Fancourt and Professor Andrew Steptoe from the Department of Behavioural Science and Health, the team designed the study to track in real-time the psychological and social impact of the virus across the UK.

The study quickly became the largest in the country, growing to over 70,000 participants and providing rare and privileged insight into the effects of the pandemic on people’s daily lives. Through our participants’ remarkable two-year commitment to the study, 1.2 million surveys were collected over 105 weeks, and over 100 scientific papers and 44 public reports were published.

During COVID-19, population mental health has been affected both by the intensity of the pandemic (cases and death rates), but also by lockdowns and restrictions themselves. Worsening mental health coincided with higher rates of COVID-19, tighter restrictions, and the weeks leading up to lockdowns. Mental health then generally improved during lockdowns and most people were able to adapt and manage their well-being. However, a significant proportion of the population suffered disproportionately to the rest, and stay-at-home orders harmed those who were already financially, socially, or medically vulnerable. Socioeconomic factors, including low SEP, low income, and low educational attainment, continued to be associated with worse experiences of the pandemic. Outcomes for these groups were worse throughout many measures including mental health and wellbeing; financial struggles;self-harm and suicide risk; risk of contracting COVID-19 and developing long Covid; and vaccine resistance and hesitancy. These inequalities existed before the pandemic and were further exacerbated by COVID-19, and such groups remain particularly vulnerable to the future effects of the pandemic and other national crises.

Further information, including reports and publications, can be found on the UCL COVID-19 Social Study website.

Main Topics:

The study asked baseline questions on the following:

• Demographics, including year of birth, sex, ethnicity, relationship status, country of dwelling, urban/rural dwelling, type of accommodation, housing tenure, number of adults and children in the household, household income, education, employment status, pet ownership, and personality.
• Health and health behaviours, including pre-existing physical health conditions, diagnosed mental health conditions, pregnancy, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, caring responsibilities, usual social behaviours, and social network size.

It also asked repeated questions at every wave on the following:

• COVID-19 status, including whether the respondent had had COVID-19, whether they had come into likely contact with COVID-19, current isolation status and motivations for isolation, length of isolation, length of time not leaving the home, length of time not contacting others, trust in government, trust in the health service, adherence to health advice, and experience of adverse events due to COVID-19 (including severe illness within the family, bereavement, redundancy, or financial difficulties).
• Mental health, including wellbeing, depression, anxiety, which factors were causing stress, sleep quality, loneliness, social isolation, and changes in health behaviours such as smoking, drinking and exercise.
• How people were spending their time whilst in isolation, including questions on working, functional household activities, care, and schooling of any children in the household, hobbies, and relaxation.

Certain waves of the study also included one-off modules on topics including volunteering behaviours, locus of control, frustrations and expectations, coping styles, fear of COVID-19, resilience, arts and creative engagement, life events, weight, gambling behaviours, mental health diagnosis, use of financial support, faith and religion, relationships, neighbourhood satisfaction, healthcare usage, discrimination experiences, life changes, optimism, long COVID and COVID-19 vaccination.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Active Lives Children and Young People Survey, which was established in September 2017, provides a world-leading approach to gathering data on how children engage with sport and physical activity. This school-based survey is the first and largest established physical activity survey with children and young people in England. It gives anyone working with children aged 5-16 key insight to help understand children's attitudes and behaviours around sport and physical activity. The results will shape and influence local decision-making as well as inform government policy on the PE and Sport Premium, Childhood Obesity Plan and other cross-departmental programmes. More general information about the study can be found on the Sport England Active Lives Survey webpage and the Active Lives Online website, including reports and data tables.

Due to the closure of school sites during the coronavirus pandemic, the Active Lives Children and Young People survey was adapted to allow at-home completion. This approach was retained into the academic year 2022-23 to help maximise response numbers. The at-home completion approach was actively offered for secondary school pupils, and allowed but not encouraged for primary pupils.

The adaptions involved minor questionnaire changes (e.g., to ensure the wording was appropriate for those not attending school and enabling completion at home) and communication changes. For further details on the survey changes, please see the accompanying User Guide document. Academic years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 saw a more even split of responses by term across the year, compared to 2019-20, which had a reduced proportion of summer term responses due to the disruption caused by Covid-19.

The survey identifies how participation varies across different activities and sports, by regions of England, between school types and terms, and between different demographic groups in the population. The survey measures levels of activity (active, fairly active and less active), attitudes towards sport and physical activity, swimming capability, the proportion of children and young people that volunteer in sport, sports spectating, and wellbeing measures such as happiness and life satisfaction. The questionnaire was designed to enable analysis of the findings by a broad range of variables, such as gender, family affluence and school year.

The following datasets have been provided:

1) Main dataset: this file includes responses from children and young people from school years 3 to 11, as well as responses from parents of children in years 1-2. The parents of children in years 1-2 provide behavioural answers about their child’s activity levels; they do not provide attitudinal information. Using this main dataset, full analyses can be carried out into sports and physical activity participation, levels of activity, volunteering (years 5 to 11), etc. Weighting is required when using this dataset (wt_gross / wt_gross - Csplan files are available for SPSS users who can utilise them).

2) Year 1-2 dataset: This file includes responses directly from children in school years 1-2, providing their attitudinal responses (e.g., whether they like playing sport and find it easy). Analysis can also be carried out into feelings towards swimming, enjoyment of being active, happiness, etc. Weighting is required when using this dataset (wt_gross / wt_gross - Csplan files are available for SPSS users who can utilise them).

3) Teacher dataset: This file includes responses from the teachers at schools selected for the survey. Analysis can be carried out to determine school facilities available, the length of PE lessons, whether swimming lessons are offered, etc. Since December 2023, Sport England has provided weighting for the teacher data (‘wt_teacher’ weighting variable).

For further information, please read the supporting documentation before using the datasets.

Main Topics:

Topics covered in the Active Lives Children and Young People Survey include:

• Sport and physical activity participation
• Well-being
• Health

Introduction: The first reported UK case of COVID-19 occurred on 30 January 2020. A lockdown from 24 March was partially relaxed on 10 May. One model to forecast disease spread depends on clinical parameters and transmission rates. Output includes the basic reproduction number R0 and the log growth rate r in the exponential phase.Methods: Office for National Statistics data on deaths in England and Wales is used to estimate r. A likelihood for the transmission parameters is defined from a gaussian density for r using the mean and standard error of the estimate. Parameter samples from the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm lead to an estimate and credible interval for R0 and forecasts for cases and deaths.Results: The UK initial log growth rate is r = 0.254 with s.e. 0.004. R0 = 6.94 with 95% CI (6.52, 7.39). In a 12 week lockdown from 24 March with transmission parameters reduced throughout to 5% of their previous values, peaks of around 90,000 severely and 25,000 critically ill patients, and 44,000 cumulative deaths are expected by 16 June. With transmission rising from 5% in mid-April to reach 30%, 50,000 deaths and 475,000 active cases are expected in mid-June. Had such a lockdown begun on 17 March, around 30,000 (28,000, 32,000) fewer cumulative deaths would be expected by 9 June.Discussion: The R0 estimate is compatible with some international estimates but over twice the value quoted by the UK government. An earlier lockdown could have saved many thousands of lives.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Young Lives survey is an innovative long-term project investigating the changing nature of childhood poverty in four developing countries. The study is being conducted in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam and has tracked the lives of 12,000 children over a 20-year period, through 5 (in-person) survey rounds (Round 1-5) and, with the latest survey round (Round 6) conducted over the phone in 2020 and 2021 as part of the Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey.
Round 1 of Young Lives surveyed two groups of children in each country, at 1 year old and 5 years old. Round 2 returned to the same children who were then aged 5 and 12 years old. Round 3 surveyed the same children again at aged 7-8 years and 14-15 years, Round 4 surveyed them at 12 and 19 years old, and Round 5 surveyed them at 15 and 22 years old. Thus the younger children are being tracked from infancy to their mid-teens and the older children through into adulthood, when some will become parents themselves.

The 2020 phone survey consists of three phone calls (Call 1 administered in June-July 2020; Call 2 in August-October 2020 and Call 3 in November-December 2020) and the 2021 phone survey consists of two additional phone calls (Call 4 in August 2021 and Call 5 in October-December 2021) The calls took place with each Young Lives respondent, across both the younger and older cohort, and in all four study countries (reaching an estimated total of around 11,000 young people).
The Young Lives survey is carried out by teams of local researchers, supported by the Principal Investigator and Data Manager in each country.

Further information about the survey, including publications, can be downloaded from the Young Lives website.

The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey, First Call, Second Call and Third Call, 2020 is an adapted version of the Round 6 survey with additional questions to directly assess the impact of COVID-19. The survey consists of three phone calls with each of our Young Lives respondents, across both the younger and older cohorts, and in all four study countries (reaching an estimated total of around 11,000 young people).

The Phone Survey will enable Young Lives to inform policy makers on the short-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, and together with data collected in further survey rounds, Young Lives will be able to assess the medium and long term implications of the crisis. Further information is available on the Young Lives at Work webpage.

The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey, First Call, Second Call and Third Call, 2020 is held at the UK Data Archive under SN 8678 and the Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey Calls 1-5 Constructed Files, 2020-2021 is held under SN 9070.

Latest edition information:
For the fourth edition (July 2022), region and cluster location variables have been added to the main survey datasets for all four countries, across the three phone surveys. Food security variables have also been added to the Second and Third Call datasets. A small inconsistency in the labelling of the typesite variable (urban/rural) has also been corrected. Additionally, documents related to copyright and survey references have been added, as well as a technical note related to the food security variables.
Main Topics:

The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey, First Call, 2020 data covers the following main topic areas:

• information about the household (roster, demographics)
• knowledge and information about COVID-19
• effect on health
• effect on household labour
• effect on education
• effect on caring responsibilities
• government support
• subjective well-being

The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey, Second Call, 2020 data covers the following main topic areas:

• COVID-19: Behaviours and risk perceptions
• socio-economic status
• recent life history and economic changes
• food security and prices
• individual health
• current education
• time use
• employment and earnings
• subjective wellbeing and mental health

The Listening to Young Lives at Work: COVID-19 Phone Survey, Third Call, 2020 data covers the following main topic areas:

• current education
• food security and other events
• mental health
• employment
• trust, solidarity, collective action and cooperation

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.

Identifying in which parliamentary constituency the applicant lives.

Age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19), non-COVID-19 deaths and all deaths by vaccination status, broken down by age group.

Data on the number and value of grants to small and medium sized businesses (SMEs) in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The spreadsheet shows the total amount of money that each local authority and parliamentary constituency in England has: received from central government distributed to SMEs as at 5 July 2020 31 July 2021: coronavirus grant schemes Local Restrictions Support Grant (LRSG): (Open) Local Restrictions Support Grant (LRSG): (Closed) Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) - scheme open until 31 March 2022. A final update will be released afterwards Christmas Support Payment (CSP) Restart 5 July 2020: coronavirus grant schemes: Small Business Grants Fund (SBGF) scheme Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Grants Fund (RHLGF) Local Authority Discretionary Grant Fund (LADGF)

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

The Active Lives Survey (ALS) commenced in November 2015. It replaces the Active People Survey, which ran from 2005 to 2015. The survey provides the largest sample size ever established for a sport and recreation survey and allows levels of detailed analysis previously unavailable. It identifies how participation varies from place to place, across different sports, and between different groups in the population. The survey also measures levels of activity (active, fairly active and inactive), the proportion of the adult population that volunteer in sports on a weekly basis, club membership, sports spectating and wellbeing measures such as happiness and anxiety, etc. The questionnaire was designed to enable analysis of the findings by a broad range of demographic information, such as gender, social class, ethnicity, household structure, age, and disability.

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic developed rapidly during 2020 and 2021. Fieldwork for the Active Lives survey continued throughout the pandemic, which covered periods Nov 2019-20 and Nov 2020-21. The data from Nov 2021-22 onwards covers periods without any coronavirus restrictions.

More general information about the study can be found on the Sport England Active Lives Survey webpage and the Active Lives Online website, including reports and data tables.

Active Lives Adults Survey, 2020-2021

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic developed rapidly during 2020 and 2021. Fieldwork for the Active Lives survey continued throughout the pandemic. This data, therefore, reflects the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on activity levels and the government’s policies to contain its spread. The survey instrument was largely unchanged. More general information about the study can be found on the Sport England Active People Survey and Active Lives Survey webpages and Active Lives Online website.

Latest edition information

For the second edition (February 2025), the data file was resupplied, with an updated County Sports Partnership variable (CSP_2025), an updated inequalities metric variable (equalities_metric_2024_GR4), and new cultural activities variables (library visits, arts participation/visits, frequency) included.

Main Topics:

Topics covered in the Active Lives Survey include:

• Sport and physical activity
• Health behaviour
• General health and wellbeing
• Sports volunteering
• Sport spectating
• Club membership