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.

As of May 2, 2023, the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) had spread to almost every country in the world, and more than 6.86 million people had died after contracting the respiratory virus. Over 1.16 million of these deaths occurred in the United States.

Waves of infections Almost every country and territory worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 disease. At the end of 2021 the virus was once again circulating at very high rates, even in countries with relatively high vaccination rates such as the United States and Germany. As rates of new infections increased, some countries in Europe, like Germany and Austria, tightened restrictions once again, specifically targeting those who were not yet vaccinated. However, by spring 2022, rates of new infections had decreased in many countries and restrictions were once again lifted.

What are the symptoms of the virus? It can take up to 14 days for symptoms of the illness to start being noticed. The most commonly reported symptoms are a fever and a dry cough, leading to shortness of breath. The early symptoms are similar to other common viruses such as the common cold and flu. These illnesses spread more during cold months, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that temperature impacts the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Medical advice should be sought if you are experiencing any of these symptoms.

This dataset provides values for CORONAVIRUS DEATHS reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

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

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.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.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.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology 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.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020: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 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. 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

As of January 13, 2023, Bulgaria had the highest rate of COVID-19 deaths among its population in Europe at 548.6 deaths per 100,000 population. Hungary had recorded 496.4 deaths from COVID-19 per 100,000. Furthermore, Russia had the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths in Europe, at over 394 thousand.

Number of cases in Europe During the same period, across the whole of Europe, there have been over 270 million confirmed cases of COVID-19. France has been Europe's worst affected country with around 38.3 million cases, this translates to an incidence rate of approximately 58,945 cases per 100,000 population. Germany and Italy had approximately 37.6 million and 25.3 million cases respectively.

Current situation In March 2023, the rate of cases in Austria over the last seven days was 224 per 100,000 which was the highest in Europe. Luxembourg and Slovenia both followed with seven day rates of infections at 122 and 108 respectively.

ABSTRACT Background : The Covid-19 pandemic associated with the SARS-CoV-2 has caused very high death tolls in many countries, while it has had less prevalence in other countries of Africa and Asia. Climate and geographic conditions, as well as other epidemiologic and demographic conditions, were a matter of debate on whether or not they could have an effect on the prevalence of Covid-19. Objective : In the present work, we sought a possible relevance of the geographic location of a given country on its Covid-19 prevalence. On the other hand, we sought a possible relation between the history of epidemiologic and demographic conditions of the populations and the prevalence of Covid-19 across four continents (America, Europe, Africa, and Asia). We also searched for a possible impact of pre-pandemic alcohol consumption in each country on the two year death tolls across the four continents. Methods : We have sought the death toll caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries and obtained the registered deaths from specialized web pages. For every country in the study, we have analysed the correlation of the Covid-19 death numbers with its geographic latitude, and its associated climate conditions, such as the mean annual temperature, the average annual sunshine hours, and the average annual UV index. We also analyzed the correlation of the Covid-19 death numbers with epidemiologic conditions such as cancer score and Alzheimer score, and with demographic parameters such as birth rate, mortality rate, fertility rate, and the percentage of people aged 65 and above. In regard to consumption habits, we searched for a possible relation between alcohol intake levels per capita and the Covid-19 death numbers in each country. Correlation factors and determination factors, as well as analyses by simple linear regression and polynomial regression, were calculated or obtained by Microsoft Exell software (2016). Results : In the present study, higher numbers of deaths related to Covid-19 pandemic were registered in many countries in Europe and America compared to other countries in Africa and Asia. The analysis by polynomial regression generated an inverted bell-shaped curve and a significant correlation between the Covid-19 death numbers and the geographic latitude of each country in our study. Higher death numbers were registered in the higher geographic latitudes of both hemispheres, while lower scores of deaths were registered in countries located around the equator line. In a bell shaped curve, the latitude levels were negatively correlated to the average annual levels (last 10 years) of temperatures, sunshine hours, and UV index of each country, with the highest scores of each climate parameter being registered around the equator line, while lower levels of temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index were registered in higher latitude countries. In addition, the linear regression analysis showed that the Covid-19 death numbers registered in the 39 countries of our study were negatively correlated with the three climate factors of our study, with the temperature as the main negatively correlated factor with Covid-19 deaths. On the other hand, cancer and Alzheimer's disease scores, as well as advanced age and alcohol intake, were positively correlated to Covid-19 deaths, and inverted bell-shaped curves were obtained when expressing the above parameters against a country’s latitude. Instead, the (birth rate/mortality rate) ratio and fertility rate were negatively correlated to Covid-19 deaths, and their values gave bell-shaped curves when expressed against a country’s latitude. Conclusion : The results of the present study prove that the climate parameters and history of epidemiologic and demographic conditions as well as nutrition habits are very correlated with Covid-19 prevalence. The results of the present study prove that low levels of temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index, as well as negative epidemiologic and demographic conditions and high scores of alcohol intake may worsen Covid-19 prevalence in many countries of the northern hemisphere, and this phenomenon could explain their high Covid-19 death tolls. Keywords : Covid-19, Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, climate, temperature, sunshine hours, UV index, cancer, Alzheimer disease, alcohol.

During the first two year of the Covid-19 pandemic, deaths tolls differed from a country to another. In a previous research work on 39 countries, we have found that some population’s characteristics were either negatively (birth rate/mortality rate, fertility rate) or positively (cancer score, Alzheimer disease score, percent of people above 65 years old, levels of alcohol intake) correlated with Covid-19 mortality. We also found that low levels of climate factors (average annual temperature, average hours of sunshine, average annual level of UV index) were positively correlated with Covid-19 deaths numbers as well. In the present study, we have developped an anti-Covid Capacity index that takes into account all the above mentioned parameters. The polynomial analysis of the anti-Covid Capacity and its corresponding geographic latitude of each country has generated a bell-shaped curve, with a high coefficient of determination (R2= 0.78). Lower anti-Covid capacity values were recorded in countries of low and high latitudes, respectively. Instead, plotting covid-19 deaths numbers against geographic latitude levels has generated an inverted bell-shaped curve, with higher deaths numbers at low and high latitudes, respectively. The analysis by a simple linear regression has shown that Covid-19 deaths numbers were significantly (p= 2,40 x 10-9) and negatively correlated to the anti-Covid Capacity index values. Our data demonstrate that the negative prepandemic human conditions, and the low scores of both annual temperature and UV index in many countries were the key factors behind high Covid-19 mortality, and they can be expressed as a simple index of anti-Covid capacity of a country that can predict the death-associated severity of Covid-19 disease, and thus, according to a country’s geographic latitude.

Background: More than 1 year after the beginning of the international spread of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), the reasons explaining its apparently lower reported burden in Africa are still to be fully elucidated. Few studies previously investigated the potential reasons explaining this epidemiological observation using data at the level of a few African countries. However, an updated analysis considering the various epidemiological waves and variables across an array of categories, with a focus on African countries might help to better understand the COVID-19 pandemic on the continent. Thus, we investigated the potential reasons for the persistently lower transmission and mortality rates of COVID-19 in Africa.Methods: Data were collected from publicly available and well-known online sources. The cumulative numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths per 1 million population reported by the African countries up to February 2021 were used to estimate the transmission and mortality rates of COVID-19, respectively. The covariates were collected across several data sources: clinical/diseases data, health system performance, demographic parameters, economic indicators, climatic, pollution, and radiation variables, and use of social media. The collinearities were corrected using variance inflation factor (VIF) and selected variables were fitted to a multiple regression model using the R statistical package.Results: Our model (adjusted R-squared: 0.7) found that the number of COVID-19 tests per 1 million population, GINI index, global health security (GHS) index, and mean body mass index (BMI) were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with COVID-19 cases per 1 million population. No association was found between the median life expectancy, the proportion of the rural population, and Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) coverage rate. On the other hand, diabetes prevalence, number of nurses, and GHS index were found to be significantly associated with COVID-19 deaths per 1 million population (adjusted R-squared of 0.5). Moreover, the median life expectancy and lower respiratory infections rate showed a trend towards significance. No association was found with the BCG coverage or communicable disease burden.Conclusions: Low health system capacity, together with some clinical and socio-economic factors were the predictors of the reported burden of COVID-19 in Africa. Our results emphasize the need for Africa to strengthen its overall health system capacity to efficiently detect and respond to public health crises.

This dataset provides values for CORONAVIRUS DEATHS reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

The number of COVID-19 deaths reported from European countries has varied more than 100-fold. In terms of coronavirus transmission, the relatively low death rates in some countries could be due to low intrinsic (e.g. low population density) or imposed contact rates (e.g. non-pharmaceutical interventions) among individuals, or because fewer people were exposed or susceptible to infection (e.g. smaller populations). Here we develop a flexible empirical model (skew-logistic) to distinguish among these possibilities. We find that countries reporting fewer deaths did not generally have intrinsically lower rates of transmission and epidemic growth, and flatter epidemic curves. Rather, countries with fewer deaths locked down earlier, had shorter epidemics that peaked sooner, and smaller populations. Consequently, as lockdowns are eased we expect, and are starting to see, a resurgence of COVID-19 across Europe.

Peru is the country with the highest mortality rate due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Latin America. As of November 13, 2023, the country registered over 672 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. It was followed by Brazil, with around 331.5 fatal cases per 100,000 population. In total, over 1.76 million people have died due to COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Are these figures accurate? Although countries like Brazil already rank among the countries most affected by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), there is still room to believe that the number of cases and deaths in Latin American countries are underreported. The main reason is the relatively low number of tests performed in the region. For example, Brazil, one of the most impacted countries in the world, has performed approximately 63.7 million tests as of December 22, 2022. This compared with over one billion tests performed in the United States, approximately 909 million tests completed in India, or around 522 million tests carried out in the United Kingdom.

Capacity to deal with the outbreak With the spread of the Omicron variant, the COVID-19 pandemic is putting health systems around the world under serious pressure. The lack of equipment to treat acute cases, for instance, is one of the problems affecting Latin American countries. In 2019, the number of ventilators in hospitals in the most affected countries ranged from 25.23 per 100,000 inhabitants in Brazil to 5.12 per 100,000 people in Peru.

For further information about the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F5505749%2F2b83271d61e47e2523e10dc9c28e545c%2F600x200.jpg?generation=1599042483103679&alt=media" alt="">

ALTADATA is a curated data marketplace where our subscribers and our data partners can easily exchange ready-to-analyze datasets and create insights with EPO, our visual data analytics platform.

COVID-19 Worldwide Daily Data

Daily global COVID-19 data for all countries, provided by Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE). If you want to use the update version of the data, you can use our daily updated data with the help of api key by entering it via Altadata.

Overview

In this data product, you may find the latest and historical global daily data on the COVID-19 pandemic for all countries.

The COVID‑19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is an ongoing global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2). The outbreak was first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 30 January 2020 and a pandemic on 11 March. As of 12 August 2020, more than 20.2 million cases of COVID‑19 have been reported in more than 188 countries and territories, resulting in more than 741,000 deaths; more than 12.5 million people have recovered.

The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center is a continuously updated source of COVID-19 data and expert guidance. They aggregate and analyze the best data available on COVID-19 - including cases, as well as testing, contact tracing and vaccine efforts - to help the public, policymakers and healthcare professionals worldwide respond to the pandemic.

Methodology

• Cases and Death counts include confirmed and probable (where reported)
• Recovered cases are estimates based on local media reports, and state and local reporting when available, and therefore may be substantially lower than the true number. US state-level recovered cases are from COVID Tracking Project.
• Active cases = total cases - total recovered - total deaths
• Incidence Rate = cases per 100,000 persons
• Case-Fatality Ratio (%) = Number recorded deaths / Number cases
• Country Population represents 2019 projections by UN Population Division, integrated to the JHU CSSE's COVID-19 data by ALTADATA

Data Source

• Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering (JHU CSSE)
• United Nations Population Division

Related Data Products

• COVID-19 US Daily Data
• OECD, EU28, G20 Life Expectancy and Mortality Indicators

Suggested Blog Posts

• Bayesian Thinking During the Pandemic
• Impact of COVID-19 on California Electricity Demand
• Keep Calm and Look At The Fundamentals
• Markets In The Corona Virus Crisis

Data Dictionary

• Reported Date (reported_date) : Covid-19 Report Date
• Country_Region (country_region) : Country, region or sovereignty name
• Population (population) : Country populations as per United Nations Population Division
• Confirmed Case (confirmed) : Confirmed cases include presumptive positive cases and probable cases
• Active cases (active) : Active cases = total confirmed - total recovered - total deaths
• Deaths (deaths) : Death cases counts
• Recovered (recovered) : Recovered cases counts
• Mortality Rate (mortality_rate) : Number of recorded deaths * 100 / Number of confirmed cases
• Incident Rate (incident_rate) : Confirmed cases per 100,000 persons

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

Method

The dataset contains several confirmed COVID-19 cases, number of deaths, and death rate in six regions. The objective of the study is to compare the number of confirmed cases in Africa to other regions.

Death rate = Total number of deaths from COVID-19 divided by the Total Number of infected patients.

The study provides evidence for the country-level in six regions by the World Health Organisation's classification.

Findings

Based on the descriptive data provided above, we conclude that the lack of tourism is one of the key reasons why COVID-19 reported cases are low in Africa compared to other regions. We also justified this claim by providing evidence from the economic freedom index, which indicates that the vast majority of African countries recorded a low index for a business environment. On the other hand, we conclude that the death rate is higher in the African region compared to other regions. This points to issues concerning health-care expenditure, low capacity for testing for COVID-19, and poor infrastructure in the region.

Apart from COVID-19, there are significant pre-existing diseases, namely; Malaria, Flu, HIV/AIDS, and Ebola in the continent. This study, therefore, invites the leaders to invest massively in the health-care system, infrastructure, and human capital in order to provide a sustainable environment for today and future generations. Lastly, policy uncertainty has been a major issue in determining a sustainable development goal on the continent. This uncertainty has differentiated Africa to other regions in terms of stepping up in the time of global crisis.

ABSTRACT Background: Following two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, thousands of deaths were registered around the world, however, death tolls differed from a country to another. A question on whether climate parameters in each country could or not affects coronavirus incidence and Covid-19 death toll is under debate. Objective: In the present work, it is aimed to check the numbers of deaths caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries of four continents (America, Europe, Africa and Asia), and to analyse their possible correlation with climate parameters in a given country, such as the mean of annual temperature, the annual average sunshine hours and the annual average UV index in each country. Methods: We have sought the deaths number caused by Covid-19 in 39 countries and have analysed its correlation degree with the mean annual temperature, the average annual sunshine hours and the average annual UV index. Correlation and determination factors were obtained by Microsoft Exell software (2016). Results: In the present study, higher numbers of deaths related to Covid-19 were registered in many countries of Europe and America compared to other countries in Africa and Asia. On the other hand, after both the first year and the second year of the pandemic, the death numbers registered in the 39 countries of our study were very negatively correlated with the three climate factors of our study, namely, annual average temperature, sunshine hours and UV index. Conclusion:The results of the present study prove that the above climate parameters may have some kind of influence on the coronavirus incidence through a yet unknown mechanism. Our data support the hypothesis that countries which have elevated annual temperatures and elevated sunshine hours may be less vulnerable to the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and to its associated Covid-19 disease. Countries with the above characteristics have also elevated levels of average annual UV rays that might play a key role against the spread of the coronavirus.Thus, geographical latitude and longitude of a given country could have been the key points for the outcome of virus incidence and Covid-19 spread around the globe during the past two years. The results prove that elevated levels of temperature, sunshine hours and UV index could play a protective effect against the coronavirus, although their mechanisms of action are still unknown.

ABSTRACT Background : The Covid-19 pandemic has caused very high death tolls across the world in the last two years. Geographic latitude, climate factors, and other human related conditions such as epidemiologic and demographic history are taught to have played a role in the prevalence of Covid-19. Objective : This observational study aimed to investigate possible relations between geographic latitude-associated climate factors and Covid-19 death numbers in 29 countries. The study also aimed to investigate the relationship between geographic latitude and the history of epidemiologic (cancer, Alzheimer's disease) and demographic factors (birth rate, mortality rate, fertility rate, people aged 65 and over), as well as alcohol intake habits. And finally, the study also aimed to evaluate the relationships between epidemiologic and demographic factors, as well as alcohol intake habits with Covid-19 deaths. Methods : We sought the Covid-19 death toll in 29 countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East (located in both hemispheres and between the meridian lines "-15°" and "+50°"). We obtained the death numbers for Covid-19 and other geographic (latitude, longitude) and climate factors (average annual temperature, sunshine hours, and UV index) and epidemiologic and demographic parameters as well as data on alcohol intake per capita from official web pages. Based on records of epidemiologic and demographic history, and alcohol intake data, we have calculated a General Immune Capacity (GIC) score for each country. Geographic latitude and climate factors were plotted against each of Covid-19 death numbers, epidemiologic and demographic parameters, and alcohol intake per capita. Data was analysed by simple linear regression or polynomial regression. All statistical data was collected using Microsoft Excell software (2016). Results : Our observational study found higher death numbers in the higher geographic latitudes of both hemispheres, while lower scores of deaths were registered in countries located around the equator line and low latitudes. When the Covid-19 death numbers were plotted against the geographic latitude of each country, an inverted bell-shaped curve was obtained (coefficient of determination R2=0.553). In contrast, bell-shaped curves were obtained when latitude was plotted against annual average temperature (coefficient of determination R2= 0.91), average annual sunshine hours (coefficient of determination R2= 0.79) and average annual UV index (coefficient of determination R2= 0.89). In addition, plotting the latitude of each country against the General Immune Capacity score of each country gave an inverted bell-shaped curve (coefficient of determination R2=0.755). Linear regression analysis of the General Immune Capacity score of each country and its Covid-19 deaths showed a very significant negative correlation (coefficient of determination R² = 0,71, p=6.79x10-9). Linear regression analysis of the Covid-19 death number plotted against the average annual temperature temperature and the average annual sunshine hours or the average annual UV index gave very significant negative correlations with the following coefficients of determination: (R2 = 0.69, p = 1.94x10-8), (R2 = 0.536, p = 6.31x10-6) and (R2 = 0.599, p = 8.30x10-7), respectively. Linear regression analysis of the General Immune Capacity score of each country plotted against its average annual temperature temperature and the average annual sunshine hours or the average annual UV index gave very significant negative correlations, with the following coefficients of determination: (R2 = 0.86, p = 3.63x10-13), (R2 = 0.69, p = 2.18x10-8) and (R2 = 0.77, p= 2.47x10-10), respectively. Conclusion : The results of the present study prove that at certain geographic latitudes and their three associated climate parameters are negatively correlated to Covid-19 mortality. On the other hand, our data showed that the General Immune Capacity score, which includes many human related parameters, is inversely correlated to Covid-19 mortality. Likewise, geographic location and health and demographic history were key elements in the prevalence of the Covid-19 pandemic in a given country. On the other hand, the study points to the possible protective role of UV light against Covid-19. The therapeutic potential of UV light against the Covid-19 associated with SARS-Cov-2 is discussed.

Reporting of new Aggregate Case and Death Count data was discontinued May 11, 2023, with the expiration of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. This dataset will receive a final update on June 1, 2023, to reconcile historical data through May 10, 2023, and will remain publicly available.

Aggregate Data Collection Process Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, data have been gathered through a robust process with the following steps:

• A CDC data team reviews and validates the information obtained from jurisdictions’ state and local websites via an overnight data review process.
• If more than one official county data source exists, CDC uses a comprehensive data selection process comparing each official county data source, and takes the highest case and death counts respectively, unless otherwise specified by the state.
• CDC compiles these data and posts the finalized information on COVID Data Tracker.
• County level data is aggregated to obtain state and territory specific totals.

This process is collaborative, with CDC and jurisdictions working together to ensure the accuracy of COVID-19 case and death numbers. County counts provide the most up-to-date numbers on cases and deaths by report date. CDC may retrospectively update counts to correct data quality issues.

Methodology Changes Several differences exist between the current, weekly-updated dataset and the archived version:

• Source: The current Weekly-Updated Version is based on county-level aggregate count data, while the Archived Version is based on State-level aggregate count data.
• Confirmed/Probable Cases/Death breakdown:  While the probable cases and deaths are included in the total case and total death counts in both versions (if applicable), they were reported separately from the confirmed cases and deaths by jurisdiction in the Archived Version.  In the current Weekly-Updated Version, the counts by jurisdiction are not reported by confirmed or probable status (See Confirmed and Probable Counts section for more detail).
• Time Series Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version contains weekly time series data (i.e., one record per week per jurisdiction), while the Archived Version contains daily time series data (i.e., one record per day per jurisdiction).
• Update Frequency: The current Weekly-Updated Version is updated weekly, while the Archived Version was updated twice daily up to October 20, 2022.

Important note: The counts reflected during a given time period in this dataset may not match the counts reflected for the same time period in the archived dataset noted above. Discrepancies may exist due to differences between county and state COVID-19 case surveillance and reconciliation efforts.

Confirmed and Probable Counts In this dataset, counts by jurisdiction are not displayed by confirmed or probable status. Instead, confirmed and probable cases and deaths are included in the Total Cases and Total Deaths columns, when available. Not all jurisdictions report probable cases and deaths to CDC.* Confirmed and probable case definition criteria are described here:

Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (ymaws.com).

Deaths CDC reports death data on other sections of the website: CDC COVID Data Tracker: Home, CDC COVID Data Tracker: Cases, Deaths, and Testing, and NCHS Provisional Death Counts. Information presented on the COVID Data Tracker pages is based on the same source (total case counts) as the present dataset; however, NCHS Death Counts are based on death certificates that use information reported by physicians, medical examiners, or coroners in the cause-of-death section of each certificate. Data from each of these pages are considered provisional (not complete and pending verification) and are therefore subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

Number of Jurisdictions Reporting There are currently 60 public health jurisdictions reporting cases of COVID-19. This includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S Virgin Islands as well as three independent countries in compacts of free association with the United States, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau. New York State’s reported case and death counts do not include New York City’s counts as they separately report nationally notifiable conditions to CDC.

CDC COVID-19 data are available to the public as summary or aggregate count files, including total counts of cases and deaths, available by state and by county. These and other data on COVID-19 are available from multiple public locations, such as:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/open-america/surveillance-data-analytics.html

Additional COVID-19 public use datasets, include line-level (patient-level) data, are available at: https://data.cdc.gov/browse?tags=covid-19.

Archived Data Notes:

November 3, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence issue, case rates for Missouri counties are calculated based on 11 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 3, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Due to a reporting cadence change, case rates for Alabama counties are calculated based on 13 days’ worth of case count data in the Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State data released on November 10, 2022, instead of the customary 7 days’ worth of data.

November 10, 2022: Per the request of the jurisdiction, cases and deaths among non-residents have been removed from all Hawaii county totals throughout the entire time series. Cumulative case and death counts reported by CDC will no longer match Hawaii’s COVID-19 Dashboard, which still includes non-resident cases and deaths. 

November 17, 2022: Two new columns, weekly historic cases and weekly historic deaths, were added to this dataset on November 17, 2022. These columns reflect case and death counts that were reported that week but were historical in nature and not reflective of the current burden within the jurisdiction. These historical cases and deaths are not included in the new weekly case and new weekly death columns; however, they are reflected in the cumulative totals provided for each jurisdiction. These data are used to account for artificial increases in case and death totals due to batched reporting of historical data.

December 1, 2022: Due to cadence changes over the Thanksgiving holiday, case rates for all Ohio counties are reported as 0 in the data released on December 1, 2022.

January 5, 2023: Due to North Carolina’s holiday reporting cadence, aggregate case and death data will contain 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days. As a result, case and death metrics will appear higher than expected in the January 5, 2023, weekly release.

January 12, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected in the January 12, 2023, weekly release.

January 19, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence issue, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be calculated based on 14 days’ worth of data instead of the customary 7 days in the January 19, 2023, weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a reporting backlog of historic COVID-19 cases, case rates for two Michigan counties (Livingston and Washtenaw) were higher than expected in the January 19, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to a backlog of historic COVID-19 cases being reported this week, aggregate case and death counts in Charlotte County and Sarasota County, Florida, will appear higher than expected in the January 26, 2023 weekly release.

January 26, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Mississippi’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on January 26, 2023.

February 2, 2023: As of the data collection deadline, CDC observed an abnormally large increase in aggregate COVID-19 cases and deaths reported for Washington State. In response, totals for new cases and new deaths released on February 2, 2023, have been displayed as zero at the state level until the issue is addressed with state officials. CDC is working with state officials to address the issue.

February 2, 2023: Due to a decrease reported in cumulative case counts by Wyoming, case rates will be reported as 0 in the February 2, 2023, weekly release. CDC is working with state officials to verify the data submitted.

February 16, 2023: Due to data processing delays, Utah’s aggregate case and death data will be reported as 0 in the weekly release posted on February 16, 2023. As a result, case and death metrics will appear lower than expected and should be interpreted with caution.

February 16, 2023: Due to a reporting cadence change, Maine’s