As of 2022, the countries with the highest death rates worldwide were Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Moldova. In these countries, there were 17 to 21 deaths per 1,000 people. The country with the lowest death rate is Qatar, where there is just one death per 1,000 people. Leading causes of death The leading causes of death worldwide are by far, ischaemic heart disease and stroke, accounting for a combined 27 percent of all deaths in 2019. In that year, there were 8.89 million deaths worldwide from ischaemic heart disease and 6.19 million from stroke. Interestingly, a worldwide survey from that year found that people greatly underestimate the proportion of deaths caused by cardiovascular disease, but overestimate the proportion of deaths caused by suicide, interpersonal violence, and substance use disorders. Death in the United States In 2022, there were around 3.27 million deaths in the United States. The leading causes of death in the United States are currently heart disease and cancer, accounting for a combined 40 percent of all deaths in 2022. Lung and bronchus cancer is the deadliest form of cancer worldwide, as well as in the United States. In the U.S. this form of cancer is predicted to cause around 65,790 deaths among men alone in the year 2024. Prostate cancer is the second-deadliest cancer for men in the U.S. while breast cancer is the second deadliest for women. In 2022, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States was COVID-19. Deaths due to COVID-19 resulted in a significant rise in the total number of deaths in the U.S. in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019.

In 2023, Japan had the highest death rate in the Asia-Pacific region, with 12.8 deaths per one thousand population. In comparison, the death rate for the population of the Maldives amounted to 2.8 deaths for every one thousand inhabitants in that year.

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.

In 2024, Myanmar had the highest crude death rate among the Southeast Asian countries, with 8.9 deaths per thousand population. That year, Singapore had the lowest crude death rate, with 5.4 deaths per thousand population.Factors that influence the death rateThe death rate, also called mortality rate, is generally influenced by various factors such as the social environment, diseases, health facilities and services as well as the food supply of the respective countries. Myanmar’s government spent five percent of its public budget on health in 2016. In 2020, health expenditure per capita in Myanmar amounted to around 72 U.S. dollars. The Maldives had the lowest crude death rate in the Asia-Pacific region in 2024. There, health expenditure accounted for 13.73 percent of the country’s GDP. Furthermore, the share of undernourished people was at around three percent in Myanmar in 2020. Within Southeast Asia, Myanmar has also been one of the poorest countries. In 2020, the country’s GDP per capita was estimated at 1.15 thousand U.S. dollars, the lowest across the Asia-Pacific region.

Chart and table of the World death rate from 1950 to 2025. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by country using the aggregation average, weighted by population and is filtered where the region is Caribbean. The data is about countries per year.

This statistic shows the 20 countries* with the highest infant mortality rate in 2024. An estimated 101.3 infants per 1,000 live births died in the first year of life in Afghanistan in 2024. Infant and child mortality Infant mortality usually refers to the death of children younger than one year. Child mortality, which is often used synonymously with infant mortality, is the death of children younger than five. Among the main causes are pneumonia, diarrhea – which causes dehydration – and infections in newborns, with malnutrition also posing a severe problem. As can be seen above, most countries with a high infant mortality rate are developing countries or emerging countries, most of which are located in Africa. Good health care and hygiene are crucial in reducing child mortality; among the countries with the lowest infant mortality rate are exclusively developed countries, whose inhabitants usually have access to clean water and comprehensive health care. Access to vaccinations, antibiotics and a balanced nutrition also help reducing child mortality in these regions. In some countries, infants are killed if they turn out to be of a certain gender. India, for example, is known as a country where a lot of girls are aborted or killed right after birth, as they are considered to be too expensive for poorer families, who traditionally have to pay a costly dowry on the girl’s wedding day. Interestingly, the global mortality rate among boys is higher than that for girls, which could be due to the fact that more male infants are actually born than female ones. Other theories include a stronger immune system in girls, or more premature births among boys.

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.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by country full name and is filtered where the country is Czech Republic. The data is about countries per year.

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.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by demonym and is filtered where the region is South America. The data is about countries per year.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by ISO 2 country code and is filtered where the country is San Marino. The data is about countries per year.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by country. The data is about countries.

Trends in Covid total deaths per million. The latest data for over 100 countries around the world.

Chart and table of the Africa death rate from 1950 to 2025. United Nations projections are also included through the year 2100.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by region using the aggregation average, weighted by population and is filtered where the country includes Germany. The data is about countries per year.

In 2022, Germany had an overall crude death rate of 13 per 1,000 people. In comparison, the death rate in South Korea was seven per 1,000 people. This statistic represents a ranking of select developed and developing countries based on death rates as of 2022.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by region using the aggregation average, weighted by population and is filtered where the country is Trinidad and Tobago. The data is about countries per year.

This horizontal bar chart displays death rate (per 1,000 people) by ISO 3 country code using the aggregation average, weighted by population and is filtered where the date is 2021. The data is about countries per year.

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